pedantry to say that because Robinson Crusoe is a good biographical novel, every other novel must be laid on this Procrustes' bed and measured by it.

Robinson Crusoe is, in fact, so good a piece of biography that we forget that it is a fiction all the while. The maxim that it is the highest art to conceal art is true only within limits. A picture (forgive the paradox) may be too lifelike to be likethat is, we may be so completely deceived as to lose all pleasure in the deception. The story of the Greek painter who painted a curtain so like nature, that the beholder desired it to be drawn aside, supposing the real picture lay behind, is a case in point. Art ceases when the artist boastfully says "that the imitation defies detection." True, art does more than copy nature-dare we say it? she improves on nature. Who ever saw such sun-sets as Claude pours on the canvas? In Turner's pictures the light of the moon is as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun sevenfold, in the bold hyperbole of the Hebrew poet. The artist holds up a double reflecting mirror to nature, and matter takes a glow in glancing back from the speculum of mind. Art must be ideal as well as imitative. In Robinson Crusoe the imitation defies detection. He is only the alias of Alexander Selkirk, unidealized in passing through Defoe's mind. We ask those discreet mothers, who, like Sir Anthony Absolute, think a circulating library to be a tree of evil not of good, and who prohibit the Arabian Nights, whether Robinson Crusoe is not admitted on the same shelf with Captain Cook and Mungo Park?

Do the ten thousand juveniles who are happily turning over this Christmas-tide their Robinson Crusoes in green and gold, dream that Defoe, a clever novelist one hundred and forty years ago, sat down to write a story "all out of his own head?" What is truth-they might well say-if the man in goat-skins and his man Friday are not true men? When older grown and more critical, we learn that the original of Robinson Crusoe was Alexander Selkirk, and though there are inventive touches which show that Defoe was not a mere copyist, the real Selkirk is so

like the imitation, that the impression left upon us is that it is a true story. The envious gossip that Selkirk supplied Defoe with the materials, and that Defoe published them for his own benefit, is proof sufficient that it was esteemed less as a romance than a biography. Judged by such rules, some of the best of Macaulay's Essays, such as the Life of Clive or Lord Bacon, should be classed as novels; for who will question that there is some fiction in them, founded though it be on fact? On the other hand, neither Uncle Tom or the Pickwick Papers are novels, because they are deficient in biographical unity. Mr. Stephen has said many just things on novels and on their relation to life; but this theory of what a novel should be is of too limited application in an age when almost all instruction for the higher and educated classes is given under the disguise of a novel. Teaching by parables is quite as necessary to our age as to a simpler age.

Some of our social evils can scarcely be exposed in any other way; and without much sympathy for Mr. Kingsley and his school, we must fain confess that he has told the upper classes some "home truths," which they would never have gleaned for themselves out of blue books or police reports. We do not then agree with Mr. Stephen that such books should be excluded from the class of novels, because wanting the unity of a biography.

Of the remaining twelve essays in the two volumes, we think there are only five deserving of special notice. We will briefly refer to them, and conclude.

The "English Language in America," by Mr. C. Astor Bristed, of Cambridge, discusses the question of a change of the English language when transplanted to America. He tells us that most of those phrases that we call pure Americanisms were imported into the country from England. For instance, Lynch law has been always assumed to be a pure Americanism. It is usually explained from the emphatic practice of a certain Judge Lynch, who lived somewhere in the far West. But no records of such a functionary exist; no tangible grounds for supposing him to be more than a mythical person

age; while a very probable solution presents itself in the parent tongue. Linch, in several of the northern counties' dialects, means to beat or maltreat. Linch law would then signify club law, and the change of spelling from linch to Lynch is easily accounted for by the fact, that the name Lynch is as common in some parts of America as in Ireland.

There are varieties of American dialects as of English; some of these Mr. Bristed enumerates. For instance, the New England I guess for I presume; to put this in the mouth of a New Yorker or a Virginian is as great a blunder as it would be to represent a Cockney saying tay for tea, or a Scotchman wint for went. striking New England idiom is to qualify assertions by sorter, kinder (from SORT O', KIND o'), as he kinder laughed, I felt sorter foolish.

