to criticise them on philological grounds, the very act of doing so proves his unfitness, on this principle, for the undertaking. However, at the risk of this self-conviction, we propose to notice some of the many errors, inaccuracies, and groundless assumptions of the book.

His definition of a myth is as follows (p. 2): "A myth is a story with a meaning attached to it, other than it seems to have at first." What, then, is a parable? What is an allegory? What is a fable? The specific difference of the myth-that it is a story of gods and heroes, believed by all who know it to have been true in the remote past, and generally stating some natural phenomenon in personal form-has no place in this definition. Again, further on (p. 71) he uses "myth" in the sense of "type" apparently, for he speaks of natural myths as distinguished from human myths, and gives the bird and the serpent as examples, representing, the one "the clothed power of the air," the other "the clothed power of the dust." It would be difficult to find anywhere a more beautiful or more powerful passage than those in which he reproduces the impression made upon his sensitive nature by the bird and the serpent (pp. 70-77); yet when one reads on and tries to find out what these animals have to do with the myth of Athena, he finds that Mr. Ruskin teaches him nothing on this point. One sentence (p. 78) may be quoted to show that what is new is not always true in his explanations. "The bird power is soon made entirely human by the Greeks in their flying angel of victory; and thenceforward (?) it associates itself with the Hebrew Cherubim, and has had the most singular influence on the Christian religion by giving its wings to render the conception of angels mysterious and untenable, and check rational endeavor to determine the nature of subordinate spiritual agency."

But we are convicting ourselves of pedantry. Let us rather seek to give the general impression of the book upon us. For the scientific understanding of myths, it is worthless. Those who can judge it as they read, will learn almost nothing from it; those who cannot will only be confused and misled. It is like reading the visions of a hasheesh-eater. There is a throng and whirl of strange disconnected ideas and myths, etymologies and botany, modern science and ancient fables, art, history, political economy, architecture, morals, and absurdly quoted texts from the Bible, in one glorious jumble. The same name or figure need only occur in any two places to warrant Mr. Ruskin in putting them side by

side and drawing his inference. Athena represents the air, the wind, the rain, the life of plant and animal, color, the spirit of creation and volition, modesty, fortitude, the Holy Spirit, and several other things. If any one will read § 38, he will get a fair idea of the author's conception of method in the treatment of his subject. But for exquisite beauty of style, for warm sympathy with suffering men, and indignation at folly and wrong, for delicate sense of the beautiful in art and nature, for manly avowal of faith in moral principles, this book has its value, as has everything that Mr. Ruskin writes.

THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL.*-Every one remembers the famous scene in the novel of Ivanhoe, when, in the midst of the tournament, a stalwart knight, clad in black armor, with his face concealed behind his visor, rode into the lists and bore down the stoutest adversaries by the weight of his arm. The appearance of this anonymous volume, on the eve of the assembling of the Roman Council,-a volume in which the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome are powerfully and effectually assailed, and the new dogma of Papal Infallibility is smitten with heavy strokes, has recalled the pages of Scott's romance. Whether the book be written, as it purports to be, by liberal Catholics, or by Protestants-for its authorship is plural,-the writers are men who are fully armed, and fully and justly confident in the work which they have undertaken. There may be occasional mistakes, in the multitude of literary and historical references, which are interwoven in the discussion. But, in general, the learning is as accurate as it is ample. There may be another point of view from which the Papacy might be seen to be an institution having its temporary uses and its important office in developing European civilization. But the mistakes and iniquities of Popes and the Papal Court; the frauds and forgeries by which the Papal authority was built up; the robbery of the liberties of the church by which this consummation has been reached, are here depicted with a truthful and unsparing hand. The revival of Gallicanism is a hopeful sign of the times. It would seem as if nothing could have produced this awakening of a free spirit short of the monstrous attempt of the Jesuits and their auxiliaries to foist in the already overburdened

The Pope and the Council. By JANUS. German. Boston: Roberts Brothers. 1870.

Authorized Translation from the 16mo. pp. xxviii., 346.

creed of the Latin church the dogma of the Pope's personal infallibility. In France, a spirit of resistance has been aroused which will probably prove to be effectual in thwarting the design of the Ultramontanist fanatics. The Bishop of Orleans confronts Manning with something of the old Gallican feeling against transalpine despotism. Then the present work emanates from Germany, and is pervaded with the old Teutonic hostility to the spiritual rule of Italians.

This is not the place to discuss the questions which will come before the Latin Council. We should require the space afforded by an Article rather than the narrow limits of a book-notice, if we would enter into the questions. If Papal infallibility be decreed, it will require all, and more than all, of the subtlety of the Romish theologians to define the occasions and topics when the Oracle speaks ex cathedra, or in the character of an Oracle. If the Immaculate Conception can be accepted as a dogma, on the ipse dixit of the Pope, without the declaration of a Council, why may not any other dogma be promulgated and received on the same authority, and why should not the theory, on which the definition of the Immaculate Conception by the bare voice of the Pope is admitted, be also itself shaped into a dogma which the faithful are bound to accept, under peril of perdition?

