Thus encouraged, our student was going on to show how much more clear Hegel’s views are than those of Schelling.  “The only real existence,” he said, “is the relation; subject and object, which seem contradictory, are really one,—­not one in the sense of Schelling, as opposite poles of the same absolute existence, but one as the relation itself forms the very idea.  Not but what in the threefold rhythm of universal existence there are affinities with the three potencies of Schelling; but——­”

“Take a glass of wine.” said Harrington to his young acquaintance, “take a glass of wine, as the Antiquary said to Sir Arthur Wardour, when he was trying to cough up the barbarous names of his Pictish ancestors, ’and wash down that bead-roll of unbaptized jargon which would choke a dog.’”

We laughed, for we could not help it.

Our young student looked offended, and muttered something about the inaptitude of the English for a deep theosophy and philosophy.

“It is all very well.” said he, “Mr. Harrington; but it is not in this way that the profound questions which, under some aspects, have divided such minds as Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel; and under others, Gosehel, Hinrichs, Erdmann, Marheineke, Schaller, Gabler -----”

Harrington burst out laughing.  “They divide a good many philosophers of that last name in England also,” said he.

“Why, what have I said?” replied the other, looking surprised and vexed.

“Nothing at all,” said Harrington, still laughing.  “Nothing that I know of; I am sure I may with truth affirm it.  But I beg your pardon for laughing; only I could not help it, at finding you like so many other young philosophers born of German theology and philosophy, attempting to frighten me by a mere roll-call of formidable names.  Why, my friend, it is because these things have, as you say, divided these great minds so hopelessly, that I am in difficulty; if the philosophers had agreed about them, it would have been another story.  One would think, to hear them invoked by many a youth here, that these powerful minds had convinced one another; instead of that, they have simply confounded one another.  It was the very spectacle of their interminable disputes and distractions in philosophy and theology,—­ever darker and darker, deeper and deeper, as system after system chased each other away, like the clouds they resemble through a winter sky;—­I say it was the very spectacle of their distractions which first made me a sceptic; and I think I am hardly likely to be reconvinced by the mere sound of their names, ushered in by vague professions of profound admiration of their profundity!  The praise is often oddly justified by citing something or other, which, obscure enough in the original, is absolute darkness when translated into English; and must, like some versions I have seen of the classics, be examined in the original, in order to gain a glimpse of its meaning.”