A

Caucus, a name for a secret political assembly, is a New England word. It is simply a corruption of caulkhouse, the patriots of Boston having been accustomed to hold their meetings in a caulker's shed.

use.

In the Middle States there are a few Dutch words which are still in The word loafer, which is in American vagabond, has clearly nothing to do with loaf. It may be from the Dutch loof-weary, lazy ; but it more probably comes from loopen (= German laufen, compare in English Inter-loper). The term loper, applied to deserters from South Sea whalers, and Jack's familiar landlubber are probably connected.

66

In the far West, the few words of new coinage betray their origin. Thus the hunter-legislator, David Crockett, who flourished some twenty years ago, was the inventor of the wellknown phrase, Go-a-head!" Cantankerous is a Westernism for rancorous, salvagerous for savage. The barbarous word, tee-totul, was coined, it is said, at some Western temperance meeting. Stranger is a word which recalls us to life in the backwoods, in which a new face is a strange thing. Calculate is used in the West as guess is in the East.

Mr. Bristed discusses lastly the question, whether the supremacy of the English tongue will ever decline in America. The answer of experience is, that it will not. Literature and religion are the two instruments

to fix a language, and these grew together in England at the age of the Reformation. Happily, the English of King James's Bible is the English of the Anglo-Saxon race all the world over; while we retain the one, we shall not make many innovations in the other. We wonder that resistance to the attempted revision of the Bible was not sounded on secular platforms as well as religious. Our loss as Anglo-Saxons would be greater even than as Christians. The original tongue of the Bible is beyond the reach of modern depredation, not so the original mother tongue of the Englishman. All other ties have snapped between the colonists and the mother country but this. For . the public good, therefore, more even than for any theological bias, we say of the version of 1611, Esto perpetua.

66

Suggestions on the best means of teaching English History," by J. A. Froude, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, is an essay well worth an attentive perusal. He suggests, that a general knowledge of history only means general ignorance; that views and opinions about history are not history, and that all modern histories of England, without exception, are unworthy of credit, either because taken second-hand, or because written with a partizan spirit. Mr. Froude has as low an opinion even of what are called moderate views. "Moderate views," he says, "are but the husk of history, the real grain must be beaten out before they are manufactured; and the desperate student, wandering from authority to authority, will either load his memory with layers of incoherent contradictions, all confusion and entanglement, out of which no meaning can be extracted, or he will stick to the writers of his own party, and purchase clearness by selling truth."

Despairing then of modern views of English history, Mr. Froude would send us to the statute-book as the student's text-book for English history. There is much in favor of this suggestion. The statute-book would tell us not only the political but also the social and religious history of England. In modern times, a sect may arise and draw away after it half the people of England. There may be sharp controversy between

new

Protestants and Romanists, but the statute-book will contain no enactment on the subject. We should search in vain for any act against recusant Mormons, or a prohibition with penalties of table-turning. But the statute-book of England, two or three centuries ago, is full of details like these.

Legislation then attempted to regulate men's dress, their diet, their belief towards God, their behaviour towards themselves, and other matters which are now left as matters of private judgment. Now-a-days the state only legislates on our duties to each other; our duties to God and to ourselves are left to every man's conscience and the guidance of his religious teacher. We have contracted our idea of a state to the narrowest bounds conceivable. To our forefathers, the state included within it every relation of life; the union of Church and State was unquestioned, simply because they were other names for the same thing. The Church was the State, and the State the Church. The schismatic and the rebel were on the same footing, and subject to the same penalties.

The laws of England contain, therefore, up to the reign of William III., the history of England. The preamble of every act was the verdict of cotemporary history on the manners of the age. Such verdicts must, however, be read with caution-the preamble is framed to justify the act. The preamble might lead us to infer that the common people were the most immoral sectarians; and those of our day, as the act itself would lead us to infer, that our legislators were tyrants, thirsting for the blood of their victims. An abatement must be made on both sides. Neither rulers nor people were so cruel as their acts would lead us to suppose; but their laws notwithstanding are a reflection of their lives; and if one text-book for English history must be selected, no better can be chosen than a compilation and selection of public and private acts.

Mr. Froude's suggestion is a good one, and, with the qualification we have noticed above, might be advantageously acted on.

