of them made more progress in classical composition than any Gelehrten of their time. In a word, Hermann and Lachmann deserved to be called scholars, and wanted nothing to give a perfect finish to those accomplishments for which nature had so well qualified them, except the advantages of an English education, and the competition of an English University.

Let me, however, leave these exceptional cases of extraordinary men, and trace the ordinary career of one of the best class of German philologers. My imaginary Bursch shall have every advantage at starting. He shall not, like Heyne and Lobeck, be obliged to struggle with the inconveniences which result from the res angusta domi. His father shall be, if you please, a learned man and Garnison-Prediger in some great city, which contains a first-rate Gymnasium. His mother shall be the intelligent and accomplished daughter of a field-officer in the Prussian army. With such parents his education will commence at home, and he will not need the Progymnasium or preparatory school. I will suppose that he shows at an early age great docility and a considerable power of acquiring knowledge, and that in fact he promises from the first to be a Philolog. In due course of time he is sent to the Gymnasium or grammar-school of the place. If he enters at the age of eight or nine, he passes through all six classes of a school of some 150 boys. Here he not only learns Latin and Greek with some Hebrew, but is also instructed in his own language and French, and receives regular lessons in geography, history, mathematics, and natural philosophy. I am only concerned with his classical training, which will be best inferred from an account of his studies during his last year in the first class.. He has read 450 lines of Homer's Iliad, half the Elipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, and the Euthyphro of Plato: he has also been worked in Rost's Greek Grammar. In Latin he has read some odes of Horace and some Orations of Cicero, and has been exercised in the theory of Latin style both out of Zumpt's Grammar, and out of one of the numerous exercisebooks which they have in Germany. He has done some of Vömel's Greek exercises; and has written Latin themes. But we hear nothing of his verse composition, except perhaps that he has volunteered some Latin Alcaics as the fruit of his private studies. Under the same head we find it recorded that he has read a good deal of Cicero and Livy, Horace's Sutires, a little Plautus, some Homer, Xenophon, and Plato. And so, at the age of 16 or 17, he is sent to the University with some such character as this: Egregie institutus, post examen publicum multa cum laude dimissus, Academium Bonnensem petiit, philologorum studiis deditus." As this is the only real training, as a scholar, which our young philologer will have, it is worth while to inquire what it amounts to. He has acquired the faculty of writing tolerable Latin prose, and it must be admitted that the Germans generally surpass us in this; nor is the fact surprising, when we recollect that the Universities keep up, as we shall see, a practical demand for the accomplishment. In Latin verse, however, he has had no experience, and has probably never written a line of metrical Greek. Indeed his knowledge of quantity is very uncertain, and as in some Gymnasiums they are taught to pronounce Greek by the accent, the longs and shorts are as often wrong as right. The manner in which our student has read the few classical authors with which he is acquainted, depends on the abilities and scholarship of his Rector, and it is to be remarked that in Germany nearly all the really good scholars remain settled as Professors at the Universities, and are not, as with us, as frequently found at the head of the public schools. If our young philologer has not received a scholarlike training at school, he will hardly make good his deficiencies at the University. He will there have the option of attending a great number of lectures, publice, privatim, and privatissime, when his occupation will be writing down for an hour at a time the dictations of the Professor. There will probably be a Seminarium Philologicum, in which some Professor will exercise a class in Latin writing and disputation, or preside at discussions on the text and interpretation of the classical writers. The whole curriculum is calculated to stimulate and assist private study, to give systematic information on the pet subjects of the leading Professors, and to prepare a young man for the profession or trade of learned book-making. After some years spent in this way, and perhaps diversified by occasional employment as a private tutor, he takes his degree as 'Doctor in Philosophy" by

a public disputation on certain theses appended to a Latin dissertation on some philological subject, which, if he is really an original man, may contain the germ of his future literary labors. If his first effort is favorably received, he is at once launched as a teacher and writer of books. He must print something to obtain his Habilitation, and he must go on writing if he wishes to rise from the Privat-docent to the Professor Extra Ordinem, and so to ascend to the ordinary or regular Professorship. Nor can his pen be allowed to rest even when he has obtained this ultimate object of his ambition. He must publish books to keep his name before the world and attract pupils to his lecture-room, And so from first to last he is a book-maker ex rei necessitate. He acquires knowledge, not as a labor of love from the improvement of his own mind, but as fuel for his reputation and ammunition for his literary artillery.

