seriously modifying its results. The fallacy is this-that the study of the Classics is an essential instrument of education, and that, therefore, it ought to hold the most prominent place in every scheme of liberal education. As it is not in any spirit of contentious bitterness that we presume to express our dissent, but from a fervent conviction of the truth of the views we are about to advance, we shall allow the advocates of the Classical System to define their position for themselves, and to fortify it with their own peculiar arguments; then we shall endeavour, by force of legitimate and reasonable argument, to storm their lines, seize upon their citadel, and unfurl what we believe to be a truer banner.

Dr Whewell maintains that "Greek and Latin are peculiar and indispensable elements to a liberal education," and "that the study of modern authors, however admirable their works may be, does not produce that culture of the mind which is the true object of a liberal education," and that "this culture of the mind consists in sharing in the best influences of the progressive intellectual refinement of man."

Now, then, we deny that the true object of a liberal education is that culture of the mind which consists in sharing in the best influences of the progressive intellectual refinement of man-we deny it on the authority of the natural constitution of the mind, which is the highest reference in the matter; for the mind of man possesses an æsthetic, moral and spiritual nature, to be progressively refined, as well as an intellectual- indeed, the intellectual should be cultivated, only that we may the better develop the moral; the aesthetic meanwhile causing both to bloom with beauty, and the spiritual maturing all to an immortal fruitage. The reasonableness of this will appear to every thinking man that has a true conception of his immortal destiny. Again, it is asserted, that having inherited Greek and Latin thought and art, we must needs keep up the connection by studying them in the peculiar fashion or form they left them in. As well might we conform to their mode of physical development-to their domestic and social habits and manners-to their civil and political institutions, or recline at dinner and quaff our festive wine from goblets of antique shape and matter. No; their language was but a form into which they cast the spirit-thought of their peculiar phase of humanity. We, moderns by birthright, have the capacity, and many have attained the power to cast, at least equally great and beautiful thought into our own peculiar form. Because we have inherited this ancient heirloom form, are we bound to use it, and neglect a better,-one more adapted to the purpose in hand? Like the Jews in matters of religion, or the Chinese in civilisation, are we to cling to the old form, instead of allowing the same influences that created it, to create one more suitable to the character of modern times? The ancients have laboured, and often successfully, to throw light on man, and his relations to his Creator and co-existent creatures. * On the Principles of English University Education, published by John W. Parker, London.

We adopt what they have wrought out truthfully according to the dicta of nature, but we reject what they have not nature's data for— we study and admire the beautiful and artistic forms into which the genius of the ancients shaped its glowing thoughts, but we reject the study and imitation of these, as being essential to the liberal cultivation of the mind, so as to bring forth abundantly what Christian civilisation demands. That the study of the Classics is beneficial, we do not deny. We only deny the justice of the PROMINENCE given to them in modern education. Language is but the currency of thought; and as each nation has its own peculiar kind of commercial currency, suited to the peculiar nature of its commercial transactions, so has each its own peculiar language, which to the natives forms the most convenient medium for communicating their thoughts.

So long as the treasures of thought, already accumulated by mankind, were, part of them, locked up in the Latin and Greek tongues, there was a necessity why they should be mastered; but now that these treasures have been transferred to the coffers of our own language, where is the necessity? Who thinks of paying for an entertainment to which there is free admission? And many pay seven yours' hard, dry drill to be admitted to what most of them either can't or won't appreciate, from the incapacity of youth, or horror of the drill.

Then we are informed what sort of men this liberal education is to form, in the following statement: "In nations, as in men; in intellect, as in social condition, true nobility consists in inheriting what is best in the possessions and character of a line of ancestry. Those who can trace the descent of their own ideas, and their own language, through the race of cultivated nations-who can show that those whom they represent or reverence as their parents have everywhere been foremost in the fields of thought and intellectual progress -those are the true nobility of the world of mind, the persons who have received true culture; and such it should be the business of a liberal education to make men." Artificial men truly! Your Court Tailor's Nobility, as Carlyle calls them-one of your modern class of shams-not God Almighty's Nobility. Here lurks the fallacy— that the blood runs purer and richer in the veins of a peer than in those of a peasant-that thought is richer and purer, because, forsooth, it has given a noble.vitality to the ancient tongues. No! we will take higher ground than this, and declare, that true nobility consists not in inheriting, but winning-not "what is best in the possessions and character of a line of ancestry," but what is best intrinsically, apart from all artificial connections; and we would call that a liberal education that would enable the soul which,

"Within the peasant's bosom sings

As sweet as in the breast of kings,"

to win for itself all that is best in the Absolute of Nature and Revelation, so that it may act as God designed it should act in its concrete existence here.

Professor MacClure* advances the proposition, that the study of language is better suited than any other to the period of life at which the cultivation of the intellect commences. "Nature herself," continues he, "supplies us with the proof of this proposition, in the method she adopts for developing the faculties of the infant mind. To learn the names of the objects by which he is surrounded, to describe their most striking qualities, to trace and point out their more obvious relations, are the earliest employments of the child. The results that follow, in intelligence awakened, curiosity roused, attention fixed, memory cultivated, and judgment exercised, are familiar to us all, and, but for their familiarity, would fill us with wonder.” Here there is a mixture of fallacies and truths. In the first place, the learning of the names of objects, and the describing of their qualities and relations, are but accessaries to the real operations of the mind-an almost necessary condition of the mind's becoming conversant with objects, their qualities, and relations, but not the ultimate object of the child's thought. Thus, the child's actual work is not what it has been asserted to be. And this elicits a second fallacy. Nature does not prove that language is the study best suited to the period when the cultivation of the intellect commences. It only proves that the child, like all men, is dependent upon means for the purposes of thought. Bank notes are valuable, because we know we can get the value they represent at the bank, not because they have an intrinsic value of their own. So language is valuable because it represents objects of thought, not because it has an intrinsic value of its own. Of course, like the bank note, language in itself is a production of art, the study of which should be pursued by those whom it will benefit; but that does not bear upon the present question. Thus, in the essential education of the mind, we would make the study of language accessory to the study of objects of thought, and not the principal study, as maintained.

