of the subject. This will be more effectually done, cæteris paribus, the more remote the age and country, the more utterly diverse the habits and associations of the thinker to whose opinions he is introduced. Somewhat the same may be said of politics: moreover the study of politics (assuming that political economy is taken as a separate subject) should be connected with history; and, even if our choice of ancient literature did not carry with it the choice of ancient history as the portion to be studied in our general course, the existence of such a work as Aristotle's "Politics" would go some way to render such a choice desirable. Perhaps no book that could be read in connexion with modern history is equal to it, frag

mentary as it is, for close analysis of the elements of social and political life.

There are many other points that we should like to discuss, especially the adjustment of the relations, both at school and at college, of the different kinds of education that ought, we conceive, to exist side by side. But our limits compel us to stop. In what we have said we may have seemed to be dogmatic; but our desire has only been to give a clear and definite conception. There is more agreement now than there was thirty years ago as to the educational ideal which reformers should set before them, but discussion is still revealing continually fundamental differences, which only further discussion can

remove.

THE life of Lamb is a subject which many have attempted, and in which no one, as it seems to us, has been very happy. We do not get at the man in any of these pen-and-ink paintings; and that is precisely what we should wish to get at. They are as unsatisfactory as his portraits, which are all unlike one another, and none of them very like the original. All that has been done hitherto in this direction has helped, more or less, to swell the stock of materials, with which somebody hereafter will have to do his best. We must be thankful to Mr. Barry Cornwall for his "Recollections;" and the late Mr. Justice Talfourd laid the world under obligations, to a certain extent, by the "Memorials" which he gave to it of his friend. But neither of these books realizes our conception of what a Life of Lamb ought to be. Miss Lamb, in an unpublished letter to a correspondent, speaks of their-her's and her brother's-what-we-do existence. There is want of a volume yet, which should describe that for us, which should paint

view, or even glimpses, of those two, as they were and moved, even at the hazard of a little pre-Raphaelitish detail.

The Lambs, we apprehend, were not genteel people in the severely conventional acceptation of the term; and it is to be added that the times in which they lived were, unhappily for them or happily for us, not quite such genteel times as we find ourselves cast in. This delightful and accomplished couple had not only poor and humble antecedents, but at the outset and for some long while after, their own circumstances were poor and humble; and there were certain old-world notions, archaic ways, in which they were born; and with these they grew up and died. A fearful domestic tragedy had darkened their youth, and coloured all their after-life: there was insanity in the blood; and, one day, the mother fell by the daughter's hand. Thenceforth, the brother and sister lived to each other, one and indivisible; and the bond, which was knit in sorrow, was severed only by death.

It is by the love of knowledge and literary gratification that we should wish to stimulate a boy's ardour, and fill his imagination; the imitative instinct is dangerously easy to over-cultivate, and may well be left to slumber a little longer. And even assuming that there are a few boys (there are certainly not more) in whose case it is desirable not entirely to discard this stimulus, it could be quite sufficiently retained by giving prizes for any really praiseworthy compositions, prizes for which the competition should be quite unconstrained.

We have almost dwelt too long on this single abuse, so universally condemned by enlightened public opinion. We are convinced that it is dying; our only fear is, lest before it dies the time for renovating classical education should pass, and the whole system be swept away in a burst of misdirected indignation. Let us now go back to the point from which we digressed. Assuming that classics maintains its place as the literary element in our general education, ought philosophy to be studied, to the extent that it is at Oxford, through the medium of Plato and Aristotle? Of course, the Oxford system at present represents the results of historical growth rather than anybody's conviction as to what is intrinsically desirable. Aristotle has been handed down from remote ages, and the only changes introduced have been additions. New books have been superadded to the old in the reading of the students, and new questions in the examination. The objections to the practice are obvious. Unless we deny that there has been any progress since the time of Aristotle in mental science, there is a strong prima facie argument against using his books to teach mental science. Even if the dif ference between the new and the old be not (as in the case of physical science) the difference between truth and error, it is still the difference between a better and a worse, a clearer and a more confused statement. Of course, the works of a man of philosophical genius (and Aristotle's can hardly be ex

est interest for the professional student, however erroneous or confused much of his thought may be. And we are disposed to think that in metaphysics proper the modern world has yet something to learn from a real comprehension of his speculations. But

this is scarcely the case in the branches we call Logic and Psychology; and, at the same time, these subjects are much too difficult for a learner to make it desirable to add to their difficulty by giving him first an unsatisfactory or obscure exposition in the text, and then a correction or explanation of this in a commentary, not to mention numerous exegetical puzzles. We should be inclined, therefore, to confine the "Analytics" and the "De Animâ" to the library of the professional student.