An essay by the Rev. W. Thompson, Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, on "Crime and its Excuses," is

one of the best as it is one of the shortest in the two volumes. His suggestion that the law should admit the principle of limited responsibility is as just as it is humane. In private life we make allowance for men; we regard the peculiarities of temper and position as entitling to indulgence. We have admitted the principle of limited responsibility in establishing juvenile reformatories; and our present penal servitude is administered on the reformatory principle. The whole subject has lately become unpopular, from the abuse of the ticketof-leave system; but the error we have fallen into is this: We sentence too harshly in the first instance, and administer punishment too indulgently afterwards. "Certainty, rather than severity," says Beccaria, "is potent in deterring from crime." The perfection of justice would be an indulgent sentence rigorously enforced. Whatever sentence has been once pronounced by the judge, the prison authorities should neither relax nor remit. The ticket-of-leave system is a fruitful source of crime, but not for the reason that popular clamour supposes. The subject is one deserving of a separate discussion ; we hope to return to it at no distant date.

Hegel's "Philosophy of Right," by T. C. Sanders, late Fellow of Oriel College, is an essay we dare not enter on, even with the "indulgent reader" of a "University" Magazine. Hegel is the bête noir of English thinkers. He is almost given up in despair by his German countrymen. Of Hegel, it has been well said by Professor Ferrier, "Who has ever uttered one intelligible word about Hegel?" Not any of his countrymen-not any foreigner -seldom even himself. With peaks here and there more lucent than the sun, his intervals are filled with a sea of darkness, unnavigable by the aid of any compass; and an atmosphere, or rather vacuum, in which no human intellect can breathe. It is certain that Hegel's meaning cannot be wrung from him by any amount of mere reading, any more than the whiskey which is in bread can be extracted by squeezing the loaf into a tumbler. He requires to be distilled, as all philosophers do, more or less, but Hegel to an unparalleled extent.

If the adventurous reader will trus

himself upon the mer-de-glace of Hegel's philosophy of right, we commend him to Mr. Sanders as his guide.

On the whole we accept these two volumes as the first fruits of a better and riper crop of essays to be matured in our Universities in years to come. The law of Moses wisely forbade the people to eat the fruit of a young tree; for three years the fruit was to be plucked and thrown away. General and polite literature is a tree of young growth in our old Universities. Some years hence we may look for riper and richer fruit than now. It augurs well at least for our Universities, that they have accepted the challenge, and gallantly entered the field against old Quarterly and Edinburgh Reviewers.

In conclusion, we cannot but feel that these two volumes indicate the change impending in all our educational establishments. The State and the Universities have hitherto held on their separate career; now they are entering into closer relations than ever before. The State is willing to employ the educated youth of the Universities-the Universities are willing to train youths for the State's service. The barriers between the two are being broken down, so that, instead of the State founding secular academies of its own, it is willing to select its trained candidates for office out of the old religious academies, if there are any such willing to offer themselves.

The effect of this upon the Universities is already making itself felt. Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin, the Scotch and Queen's Colleges, are brought together in the open field of competition for government places. We are coming thus to adopt the one standard of education everywhere. It is the same with our measures of merit as with our provincial weights and measures.

The Winchester bushel and the Irish barrel are giving place to the imperial weight. Our Universities and Colleges must submit to the same law of unity. Scholarship in Dublin must be measured with scholarship in Cambridge or Glasgow. The competitive examination system for Government and India appointments has begun the movement towards a standard unit of education; it only

VOL. XLIX.NO. CCLXXXIX.

wants a few steps more to give it completeness and finish.

As the number of our provincial Universities increases (within twenty years they have been more than doubled), the want will be felt more and more of a Central Academy of Sciences-a University of Universities-to which, as in the old University of Paris, the different "nations" of our great empire would cluster and form the nucleus for Colleges. Thus the Irish nation, the Scotch nation, the English, the Welsh-even the Australian or Canadian-would send their picked youth to compete for places under the Executive.ˆ Such a prima universitas would be the nucleus for a new instauratio scientiarum, such as Bacon began, and which has still to be carried out and completed. The "Solomon's House" for this new Atlantis, might be in that new Academy of Sciences which is contemplated in London, and for which a site has been secured in Kensington Gore.

