« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
ent obscurity, and live out the length of days allotted to him by nature.
to cry like a child. Mr. Wallace made a
sized volumes the record of the events and discoveries of twelve years, and we can truly say that there is not a word wasted. Indeed, if anything, there is too little description of scenery; and, considering that the Malayan islands have not yet been "done" by professional bookmakers, we would have welcomed more extended details on this head. It is, of course, the duty of a reviewer to find fault somewhere, so we will complain of Mr. Wallace's dislike to the useful and unoffending comma, and will assure him that the eye is distressed with such sentences as that about the "strength lightness smoothness straightness roundness and hollowness" of the bamboo. But in exchange we will thank him for having made his most interesting and most valuable volumes additionally useful to readers by the insertion of those often-omitted items, good maps and good indices.
From The Saturday Review.
LORD STANLEY AND THE GLASGOW STU
Ir would be hard to conceive two human compositions more utterly opposite to each other in every possible way than Lord Stanley's Rectorial Address at Glasgow and Mr. Froude's Rectorial Address at Saint Andrew's. Mr. Froude went to Saint Andrew's to flatter his hearers, to revile institutions which he wilfully misunderstood, and to win a cheer for himself. Lord Stanley at Glasgow seems to have been equally successful in winning a cheer, but he won it in a more honourable way. That is to say, Lord Stanley behaved with proper self-respect and with proper respect to his hearers; Mr. Froude broke down in both ways. We can believe that Mr. Froude's address was the more taking, because it is always very taking to hear oneself praised and one's rival cried down. But it is no high compliment to one's hearers to set this kind of entertainment before them. Mr. Froude appealed to the worst feelings of his temporary academical subjects at Saint Andrew's. Lord Stanley appealed to the best feelings of his temporary academical subjects at Glasgow. Instead of abuse and misrepresentation of other people, Lord Stanley gave the Glasgow students sound and practical good advice for themselves. And the Glasgow students seem to have thoroughly appreciated this higher kind of diet. Nor do we think so ill of the Saint Andrew's students as to believe that they would not
have appreciated it also, if they had had the good luck to have it set before them.
The Times does not give us Lord Stanley's speech in full. He began, we are told, with a graceful reference to his distinguished predecessors in the Rectorial chair." The "reference" was followed by an "allusion," which the Times seemingly did not look upon as "graceful"-an "allusion to the present prosperous condition of Glasgow University." This seems an odd subject for an allusion;" one would have thought that it was the subject of all others of which a new Lord Rector would speak out plainly and openly. It would be easy to do so without in any way pandering to local vanity. But for Lord Stanley indirectly to allude to such a subject, while talking about something else, would show a remarkable indifference to the institution of which he is made for a short time the chief. It would be something like the indifference to his own life shown by the American who, when stabbed by a bowie-knife, "fell down, remarking that he was a dead man." But we do not believe that Lord Stanley made any allusion at all; we have no doubt that he spoke straightforwardly about the prosperous state of things at Glasgow, and we should greatly like to know what he said. At any rate, he went on to give the Glasgow students a series of counsels of perfection, which, if they are duly carried out, will do a great deal to make the prosperity of Glasgow University abiding. Lord Stanley is, throughout his speech, not brilliant, hardly powerful, but everywhere acute, observant, and sensible. He sends up no squibs and crackers like Mr. Froude, but all his suggestions are not only worth listening to, but worth carrying out in practice. Once only does he make the least contrast between the English and Scotch University systems, and then he makes it in a way to which no reasonable Oxford or Cambridge man can object. It is undoubtedly true that the Scotch Universities do give far greater advantages to poor students than Oxford and Cambridge. And now that the fever of reform has passed away, now that it is again lawful to hint that non-resident fellowships have a tendency to become unprofitable sinecures, it may perhaps also be lawful to hint that this difference between Oxford and Glasgow is partly owing to the conversion of the endowments which were meant to support poor students into mere prizes for those who want them. No one can blame Lord Stanley for making the comparison in the way in which he has made it. But then his way of making it is very different from
Mr. Froude's way. Mr. Froude deals with the shortcomings of his academical parents in the spirit of Ham; Lord Stanley deals with them in the spirit of Shem and Japheth. Mr. Froude is so delighted with bringing accusations that it would almost seem to be all one to him whether his accusations are true or false; he talks as if he would be sorry if Oxford and Cambridge were reformed, because then he would lose the pleasure of abusing them. Lord Stanley at once strengthens himself and comforts himself by his belief that a large amount of opinion at Oxford and Cambridge is on his side. Through the greater part of the speech which follows we shall have little to do but go through what Lord Stanley says and set our seal to each stage of it. There is something worthy of special attention, as coming from one in Lord Stanley's position, in what he says as to the duty of all men those who have no need to work for their bread as well as those who have -to find themselves some real work, some real and useful occupation of their time, of some kind or other. On the whole we do not think that we have much to complain of in this way in our men of rank and fortune; there are doubtless good, bad, and indifferent among them, but, considering their special temptations, the number of the good seems really as great as we have any right to look for. Lord Stanley says with great truth, that there are some men who seem born mainly for action, others who seem born mainly for thought; that there is room for both classes in the world, and that each temperament is commonly the better for a certain admixture of the other. This saying is fully borne out by the long line of English statesmen who have been distinguished in other ways besides that of statesmanship. Lord Stanley speaks with equal truth of the struggle which is needed in the first instance to form habits of real work, and the force which those habits acquire when really formed, and the actual pain which unemployed time gives to the man who has formed them. He then goes on to speak of the cry of over-work, which he truly says is bad enough," but that it is probably a cause of less suffering in the aggregate than the consciousness of faculties unused and energies that can find no vent." No doubt there is such a thing as overwork, but no doubt also, as Lord Stanley says, there is "a good deal of prejudice and misinformation on the subject." He is probably right when he adds that cases of men crushed in youth by excessive mental as an effectual check on the imposture of strain are nine times out of ten the result half-knowledge, we may be allowed to of simple mismanagement. As for over-doubt, but nothing can be better than his
Lord Stanley then speaks of the merits and defects of competitive examinations. Whether they do really act, as he thinks,
work, one would think that no class of people were more likely to be over-worked than lawyers in great practice who are also members of Parliament. Yet certainly no class of people seem to live to so great an age, and keep their wits so unimpaired to the end as the men who have gone through this double strain on their powers.
