4 02 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



Thus there are two lines of argument which meet in the same con- 

 clusion. There is a kind of study namely, the study of modern liter- 

 atures which is neglected at the universities, because it is not seen 

 that there is substance enough in it to give matter for an examination. 

 There is a kind of study namely, modern history which it has been 

 eagerly sought to introduce at the universities, which has an even too 

 great abundance of matter, but which is cast out because it wants 

 some thread of unity to run through the whole. Is it nojt clear that 

 the two belong to each other ? that they ought to be studied side by 

 side ? And, indeed, this is what is actually done by the student of 

 Latin and Greek. 



In fact, what is here proposed, is an examination to run precisely 

 parallel to the classical tripos at Cambridge, or the final classical ex- 

 amination at Oxford. There is no great depth in an ordinary first- 

 class man's knowledge of Plato and Aristotle ; neither would there be 

 any great depth in the knowledge of Descartes and Machiavelli pos- 

 sessed by the first-class man in this proposed examination. But the 

 knowledge attained would be miles above utter ignorance, and it would 

 form a public opinion, which, though not deep itself, would be capable 

 of judging of depth, and distinguishing true merit from pretentious 

 talk. Is not this very sadly wanted at the present day ? Let the 

 reader think what is the average knowledge of modern authors, mod- 

 ern history, and the institutions of foreign countries, possessed by his 

 personal friends. It is pretty safe to say that it will be found very 

 small indeed. The German or French works, which it is politely as- 

 sumed that " every one " has read, will turn out perhaps to have been 

 read by one out of every ten well-educated men. There are many 

 who lament their ignorance, but yet, owing to the press of work in 

 active life, cannot remove it. Is it not a hardship that they should 

 not have had an opportunity of removing it in the course of their 

 education ? Very few people, when they have settled into a sphere of 

 work, are able, even when they go abroad for their holidays, to do 

 much beyond walking and seeing celebrated sights. 



No doubt, an examination in modern literatures would differ in 

 some material respects from an examination in ancient literatures. 

 The languages being less hard, there would be less in them of a strin- 

 gent intellectual test. Yet this is a difference too often exaggerated 

 as to its extent. The difficulties which lie at the threshold of French 

 and German are considerably less than those which lie at the threshold 

 of Latin and Greek. But the idiosyncrasies of authors furnish a spe- 

 cies of difficulty independent of the structure of the language. This 

 species is, indeed, in the case of French authors, reduced to a minimum 

 by the admirable lucidity of their style. But in German authors diffi- 

 culties of this kind are even considerably above what they are in Latin 

 and Greek. The thoughts of Richter lie less on the surface than those 

 of Tacitus. And, in such works as political or legal orations, no easi- 