Sir David Brewster mentions, in his interesting life of Sir Isaac Newton, that Sir Isaac was desirous of converting the Royal Society into an institution like the Academy of Sciences of Paris, and drew up a scheme to that effect. Two hundred years have since elapsed, and a number of new societies have sprung up in addition to the Royal Society, but as yet no attempt has been made to combine them all into one great imperial institute. Such a corporation would serve the state in two important ways. First, it would secure the services of a body of learned men, with leisure to make discoveries. The Patent Office might be under the supervision of this department; and by liberal grants to aid discoverers, useful inventions might be sooner secured to the country, and the inventors themselves be rewarded.

Secondly, such an institute would supply a board of examiners to conduct the competitive examinations, which should be imperative on all employés, civil and military.

With the exception of the board for conducting competitive examinations, Sir David Brewster has drawn out the details of a scheme very similar to the foregoing.

His plan is that "the Royal, the

C

Astronomical, the Geological, the Linnæan, the Zoological, and the Geographical Societies, together with the Society of Civil Engineers and the Museum of Practical Geology, should be united into an Academy of Sciences, and divided into distinct sections, as in France. The Royal Society of Literature, and the Antiquarian Society, would readily coalesce into the Academy of Belles Lettres; and the existing Royal Academy would form the Academy of Fine Arts, divided, as in France, into the three sections of painting, sculpture, and engraving. In the magnificent grove acquired by Prince Albert and the Royal Commissioners at Kensington Gore, a Palace of Art would be reared for the institute, and there would be one library, one museum, and one record of their weekly proceedings. Each member of the now insulated societies would listen to the memoirs and discussions of the assembled Academy, and science and literature would thus receive a new impulse from the number and variety of their worshippers."

When, several years ago, Sir David Brewster communicated Sir Isaac Newton's scheme to Sir Robert Peel, it was so far carried into effect by the establishment of the Museum of Practical Geology, which is neither more nor less than an enlargement of the mineralogical, geological, and chemical sections of an Academy of Sciences or National Institute. The services of all the members of this important body are, of course, at the entire disposal of the State, though its members are frequently employed in other duties than those which strictly be, long to their office. If mineralogy, geology, and chemistry, therefore have obtained a national establishment for their improvement and extension, astronomy, mechanics, na, tural history, medicine, literature, and the arts are entitled to the same protection.

On the score of expense, Sir David remarks, with great truth, that such an institute would prove an economy. "The inquiries connected with the arts, whether useful or ornamental, which are required by the Government, have hitherto been carried on by committees of Parliament; and had we a return of all the sums annually spent in scientific inquiries, the amount would be found to exceed

greatly that of the annual expense, however liberal, of a national institution. Every question connected with ship-building, with our steam navy, our harbours, our light-houses, our railways, our mines, our fisheries, our sanatory establishments, our agriculture, our statistics, our fine and useful arts, would be investigated and reported upon by a committee of Academicians; and while the money of the State would thus be saved, the national resources would be augmented,

and all the material interests of the country, under the combined energies of her art and her science, would advance with a firm and accelerated step."

Such a scheme as the foregoing is, perhaps, too grand and general for an age like ours. A popular government is never able to carry out comprehensive measures with such success as a despotic. To Richelieu, France owes her Institute; to Peter the Great, Russia owes her Academy of Sciences; to the despotism of Napoleon, France owes her code of laws. Horace elegantly addresses Augustus as the patron at once of the arts, arms, and laws of Italy:

Quum tot sustineas et tanta negotia solus, Res Italas armis tuteris, moribus ornas, Legibus emendes.

Popular assemblies have not the power of generalization, and unless they allow themselves to be led by some great mind, would never pass a measure to found such an institute.

Meanwhile the country must approach the subject by degrees, and accustom itself little by little to its encyclopedia proportions. The motto of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, "Paullatim," must be that of our imperial institute of Britain. Little by little, such an institute will grow out of the felt necessity for amalgamating the many learned societies in one Palace of Art at Kensington; together with the necessity for a board of examiners, sitting en permanence, to carry on the competitive examinations now required by the State in all candidates for office. The one need falls in so well with the other, that they recommend each other, and will sooner or later be granted together.

A word or two need only be said