than the education, worse than the literature, worse even than the roads, was, in Mr. Sydney's view, the state of religion in the eighteenth century; and he would be indeed a bold man who should undertake to defend or palliate the abuses in the Church and other religious communities-for the Church was in no worse plight than her neighbours-during that period. But here again Mr. Sydney plays the part of the advocate, not of the judge; he closes his ears to everything that can be said in favour of the criminal, as the counsel for the prosecution is wont to do; and that even when it almost forces itself upon his notice. Thus he quotes with approval Mr. Overton's remark that 'the religious apathy which set in with the Georgian era is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of religion'; but he quite forgets to mention that in the very next sentence the same writer protests against the idea that the earlier years of the century were a period of inertness; he includes in one sweeping condemnation the whole of the period, just as if nothing had been adduced on the other side. He quotes Mr. Abbey's description of the average eighteenth century sermon as too stiff and formal, too cold and artificial'; but entirely ignores all that the same writer has to say about the good points of that composition, though on his own showing this ought not surely to have been ignored, for he owns that Mr. Abbey 'has made a diligent study' of the subject. He dwells upon the efforts of the Deists to draw down contempt upon the doctrines of Christianity, and more than insinuates that the shortcomings of Christians were responsible for the spread of Deism (ii. 328); but not one word has he to say about the undoubted fact, admitted on all hands, that the able efforts of the Christian writers completely drove Deism out of the field. In the same spirit he has something to say about the Unitarianism of Dr. Priestley, but not one single word about the complete demolition of Dr. Priestley by Bishop (then Archdeacon) Horsley. He quotes with approval Bishop Burnet's strictures upon the clergy, but says nothing about the indignant chorus of denial with which those strictures were immediately met. He refers to Bishop Watson's assertion that Lord Shelburne nominated him for a bishopric, expecting him to use his pen in favour of the ministry; but he does not add that Bishop Watson distinctly refused to do so. He has much to say about the same prelate's non-residence, but not a word about his telling writings in defence of religion. He triumphantly confirms Lord Macaulay's representation of the low state of the clergy at the close of the seventeenth century, and adds that it

would apply to the greater part of the eighteenth; but his mode of arguing is a glaring instance of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy; he simply tells us that he has consulted Macaulay's authorities and finds that they are quoted correctly (ii. 330), and he calmly assumes that the impugners of the historian (by whom he means, we presume, especially Mr. Churchill Babington, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Overton) have neglected to consult these authorities. But if he would only take the trouble to observe what these gentlemen have written, he would find that they do not accuse Lord Macaulay of misquoting his authorities, but that they demur to the authorities themselves, contending that old plays and satires, romances and ephemeral pamphlets, are quite insufficient to ground so serious an assertion upon. He has plenty to say about the lax and worldly lives of the clergy, but hardly a word about the saintly lives of such men as George Berkeley, William Law, and the good men who were the fathers of the Evangelical school. His remark about one of these last is utterly misleading. He describes James Hervey, author of the Meditations among the Tombs, as a divine who certainly allured his flock to brighter worlds, if he did not lead the way' (ii. 344). Now, if this means anything, it means that Hervey's writings were better than his life. But the very reverse was the case. Hervey's life was that of a blameless, diligent parish priest; while as to his writings, it seems to us that Mr. Sydney has lost an opportunity of giving point to his depreciation of the eighteenth century by showing the bad taste of the many among whom those writings were popular.

This is not the way to write history. But, apart from his one-sided view of things, Mr. Sydney has really not saturated himself sufficiently in his subject to be a trustworthy historian; had he done so, he would never have fallen into numberless inaccuracies which, slight as some of them may be, are quite sufficient to distinguish him from a real historian of the period like Mr. Lecky. He would never, for instance, have told us that 'the National Church lost its hold upon the conduct and habits of all classes of society' (ii. 323). Anyone who had made a real study of the eighteenth century would know that one of the grudges which we owe to the Church of that day is that, retaining as it did in a most remarkable degree its hold upon the national life, it did not turn its vast influence to better account. He would never have undertaken to write one chapter on the 'Literary World' and another on the 'Religious World' without having read John Byrom, who, in his odd way, was a prominent member of both worlds. He

refers to Byrom's well-known epigram on the King and the Pretender in a way which clearly shows that he had no acquaintance with the author or the intention of the lines (ii. 229). He would never have muddled up, as he has done, the Religious Societies and the Societies for the Reformation of Manners, which were in reality quite distinct institutions. These things make us doubt whether other little inaccuracies are merely slips of the pen, as, for instance, when he writes of John Kitchen, instead of Kinchin, as one of the Oxford Methodists (ii. 345), and when he refers to his becoming afterwards Dean of Corpus Christi College as if it were a promotion to some high ecclesiastical office like the Deanery of Christ Church; or of Sir William Thornton, instead of Thornhill, as a character in The Vicar of Wakefield (ii. 219); or, as he does two or three times, of the seventh day,' instead of the first, as the great day of Christian worship (ii. 51 and 59); or when he places Wentworth in Nottinghamshire (ii. 28) and Maidenhead in Buckinghamshire (ii. 32); or when he writes of the road to Tyburn as the Via Dolorosa (ii. 28), forgetting, we would charitably hope, that the expression is hallowed by one, and only one, application; or of the Rechabites when he means. the leaders of the Rebecca riots (ii. 8). Mr. Sydney has criticised others so severely that he can hardly complain of being criticised himself. But we will end, as we began, by saying that he has done useful work by bringing out the dark side of the eighteenth century. Such a presentation, though. rather saddening, teaches us that good work for God is never really lost, and that if we are indeed 'better than our fathers,' it is because the indefatigable exertions to improve the human race, which have certainly been a characteristic of the nineteenth century, have been blessed by Him for Whose sake they were made.