On the other hand it is a very incomplete idea of the literature of a country which does not include its deeper thought; and, moreover, the style and manner of Plato and Aristotle possess the highest literary merit,— that of communicating intellectual enthusiasm. Aristotle charms as well as instructs those who come thoroughly to understand him; and Plato even those who do not. And further, a portion of their speculations-the ethical and political portion-is not merely interesting as an element in the history of philosophy, but also as an element in Greek history: it enables us to understand in a way we cannot do from all the rest of the literature, excluding these speculations, what kind of people the Greeks were. We think, therefore, that these works should certainly be included in the study of Greek literature; and, being included, care should be taken that they are properly understood. Nor are there the same objections to the use of these books as instruments for teaching ethics and politics that we found in the case of logic and psychology. The principles of ethics lie still involved in doubt and conflict; the best thing that can be done for the learner is to let him see the problems forcibly stated, and im

of the subject. This will be more effectually done, cæteris paribus, the more remote the age and country, the more utterly diverse the habits and associations of the thinker to whose opinions he is introduced. Somewhat the same may be said of politics: moreover the study of politics (assuming that political economy is taken as a separate subject) should be connected with history; and, even if our choice of ancient literature did not carry with it the choice of ancient history as the portion to be studied in our general course, the existence of such a work as Aristotle's "Politics" would go some way to render such a choice desirable. Perhaps no book that could be read in connexion with modern history is equal to it, frag

mentary as it is, for close analysis of the elements of social and political life.

There are many other points that we should like to discuss, especially the adjustment of the relations, both at school and at college, of the different kinds of education that ought, we conceive, to exist side by side. But our limits compel us to stop. In what we have said we may have seemed to be dogmatic; but our desire has only been to give a clear and definite conception. There is more agreement now than there was thirty years ago as to the educational ideal which reformers should set before them, but discussion is still revealing continually fundamental differences, which only further discussion can

remove.

THE life of Lamb is a subject which many have attempted, and in which no one, as it seems to us, has been very happy. We do not get at the man in any of these pen-and-ink paintings; and that is precisely what we should wish to get at. They are as unsatisfactory as his portraits, which are all unlike one another, and none of them very like the original. All that has been done hitherto in this direction has helped, more or less, to swell the stock of materials, with which somebody hereafter will have to do his best. We must be thankful to Mr. Barry Cornwall for his "Recollections; and the late Mr. Justice Talfourd laid the world under obligations, to a certain extent, by the "Memorials" which he gave to it of his friend. But neither of these books realizes our conception of what a Life of Lamb ought to be. Miss Lamb, in an unpublished letter to a correspondent, speaks of their-her's and her brother's-what-we-do existence. There is want of a volume yet, which should describe that for us, which should paint

view, or even glimpses, of those two, as they were and moved, even at the hazard of a little pre-Raphaelitish detail.

The Lambs, we apprehend, were not genteel people in the severely conventional acceptation of the term; and it is to be added that the times in which they lived were, unhappily for them or happily for us, not quite such genteel times as we find ourselves cast in. This delightful and accomplished couple had not only poor and humble antecedents, but at the outset and for some long while after, their own circumstances were poor and humble; and there were certain old-world notions, archaic ways, in which they were born; and with these they grew up and died. A fearful domestic tragedy had darkened their youth, and coloured all their after-life: there was insanity in the blood; and, one day, the mother fell by the daughter's hand. Thenceforth, the brother and sister lived to each other, one and indivisible; and the bond, which was knit in sorrow, was severed only by death.

It is by the love of knowledge and literary gratification that we should wish to stimulate a boy's ardour, and fill his imagination; the imitative instinct is dangerously easy to over-cultivate, and may well be left to slumber a little longer. And even assuming that there are a few boys (there are certainly not more) in whose case it is desirable not entirely to discard this stimulus, it could be quite sufficiently retained by giving prizes for any really praiseworthy compositions, prizes for which the competition should be quite unconstrained.