While then the system of education pursued in Germany is less calculated than our own to produce finished scholars, the mode prescribed for the attainment of Professorships and the other educational positions, which abound in that country, furnishes a demand for literary production, which must lead to a vast amount of needless book-making. The cases of Dr. Parr and Professor Dobree, with others that might be named, show that in England a reputation for sholarship may exist independently of literary production, and even without reference to the test of University distinctions. This results from the diffusion of scholarlike acquirements in general society, and from the voice of general opinion, which connects the separate links of private circles. In Germany, this social influence of scholarship is non-existent. It is only as a Gelehrte, or writer on learned subjects, that a philological student can become distinguished; and thus in the two countries the amount of scholarship and the number of learned books stand in a reciprocal ratio. Though there can be no doubt that the German habit of book-making leads many men to write who have no real vocation for authorship, and thus deteriorates the learned literature of the country, it can not be denied on the other hand that the facilities afforded for literary production have also their advantages. In this way, we are less likely to be deprived of the services of the few men in every age who are competent to instruct the world on these subjects. .

many.

There can be no doubt that nearly all our best writers on classical literature for the last 20 years have been familiar with the philology of the Germans, and have derived great benefit from this widening of the field of contemporary knowledge, a benefit from which the Germans too often exclude themselves. And even those of our scholars, who are unacquainted with the German language, have been enabled, by means of translations, to read and appropriate the best books on learned subjects which the Germans have produced. There has been in fact a reaction since the termination of the last European war. We paid too little attention to German learning before that time; we now run into the opposite extreme, and seem to think that there is no learning out of GerWe forget in point of fact that classical education has been so long established in England, and has produced such influence on the tastes, habits and character of Englishmen, that even when eminent writers on learned subjects, like Colonel Mure and Mr. Kenrick, are indebted to the Germans, not only for a good deal of the materials of their learning, but also for a part of their education, they remain to the end distinguished by that knowledge of the world, acquaintance with political science, practical good sense, and facility of expression, which seem to be the essential property of our countrymen, and are too generally wanting in German writers. It would have been eminently absurd, if we had not placed our mathematical studies on the advanced basis of the improved calculus, and had neglected the works of Lagrange and Laplace but no one imagines that the countrymen of Herschel, Babbage, Adams, Rowan Hamilton, Hinds, Stokes, Hopkins, and Airy are inferior in mathematical knowledge to the teachers of the Ecole Polytechnique. Why is this the case in regard to German philology? Why may we not take cognizance of Niebuhr, Böckh and Müller, without seeming to relinquish our own claim to rank as their equals? If this were the rule for our guidance in estimating the literary merits of a particular nation at a particular time, we must, on the same principle, consider the Germans, whose works have been most immediately suggestive to us of late years, as mere offshoots of an English school

of philology, previously existing. For Niebuhr himself has pronounced F. A. Wolf 'the hero and eponymus of the race of German philologers,' and it is universally admitted that Wolf was a literary representative of Bentley. Indeed, a German writer, who claims all that he can for his countrymen, has not hesitated to avow, that historical philology, though it is the heritage and the glory of German scholars, was the discovery of Richard Bentley, and the dissertation on Phalaris must take rank before all the constructive or reconstructive efforts of continental criticism. Our greatest obligation to modern German scholarship is the revival among us of the spirit of Bentley; in this, no doubt, we have been stimulated by the example of the great German scholars-Wolf, Böckh, Niebuhr, C. O. Müller, Hermann, Lachmann, and others who have declared themselves his disciples. And the general tone of German literature, which, revived by Lessing, reached its culminating point in Goethe, has produced a marked influence on Englishmen of the largest minds and clearest discernment. But if we try to trace backwards the mutual obligations of the two countries, we shall always find the first entry to the credit of England.

COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

The Report of the Commission of which T. B. Macaulay was chairman, and the author, on the East India Civil Service, in December, 1854, constitutes an epoch in the educational history of England. It maintains the principle, that the education which is to prepare young men for the higher business of life, must begin with a general discipline of the intellect, and that a special or professional training ought to be reserved until the process has been brought to some satisfactory stage, or landing-place. Dr. Donaldson cites the following passages as in harmony with his own views:

'We believe that men who have been engaged, up to 21 or 22, in studies which have no immediate connection with the business of any profession, and of which the effect is merely to open, to invigorate, and to enrich the mind, will generally be found, in the business of every profession, superior to men who have, at 18 or 19, devoted themselves to the special studies of their calling. The most illustrious English jurists have been men, who have never opened a law-book till after the close of a distinguished academical career; nor is there any reason to believe that they would have been greater lawyers, if they had passed in drawing pleas and conveyances the time which they gave to Thucydides, to Cicero, and to Newton!'

Of the Mathematical portion of the examination they say:

'We think it important that not only the acquirements, but also the mental powers and resources of the competitors should be brought to the test.'

Speaking of the Moral Sciences, as included in the scheme, they remark:— 'Whether this study shall have to do with mere words or things, whether it shall degenerate into a formal and scholastic pedantry, or shall train the mind for the highest purposes of active life, will depend, to a great extent, on the way in which the examination is conducted. . . . The object of the examiners should be rather to put to the test the candidate's powers of mind than to ascertain the extent of his metaphysical reading.'

With the same reference to the immediate objects of a competitive test, they recommend that eminence in classical composition should have a considerable share in determining the issue of the competition:

'Skill in Greek and Latin versification has, indeed, no direct tendency to form a judge, a financier, or a diplomatist. But the youth who does best what all the ablest and most ambitious youths about him are trying to do well, wil generally prove a superior man; nor can we doubt that an accomplishment, by which Fox and Canning. Grenville and Wellesley, Mansfield and Tenterden first distinguished themselves above their fellows, indicates powers of mind which, properly trained and directed, may do great service to the state.'

And with regard to the Examination in general they observe with truth:'Experience justifies us in pronouncing with entire confidence that, if the

examiners be well chosen, it is utterly impossible that the delusive show of knowledge, which is the effect of the process popularly called cramming, can ever be successful against real learning and ability.'

It is clear, from these explicit statements of their views, that the able and eminent persons, who framed the scheme for the civil service examination, had no wish to send out to India clever smatterers, feeble bookworms, scholastic pedants, and one-sided mathematicians; but to select the most energetic and vigorous young men from the crowds who were likely to offer themselves as candidates for a share in the administration of our most important Satrapies. The particular kind of knowledge, which would be most serviceable to them in the presidencies, was to be prescribed to those selected by the first test, and this subsequent course of study was to be stimulated by a second examination. But, for the preparatory selection, it was only necessary to test existing methods of education, and to discover the best men they could produce. The reasonableness of this procedure was manifest. On the one hand, as the candidates would come from schools and colleges, which had long pursued fixed systems of instruction, differing in different parts of the country, it was necessary that the touchstone should be applied fairly to them all. On the other hand, as only a limited number of the candidates could be successful, it was essential that the whole body of applicants should not be drawn away from their general studies by specialties, which might be of little or no use to those who would not ultimately proceed to India. But, independently of these considerations, suggested by the distinctive peculiarities of the appointments themselves and the means of filling them, the framers of the scheme of examination could not but foresee that such an object of competition would soon produce an effect on the educational system of the whole country, and that teachers would address themselves to the immediate preparation of candidates. They, therefore, wisely laid down some general principles, applicable to the future no less than to the present. They have declared unreservedly that they want the fruits of real mental discipline, that they desire habits of exact thought, and not a wide range of diversified information; and thus they give their adhesion to the old rather than to the new form of education, and would prefer the solid groundwork of the old school of arts rather than the showy stucco-work of modern sciolism. They indicate that, up to a certain time of life, it is of much less consequence what we read than how we read it; and that the young man, who would prepare himself for future distinction, must be frequently less anxious to advance than to know the route which he has already traversed. The student, who is worthy of the name, must be willing to acquiesce in those teachers, who, in the older universities, were called repetents -a sort of intellectual drill-sergeants; he must often remind himself of the words of the Platonic Socrates: 'Perhaps it would not be amiss to go over this ground again; for it is better to accomplish a little thoroughly, than a great deal insufficiently.' In the words of a modern philosopher (Hamilton), he will thus learn that as the end of study is not merely to compass the knowledge of facts, but, in and from that knowledge, to lay up the materials of speculation; so it is not the quantity read, but the degree of reading which affords a profitable exercise to the student. Thus it is far more improving to read one good book ten times, than to read ten good books once; and non multa sed multum, not much, perhaps, but accurate,' has, from ancient times, obtained the authority of an axiom in education, from all who had any title to express an opinion on the subject.'

