creed of the Latin church the dogma of the Pope's personal infallibility. In France, a spirit of resistance bas 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 dicit 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 anthors, 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, Æschylus, 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 culturo 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."

* 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, rakes 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 balf; 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 developrnent." 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 if 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

holi. ness was larger than ” that of Christ aud his Apostles ?

Perhaps the most practical part of the Essay is that in which he speaks of the “flexibility of culture," or its “independence of machinery." Faith in machinery may well be called "our besetting danger.” “What is freedom but machinery? what is population but machinery? what is coal but machinery ? what are railroads but machinery? what is wealth but machinery? what are religious organizations but machinery?” We are not to worship these as precious ends in themselves. But, after all, does be not generally undervalue them? E. g. “the blessedness of the franchise and the wonderfulness of (our) industrial performances." He seems to despise "freedom,” while he almost worships “establishments."

The Essay is very suggestive, for it abounds in felicitous hits, as when he distinguishes between “provinciality” and “totality' -when he distributes society in England into “ Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace,” and adds, “ America is just ourselves, with the Barbarians quite left out, and the populace nearly ; ” when he calls the non-conformists “hole and corner churches ;" when he avers that “the whole attitude of horror and holy superiority assumed by Puritanism towards the Church of Rome," merits Sir Henry Wotton's rebuke, “take heed of thinking that the further you go from the church of Rome, the nearer you are to God; when he distinguishes between “creative” and “instrumental" statesmen; when he quotes Epictetus as saying “It is a sign of a nature not finely tempered to give yourselves up to things which relate to the body; to make, e.g., a great fuss about eating, drinking, walking, riding. All these things ought to be done merely by the way; the formation of the spirit and character must be our real concern :" when he insists that “culture does not set itself against games and sports. It congratulates the future, and hopes it will make a good use of its improved physical basis; but it points out that our passing generation of boys and young men is meantime sacrificed;" that “culture is always assigning to system-makers and systems a smaller share in the bent of human destiny than their friends like” _“will not let us rivet our faith upon any one man and his doings"-labors to.“ humanize knowledge" by divesting it of all that is " barsh, uncouth, difficult, abstract, professional, exclusive," is eminently practical, because “even when it does not lend a band to rough and coarse movements,” it “qualifies it to act less at random,” &c. How strange that only once does he make direct allusion to that "something which thwarts and spoils all our

efforts, viz., sin! With a stronger sense of human sinfulness, he might not have been so confident that “ now and for us it is a time to Hellenize." It fact, he seems to feel that it is worse for those who have such a religion as ours, than for those who are utterly “ without religion."

CLASSICAL STUDY.* _The aim of this book is to present, in a compact form, an antidote to the judgments, adverse to the study of the classics, which are enforced with earnestness by many educators at the present time. The views of twenty-one able men are here given with more or less fullness, extracted from papers which have been published within the last thirty-five years. These papers are of varying excellence; the ablest, without question, heing an extract from Mr. Mill's Inaugural before the University of St. Andrews, but no one of them is without merit.

The first, that of Rev. Mr. Jones, Principal of King William's College in the Isle of Man, is a thorough analysis of the advantages of the study of the classics in itself considered, and as compared with the pursuit of any other branch which may be made central in a college course. One might, after reading this paper and the Discourse of Mr. Mill, regard them as covering the entire ground involved in the discussion. But so numberless are the considerations developed by a fair consideration of the question, that the reading of each successive essay seems to add something forceful, and often something beautiful to the thoughts, that have been previously unfolded. Indeed, the book, apart from its arguments, is one of the noblest pleas that could be made for classical culture. In the plain and lucid exposition of the first paper, in the terse and pointed sentences of Mr. Mill, embracing the widest scope of knowledge, in the exact and discriminating statements of Prof. Conington, in the glow of Prof. Edwards's scholarly enthusiasm, and in the rhetoric of Mr. Thompson, one finds the precious leaven of classical training.

We think more may be made, than is made in the papers written by Americans, of the worth of preparation by classical study for the special needs of our own country; that it might be shown that classical scholarship is not in our times necessarily "devitatized,” but that the exercise of the judgment in deciding between

* Classical Study: Its Value Illustrated by Extracts from the Writings of Eminent Scholars. Edited with an Introduction by Samuel H. Taylor, LL.D., Principal of Phillips Academy. Andover: Warren F. Draper. 1870.

« ͹˹Թõ