We have almost dwelt too long on this single abuse, so universally condemned by enlightened public opinion. We are convinced that it is dying; our only fear is, lest before it dies the time for renovating classical education should pass, and the whole system be swept away in a burst of misdirected indignation. Let us now go back to the point from which we digressed. Assuming that classics maintains its place as the literary element in our general education, ought philosophy to be studied, to the extent that it is at Oxford, through the medium of Plato and Aristotle ? Of course, the Oxford system at present represents the results of historical growth rather than anybody's conviction as to what is intrinsically desirable. Aristotle has been handed down from remote ages, and the only changes introduced have been additions. New books have been superadded to the old in the reading of the students, and new questions in the examination. The objections to the practice are obvious. Unless we deny that there has been any progress since the time of Aristotle in mental science, there is a strong prima facie argument against using his books to teach mental science. Even if the dif ference between the new and the old be not (as in the case of physical science) the difference between truth and error, it is still the difference between a better and a worse, a clearer and a more confused statement. Of course, the works of a man of philosophical genius (and Aristotle's can hardly be

ex

est interest for the professional student, however erroneous or confused much of his thought may be. And we are disposed to think that in metaphysics proper the modern world has yet something to learn from a real comprehension of his speculations. But this is scarcely the case in the branches we call Logic and Psychology; and, at the same time, these subjects are much too difficult for a learner to make it desirable to add to their difficulty by giving him first an unsatisfactory or obscure exposition in the text, and then a correction or explanation of this in a commentary, not to mention numerous exegetical puzzles. We should be inclined, therefore, to confine the "Analytics" and the "De Animâ" to the library of the professional student.

On the other hand it is a very incomplete idea of the literature of a country which does not include its deeper thought; and, moreover, the style and manner of Plato and Aristotle possess the highest literary merit,that of communicating intellectual enthusiasm. Aristotle charms as well as instructs those who come thoroughly to understand him; and Plato even those who do not. And further, a portion of their speculations-the ethical and political portion—is not merely interesting as an element in the history of philosophy, but also as an element in Greek history: it enables us to understand in a way we cannot do from all the rest of the literature, excluding these speculations, what kind of people the Greeks were. We think, therefore, that these works should certainly be included in the study of Greek literature; and, being included, care should he taken that they are properly understood. Nor are there the same objections to the use of these books as instruments for teaching ethics and politics that we found in the case of logic and psychology. The principles of ethics lie still involved in doubt and conflict; the best thing that can be done for the learner is to let him see the problems forcibly stated, and im

of the subject. This will be more effectually done, cæteris paribus, the more remote the age and country, the more utterly diverse the habits and associations of the thinker to whose opinions he is introduced. Somewhat the same may be said of politics: moreover the study of politics (assuming that political economy is taken as a separate subject) should be connected with history; and, even if our choice of ancient literature did not carry with it the choice of ancient history as the portion to be studied in our general course, the existence of such a work as Aristotle's "Politics" would go some way to render such a choice desirable. Perhaps no book that could be read in connexion with modern history is equal to it, frag

mentary as it is, for close analysis of the elements of social and political life.

There are many other points that we should like to discuss, especially the adjustment of the relations, both at school and at college, of the different kinds of education that ought, we conceive, to exist side by side. But our limits compel us to stop. In what we have said we may have seemed to be dogmatic; but our desire has only been to give a clear and definite conception. There is more agreement now than there was thirty years ago as to the educational ideal which reformers should set before them, but discussion is still revealing continually fundamental differences, which only further discussion can

remove.

THE life of Lamb is a subject which many have attempted, and in which no one, as it seems to us, has been very happy. We do not get at the man in any of these pen-and-ink paintings; and that is precisely what we should wish to get at. They are as unsatisfactory as his portraits, which are all unlike one another, and none of them very like the original. All that has been done hitherto in this direction has helped, more or less, to swell the stock of materials, with which somebody hereafter will have to do his best. We must be thankful to Mr. Barry Cornwall for his "Recollections;" and the late Mr. Justice Talfourd laid the world under obligations, to a certain extent, by the "Memorials" which he gave to it of his friend. But neither of these books realizes our conception of what a Life of Lamb ought to be. Miss Lamb, in an unpublished letter to a correspondent, speaks of their-her's and her brother's-what-we-do existence. There is want of a volume yet, which should describe that for us, which should paint

view, or even glimpses, of those two, as they were and moved, even at the hazard of a little pre-Raphaelitish detail.

The Lambs, we apprehend, were not genteel people in the severely conventional acceptation of the term; and it is to be added that the times in which they lived were, unhappily for them or happily for us, not quite such genteel times as we find ourselves cast in. This delightful and accomplished couple had not only poor and humble antecedents, but at the outset and for some long while after, their own circumstances were poor and humble; and there were certain old-world notions, archaic ways, in which they were born; and with these they grew up and died. A fearful domestic tragedy had darkened their youth, and coloured all their after-life: there was insanity in the blood; and, one day, the mother fell by the daughter's hand. Thenceforth, the brother and sister lived to each other, one and indivisible; and the bond, which was knit in sorrow, was severed only by death.