We agree with the same writer, when he asserts, that "the end of early education is, not so much to communicate knowledge, as to enable and stimulate him to acquire it for himself;" but we dissent from him, when he asserts, that "it is to ignorance of this cardinal truth that we are to trace much of the opposition that Classical learning has encountered." The opposition is rather to be attributed to the fact, that people, sensible of this cardinal truth, are not satisfied with the power and suitableness of the Classical languages, to verify this cardinal truth-that the power employed does not produce enough of useful effect, and that there are other powers in existence, which would produce more useful effect, with greater economy of time, and harmony of working. We protest strongly against his misrepresentation of what is proposed as a substitute in its place. He thus misrepresents it, "A method by which the mind is crammed with crude summaries of results, which, instead of

* Introductory Lecture delivered to the Students in Humanity, in Marischal College, Aberdeen, on November 1st, 1852, and published by D. Wyllie and Son, Aberdeen.

educing and invigorating the higher faculties by wholesome exertion, leave them to languish in inactivity-which puts the listless competitor in possession of the prize, without either the preparatory training, or the toil and excitement of the contest. No delusion," continues he, quoting Sir W. Hamilton in support of his views, "is grosser or more mischievous, than that which teaches that the mere possession of facts, the simple swallowing of truths, is the end proposed by education. It is not by the amount of knowledge communicated, but by the amount of thought which such knowledge calls into activity, that the mind is exercised and developed." Here he assails another false system of education (if such ever existed as a system) but not the system based on Nature, and opposed to the Classical system, simply because it is not based on Nature. There is and can be but one system-the one God intended for us in His unfailing providence, and all others must be false. If the Classic system be true, it ignores God's providence in this matter for a long and very important period of time, and eventually substitutes human providence instead. But God's revelation of thought and wisdom in Nature is daily becoming clearer and more easy of comprehension, and is already helping its sister revelation in driving away the intellectual, moral, and spiritual darkness of mankind. All the sciences were false, until men discovered their foundations in Nature, and built upon these with Nature's own materials, and guided by Nature herself, as chief architect and so the science of education will be false, if we do not found and rear it in Nature too.

Let us here define our system clearly, and behold the contrast between its character and caricature. We cannot do better than exhibit it in the language of Dr Reid, "The language of Nature is the universal study; and the students are of different classes. Children employ themselves in the study, and owe to it all their acquired perceptions. Men of common understanding make a greater progress, and learn by a small degree of reflection many things of which children are ignorant. Philosophers fill up the highest form in this school, and are critics in the language of Nature. All these classes have but one teacher, Experience, enlightened by the inductive principle. . . . It is the intention of Nature that human education should be joined to her institution in order to form the man. And she hath fitted us for human education, by the Natural principles of imitation and credulity, which discover themselves almost in infancy, as well as by others which are of later growth. . . . When the education which we receive from men does not give scope to the education of Nature, it is wrongly directed, it tends to hurt our faculties of perception, and to enervate both the body and mind. . . . The art of medicine is to follow Nature, to imitate and assist her in the cure of diseases; and the art of education is to follow Nature, to imitate and assist her in her way of rearing men. The education of Nature, without any more human care than is necessary to preserve life, makes a perfect savage. Human education, joined to that of Nature, may make a good citizen, a skilful

...

artizan, or a well-bred man; but reason and reflection must superadd their tutory in order to produce a Rousseau, a Bacon, or a Newton." Behind these lines are our entrenchments constructed, with this as the key of our position-that the working of the whole subserves the action of the soul and ministers to its revelations and aspirations. We would maintain and defend that position but by the principles of Reason and Right. In our next we will resume our attack upon the Classical fortress.

Ballad on the Death of

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS.*

SEE! the lovely Queen Mary moves on through the hall,
While her handmaidens follow, lamenting her fall;
In sorrow each weeps, and each bitterly sighs-
By a false woman's jealousy Queen Mary dies.

Behold, as she moves, how majestic her mien;
Yet gentle and lovely, all the woman and queen ;—
The only eye tearless-which seems, as she led
The mourners that follow, to sleep with the dead.

The soldiers that guard her to pity are moved―
Their hearts by her beauty are conquered and sooth'd;
In sorrow each looks, and in secret each sighs-
For being too lovely the Scottish Queen dies.

Ah, shall so much beauty and suffering truth

Be cut down by the axe in the full flower of youth?
O shame, kings of Europe-one-half of these charms
Had brought the old Hero-world hither in arins.

O shame!—thrice black shame to her son!—that base thing-
That compound of knave, priest, bigot and king;
Whose treacherous heart felt for nought but itself—
Who sold his poor Mother for a BAUBLE and pelf.

O blessing of heaven, with nature combined-
She dreams not her boy has so dastard a mind;
Her true heart yearns to him-she will not believe
But he'd perish to save her-would die to relieve.

She kisses the Cross, and kneels low at the sign-
The block is her altar, the scaffold her shrine;

Hark! she pours forth her prayer with a heaven-turn'd eye,
"O Jesu, forgive her who doom'd me to die!"

Lo! rising, her innocent bosom she bares-
For the terrible death that awaits her prepares;

Her maidens she soothes, wipes the tears from their eyes-
"O weep not for Mary, for happy she dies!"

* May be sung to the tune of "The yellow-haired Laddie."