Adopting these principles and thus confining the competitive test to the results of a liberal or general education, these exponents of the newest demands upon intellectual culture have not only given the most important place to the old basis of instruction, namely, classics and mathematics, but have even declared their preference for the more old fashioned of these two departments of study. For while mathematics have only 1,000 marks assigned as the maximum of credit, 1,500 marks are allotted to Greek and Latin. And thus in our newest educational stimulus we have, as in our oldest academical institutions, a premium for the cultivation of classical scholarship even as compared with mathematical science.

CLASSICAL INSTRUCTION :-ITS USE AND ABUSE.

UNDER the above title Dr. Hodgson issued, in 1854, a pamphlet of 70 pages, an essay, originally published in the Westminster Review for October, 1853, which attracted much attention at the time, and contains in its reasonings and citations food for thought, until the abuse of what Sidney Smith calls Too much Latin and Greek for all pupils of liberal culture, is utterly eradicated from the enforced curriculum of a majority of children who have useful work of any kind to do in this world. It is as true now in England, as it was when first uttered by Sidney Smith in the Edinburgh Review in 1809, and again by Lord Ashburton in 1853.

The complaints we have to make are, at least, as old as the time of Locke and Dr. Samuel Clarke; and the evil which is the subject of these complaints, has certainly rather increased than diminished since the period of those two great men. A hundred years, to be sure, is a very little time for the duration of a national error; and it is so far from being reasonable to look for its decay at so short a date, that it can hardly be expected, within such limits, to have displayed the full bloom of its imbecility.

SIDNEY SMITH.

In this progressive country, we neglect all that knowledge in which there is progress, to devote ourselves to those branches in which we are scarcely, if at all, superior to our ancestors. In this practical country, the knowledge of all that gives power over nature, is left to be picked up by chance on a man's way through life. In this religious country, the 'knowledge of God's works forms no part of the education of the people,-no part even of the accomplishments of a gentleman.

PROF. BLACKIE of Edinburgh is cited thus:

LORD ASHBURTON.

'I claim for the ancients no faultless excellence, no immeasurable superiority. The raptures which some people seem to feel in perusing Homer and Virgil, Livy and Tacitus, while they turn over the pages of Shakspeare and Milton, Hume and Robertson, with coldness and indifference, I hold to be either pure affectation, or gross self-delusion; being fully satisfied that we are in no want of models in our own English tongue, which, for depth of thought, soundness of reasoning, for truth of narrative, and what has been called the philosophy of history, nay, even for poetical beauty, tenderness, and sublimity, may fairly challenge comparison with the most renowned productions of antiquity."

In truth, it is not merely in general literary beauty, or in the 'romantic' graces, that modern literature may court the severest comparison with the ancient. Even in the charmed circle of 'classic' inspiration itself, more of the divine aura is to be caught from such poems as the 'Laodamia" of Wordsworth, the Endymion' of Keats, the 'Orion' of Horne, the 'Enone' and 'Lotos Eaters' of Tennyson, the Dead Pan' of Mrs. Browning, than is ever dreamed of by many a laborious searcher of lexicons and collator of various readings in 'classic' texts. If the 'Andromache' of Racine, and the 'Cinna' of Corneille, be thought by any to be more French than Greek or Roman; of Goethe it has been said that he was more Hellenic than Teutonic, less Christian than pagan. There is much truth, as well as beauty, in the words of Professor Blackie: 'Milton, who learned from Homer, has become a Homer to us; and not to us only, but to the right-minded of the whole Christian world, he stands where Virgil stood in reference to Dante, and much more fitly. Many persons there are, in these days, who assert that the famous chorus of Aristophanes, descriptive of the clouds (ačvanı veɛpiλai, &c.), is a poor spec men of the poetic art compared with Shelley's Ode on the same subject; that John Keats,