And now we come to the part of Lord Stanley's speech which perhaps concerns us most nearly. There must be many people at other places, if not among the Glasgow students, who ought to writhe, if they are still capable of writhing, at Lord Stanley's enforcement of the absolute necessity for every purpose, whether of action or speculation, of a perfectly accurate habit of thought and expression. This, Lord Stanley truly says, is "something which is almost entirely within our own power to acquire, and which nature unassisted never yet gave to any man; " and he adds, with equal truth and perhaps with a certain bitterness, this is, as far as I can see, one of the very rarest acquirements." How rare it is we see daily in the mass of inaccurate statements which are given to the world in speaking and writing, and in the way in which most people have come to look on accuracy of thought and expression as a matter of no consequence whatever. A man who takes care to be accurate himself is commonly called a pedant for his pains; a man who hates inaccuracy and censures it in others is not only called a pedant, but is conveniently supposed to have some sinister motive for his censure. The advocates of inaccuracy, and it is a class neither small nor without influence, will do well to ponder what Lord Stanley says about "that habit of accurate thought and expression" which it is almost entirely within our own power to acquire." He then goes on:
attention to details, a certain power of memory,
remarks on the imposture of half-knowledge | ern training," or that, if there is, both itself: modes of training must be utterly defec tive and worthless. No lover of sound knowledge will, if he can help it, talk about
about the Saxons." What people need is the classics," any more than he will talk to understand that the study of language is one, that the study of history is one, that man, at any rate Aryan man, is essentially the same always and everywhere, that every part of his history has a bearing upon every other part. Glasgow students, and all other students, should be taught that rightly to study the history of Greece and rightly to study the history of Britain are exercises of exactly the same faculties, and that either process is imperfect without the other. They should be taught that to learn Greek and to learn German are exactly the same process, and that Greek without German or German without Greek loses half its value. People who, like Lord Stanley, allow any distinction to be drawn between "classical" and "modern" studies, are really giving up the only ground on which
Another passage, if it is rightly reported, seems to show that Lord Stanley does not thoroughly take in the difference in position between primary and secondary authorities. He is made to say:
We now come to the only point on which classical" studies can be rightly defended. we are inclined to have any battle with The "folly and pedantry" of which Lord Lord Stanley, and on that point we have Stanley complains is simply the folly and only half a battle. What he says on pedantry of talking as if Greeks and Roclassical training" is comforting to read mans were not really men, as if they and after the nonsense of Mr. Froude. Lord their languages and everything to do with Stanley stands up for the old classical them were something by itself, something training, not as the only possible train- which had no bearing upon human affairs. ing, but as a training which has many dis-Lord Stanley does not seem to realize, any tinct merits of its own. Instead of sneer- more than Mr. Lowe and Mr. Froude, that ing, like Mr. Froude, at "old Greek and the educational evangel to be preached for Latin," he warns his readers against "the some time to come must be mainly the folly of treating classical study as a thing preaching of Grimm's Law. antiquated and useless." Here comes our only point of difference, or more truly the only point in which we look on Lord Stanley's argument as defective. Lord Stanley seems to have no more notion than Mr. Lowe or Mr. Froude of the real position of the Greek and Latin languages and Even those who feel most thoroughly the inof the Greek and Roman history. He still comparably wider range of modern thought will speaks of classical training as a distinct dignity of style, and in verbal felicity, the great seldom deny that in precision, in conciseness, in thing, as if Greece and Rome, and the lan- writers of ancient times have scarcely been guages of Greece and Rome, stood wholly equalled. It is suggestive to think how, under by themselves, and had no bearing on the the influence of the mercantile principle, making languages and history of any other times or books to be paid for in proportion not to their nations. We have often made the remark, merits, but to their length, and of the lifelong and we have no doubt that we shall often hurry which prevents us from studying condenhave to make it again, that the great dis-sation, such narratives as those of Cæsar and Taccoveries of comparative philology in the itus would in modern hands have swelled into the nineteenth century ought to cause as great dimensions of a modern historical compilation, a revolution in our system of educa- with the certain result that they would have tion as the revival of Greek letters caused occupied in men's memories no more enduring in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. place than this last, The truth to be insisted on is that there can be no such thing as purely "classical training," no such thing as purely "mod
What a man can write out clearly, correctly, and briefly, without book or reference of any kind, that he undoubtedly knows, whatever else he may be ignorant of. For knowledge that falls short of that-knowledge that is vague, hazy, indistinct, uncertain - I for one profess no respect at all. And I believe that there never was a time or country where the influences of careful training were in that respect more needed. Men live in haste, write in haste- I was going to say think in haste, only that perhaps the word thinking is hardly applicable to that large number who, for the most part, purchase their daily allowance of thought ready made. You find ten times more people now than ever before who can string together words with facility, and with a general idea of their meaning, and who are ready with a theory of some kind about most matters. All that is very well as far as it goes; but it is one thing to be able to do this, and quite another to know how to use words as they should be used, or really to have thought out the subject which you discuss.