PHOCYLIDIS POEMA ADMONITORIUM.*-We are much disappointed in this little pamphlet. We had never read the poem of Phocylides, and we expected no little pleasure in looking over this edition and finding in it an encouragement and a help to the cause of classical scholarship in this country. Instead of that, we find it to be, we must say, worse than useless for its avowed purpose. In the first place, the misprints in the Greek text, more than one per page, as we noticed in merely reading it over, almost spoil it for use as a text-book. They are enough to puzzle and annoy both teacher and scholar. Then the notes are no help at all to the understanding of the poem, or to the study by it of the language, although the Greek affords abundant material for notes of both kinds. They consist mainly of quotations of parallel passages from late Greek and Latin authors, with here and there a moral reflection by the editor. In general, let us say here, parallel passages are of little use in notes to school editions of classi

* Phocylidis Poema Admonitorium; recog. brevibusque not. instr. J. B. FEULING, Ph. D., etc. Andover: W. F. Draper. 1869.

cal authors, unless they are either from writers contemporary with the one annotated, so that they throw light upon the use of words or upon the thought as it lay in the mind of men at that time, or from modern writers in whom no imitation of the classical model can be suspected. Most of those in this book belong to neither class. Finally, the poem itself is very poorly adapted for use in our schools or colleges. We should not suppose that any classical scholar could read it once without being convinced that it was a production of the Christian era. If there are any lines by Phocylides in it, they are buried under the additions by a later hand, as is admitted by scholars generally. A mere series of moral precepts like this would be the dullest possible reading to a beginner in Greek, and if he got any idea of Greek morality from it, it would be a false one. As for moral influence, it would be infinitely better for a boy to read Homer, Eschylus, Thucydides, or Demosthenes. We cannot but wonder what idea Mr. Feuling has of the scholarship or common sense of his adopted country, or what motive induced him to put forth this book, which would certainly meet with poor success in his native Germany. We hope no teacher here will be induced, by the pretentious show of scholarship about it, to adopt this as a text-book.

MATTHEW ARNOLD ON "CULTURE AND ANARCHY.' -Mr. Matthew Arnold has written a very interesting "Essay," entitled "Culture and Anarchy." Its object is "to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties." He defines culture as a study and pursuit of perfection. He defends it against the silly"cant of the day." He takes for its motto, not simply "to render an intelligent being yet more intelligent," but "to make reason and the will of God prevail." He evidently believes in "knowing the best which has been thought and said in the world," in "turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits," in "sweetness and light," as well as "fire and strength"-in a perfection by which all sides of human nature, and all parts of human society may be harmoniously developed. He calls it the " one thing needful" to come to our best at all points." He is particularly severe on those who care only or chiefly "for walking staunchly by the best light they have"-who thick less of "knowing" than of "doing "—which he considers to be the fault of our "Puritans, ancient and modern."

66

* Culture and Anarchy: an Essay in Political and Social Criticism. By MATTHEW ARNOLD. London: Smith, Elder, & Co. 1869.

We are interested especially in the distinction which he makes between Hebraizing and Hellenizing, and which runs through the whole Essay. To Hebraize is "to sacrifice all other sides of our being to the religious side." This "leads to a narrow and twisted growth of our religious side itself, and to a failure in perfection." This is the tendency of "all America." Hellenism and Hebraism are rival forces and divide the empire of the world. Their final aim is the same, viz.: "man's perfection or salvation." But they pursue it in different ways. The uppermost idea of the one is "to see things as they really are:" of the other, is "conduct and obedience." The governing idea of the one is "spontaneity of consciousness;" of the other, "strictness of conscience." "The Hellenic half of our nature, bearing rule, makes a sort of provision for the Hebrew half, but it turns out to be an inadequate provision: and again the Hebrew half of our nature, bearing rule, makes a sort of provision for the Hellenic half; but this, too, turns out to be an inadequate provision. The true and smooth order of humanity's development is not reached in either way." Neither of them is "the law of human development." Both are but "contributions" to it. This is capital.

But we demur when he says that "Christianity occupied itself, like Hebraism, with the moral side of man exclusively." "What was this but an importation of Hellenism into Hebraism?" "Whereas St. Paul imported Hellenism within the limits of our moral part only, this part being still treated by him as all in all,” -"we ought to try and import it "-"into all the lines of our activity," &c. Is this a just and fair representation of Christianity? Is it not broader in its sphere than Hebraism? Does it not "import" into human nature and human society more than either Hebraism or Hellenism? indeed, all that can be needed or wanted for man's salvation and perfection. How can we import what Paul did not, since he is not satisfied "till we all come to a perfect man," and declares of Christ, "In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; " or Peter, since he distinctly speaks of "all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue; whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature?" It is doubtless true (as is here said) that "no man, who knows nothing else, knows even his Bible." But who that knows "Sophocles and Plato" can say that "their notion of what goes to make up holiness was larger than " that of Christ and his Apostles?