ART. X.—THE PROGRESS OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES.

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Edited by
WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D., WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A., and
G. E. MARINDIN, M.A. Third Edition, Revised and
Enlarged. In Two Volumes. (London, 1890-91.)

THE history of classical studies in England has not yet been written; it would well repay the labour that would be necessary. We hope that it will not be long before some

scholar will be found ready to give himself to the work. It is a task for which none would have been so well suited as the late Mr. Mark Pattison. He could have traced, as few others could have done, the manner in which changes in religious and social life have caused men to turn to the study of classical antiquity with different objects and fresh purposes, and how the increase of scientific knowledge and the growth of a modern European literature have altered the position, without materially diminishing the importance of the classics in the sphere of letters and thought, and at the same time have shown how, throughout all the changes, there has been a constant progress in knowledge, and, perhaps we may add, an increase of understanding; so that the work of one generation always survives, though perhaps not sufficiently recognized by the next. More and Erasmus, Milton and Hobbes, Bentley and Gray approached the classics each from a dif ferent standpoint; and how great is the difference between the marvellous learning of Casaubon's time and the refined scholarship of the best Etonian versifiers.

A change equally great has taken place during this century, and is indeed even now in progress. We might describe it best by saying that classical studies are becoming less purely literary than they formerly were. It is of course true that it will always be the literature of Greece and Rome by which they will be best and most widely known. The value of Homer and Thucydides, of Catullus and Tacitus is absolute, and cannot be changed by any new discoveries or new additions to our knowledge. If they ever cease to be valued it will be when men have lost the power and understanding to appreciate them. If this ever happens it will matter little whether men pretend to study the Classics or not. But it is nevertheless true that new sides and aspects of ancient life are now being opened up. This is being done in two ways: to the literary study of antiquity we can now add the archæological and historical.

Neither of these is of course entirely new. From the earliest days of the Renaissance, gems, coins, and statues were eagerly collected by the wealthy, and were used by the humanists to illustrate the Greek and Roman literature. The collection of inscriptions by Gruter, and Eckhel's monumental work on ancient coins have not yet lost their value. But still it remains true that till the last few years, at any rate in England, it has not been realized how important is the study of the actual remains of ancient art as an integral part of a classical education. Even now, how many boys go

through their school and university education entirely ignorant of one whole side of that civilization which they are supposed to be studying. And with history it is much the same. Histories of Rome and Athens there have of course always been; but it is well to remember how modern is the conception of that scientific account of the growth of a society, founded on a careful examination of all the evidence, and enlightened by a comparison with other societies, which we now call history.

These considerations have been suggested by the appearance of a new edition of Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities. The first edition of this well-known work was published in 1842; the second, improved and enlarged, appeared in 1848; since which time the work has been reprinted from the stereotyped plates without alteration.' If we compare, as the editor does in his Preface, the state of classical learning fortytwo years ago with that of the present time, what we have said will not appear exaggerated. It is true that at that time the great impulse given to classical studies in Germany by the pupils of Heyne had already produced great results. One of the chief merits of the older editions of this work was that it made accessible to English readers the results of the labours of Niebuhr, Savigny, and Boeckh. To quote from the Preface to the first edition :

'The earlier writers on Greek and Roman antiquities display little historical criticism, and give no comprehensive view or living idea of the public and private life of the ancients. They wrote about antiquity as if the people had never existed. But by the labours of modern scholars life has been breathed into the study. There is scarcely a single subject included under the general name of Greek and Roman antiquities which has not received elucidation from the writings of the modern scholars of Germany. The history and political relations of the nations of antiquity have been placed in an entirely different light since the publication of Niebuhr's Roman history. The study of the Roman law, which has been unaccountably neglected in this country, has been prosecuted with extraordinary success by the great jurists of Germany, among whom Savigny stands pre-eminent. The study of ancient art likewise, to which our scholars have paid little attention, has been diligently cultivated in Germany from the time of Winckelmann and Lessing.'

The new epoch had begun in Germany; it was just beginning in England. The works of Arnold, Thirlwall, and Sir G. C. Lewis had already produced a great advance. The publication of this dictionary was itself a sign of the change. Since then an enormous amount of work has been done, most of it in Germany, much of it inaccessible to English readers.