We doubt about the accuracy of the reporting here, mainly because of the word * Compilation." Compilation" is a fav
ourite penny-a-liner's word, probably be- out as many prevalent errors, as if he were cause penny-a-liners do not realize any form writing of things which happened a thouof writing except compilation. It is not at sand years back. This is equally true of all unlikely that the reporters have substi-classical" and of medieval authorities. tuted " compilation" for some other word As the Times says in its lofty condescension, used by Lord Stanley. He can hardly "we are inclined, from this point of view, have meant to contrast Cæsar and Tacitus to think that injustice is often done to those with Goldsmith and Mrs. Markham. Per-so-called dark ages.'" Lambert of Herzhaps he said "composition," and meant to feld may not be the equal of Cæsar or take in all modern historical writings. To Tacitus, though he comes a great deal give any force at all to the contrast, he nearer to them than Lord Stanley or the must have meant to contrast Cæsar and Times is likely to imagine. But he who Tacitus with modern historical writers of now writes the history of the times for some real position. But Lord Stanley for- which either Cæsar or Lambert is an origigets the difference between Cæsar narrating nal authority must make a longer story of his own exploits, or even Tacitus writing it than Cæsar and Lambert did, simply bethe history of a not far distant generation, cause he stands in a wholly different posiand a modern historian painfully working tion from Cæsar and Lambert. And after out the history of events some centuries old all, why stop at Cæsar and Tacitus? We by the process of sifting innumerable state- trust that the names of Thucydides and ments made at or soon after the time. A Polybius would not have been wholly unmodern historian makes his work longer, known in the ears of Glasgow students. not because he is paid according to its And the two Greek historians themselves length for he is not paid according to its illustrate our position in different ways. length, sometimes he is not paid at all- Thucydides writes down what he saw or but because both he himself and his readers heard from eye-witnesses. Polybius, writhave a keener historical sense than the con- ing of events before his own day, has contemporaries of Cæsar and Tacitus, because stantly to stop in order to comment on and they feel far more strongly the necessity of to refute the statements of other writers. producing and testing the evidence for every statement that is made. This is true even of those who write of contemporary events. Mr. Kinglake could, no doubt, make his history shorter. But he could not make it so short as Cæsar made his. For Cæsar said just what he pleased; if anybody told another story, he took no notice of it; while Mr. Kinglake has to harmonize as many different statements, and to point
Lord Stanley thus seems to have still to learn the true position of that "classical" training which he defends by a sort of happy instinct. But however defective his address may be in this respect, nothing can surpass the wise and practical character of the advice which he gives his hearers, and it is pleasant to have the antidote coming so soon after the bane.
PROTECTING SHIPS FROM FOULING. - For this purpose, Mr. Robert Smith, shipowner, places, the Scientific Review states, a pipe along one or both sides of the keel, stern, and stern-post of the vessel. These pipes are supplied with a compound, which, when brought in contact with water, generates a gas or vapour capable of destroying barnacles, animalcules, and other animals or vegetables which foul the ships. The gas issues from the pipes through slits or perforations, so as to be diffused over the exterior surface of the vessel. The compound employed consists of sulphar, resin, and fish or other oil in about equal proportions. These ingredients are mixed together when hot, forming a paste, with which the pipes are filled. Instead of resin, raw turpentine or pitch may be used; and sometimes, to facilitate the action of the compound, lime or chalk is added. The pipes may be dis
pensed with, and the compound applied to the ship with a brush, the surface having been first rubbed with chalk or lime. Public Opinion.
THE Broad Arrow mentions that the rumours of an augmentation of the corps of Engineers by two battalions have again cropped up. The latest project thrown out for consideration is that the corps should be increased by two battalions, the augmentation to be at the rate of half a battalion per annum, commencing with this year. The Old Royal Corps to be benefited by the augmentation the first and fourth year, and the Old Indian Corps by that of the second and third year. Public Opinion.