Page images

which he professes to have found evidence of connexion between Egypt and an Ægean civilization of a date before 2000 B.C., have come too late for use. Some time must yet elapse before the value of the arguments drawn from the evidence can be rightly judged; it is sufficient that we find here an accurate and full account of the evidence itself.

It would, indeed, be impossible to give even a list of all the new matters which are dealt with in these volumes. We find a careful article on ‘Terracotta' to which there is no parallel in the old editions ; for much of the material has been provided by the new discoveries at Tanagra of those domestic images now so well known. The articles on money (*Nummus,' ' Pondera,' 'Moneta ') have been completely rewritten, and in this case we are glad to say have all been entrusted to the same writer, Professor Percy Gardner. Here the attention is naturally arrested by the attempt to trace the origin of the weights and measures of value among the Greeks, as in so many other cases we can now work by examination of the actual objects, and can make a comparison of Greek coins with the actual weights used in Babylon, Egypt, and Phænicia. In this department it is the investigation of the older civilizations of Asia that has thrown much light on doubtful points of Greek life, and even if a final solution of the origin of the chief Greek standards has not yet been attained, there is every hope that perseverance in this method will lead to a definite result.

We have said enough to show how great has been the progress of knowledge in the last forty years, and it will, we hope, be clear how important this knowledge is. We know now far more than was formerly known of the life and writings of the Greeks and Romans. Before we had their works before us : their literature, their art, their law, their political achievements. Now we can see not only what they did, but how they did it. We are introduced to the administration of the Roman Empire and to Athenian democracy, we can examine the accounts and assist at the audit of the magistrates. The methods which produced the building of the Greek temples and the Roman aqueducts are disclosed to us, and we can trace from the earliest times the growth of the artistic spirit which produced the finest types of coins and the most perfect vases. But if we are thus let into the secrets of ancient life and penetrate behind the scenes, it will not become less but more valuable. We learn more and more clearly that the great secret of Greek superiority was a marvellous power of refined perception joined to great vigour and perseverance in execution. The Parthenon does not become less valuable to us when we know all the labour spent on its erection, nor the power of Rome less marvellous when we disinter by the banks of the Danube and the Dee the evidence of the care and labour by which it was maintained.

The second great advance is the comparison of Greece and Rome with other nations; it discloses to us the solidarity of the ancient civilization of which each was only a part. It is in the history of religion that this is most apparent, and also their difference from us ; this only comes partially into this work, though it occupies some articles, e.g. that on the Thesmophoria, and of course the ceremonial and establishment of religion is fully dealt with. In this case, it is perhaps an advantage that the new edition has not been published sooner. The history of religions is fruitful in such speculations. Twenty years ago solar myths were the received explanations for all difficulties; all strange customs and marvellous stories were looked on as coming from a higher and purer state. Now we are taught to see in ritual and mythology relics of a barbarous state, and to find their analogies, not in the speculations of poets and philosophers, but in the obscene habits and childish stories of Bushmen and Patagonians. This belongs, as a rule, more to the department of mythology than antiquities. In this book we find, however, the account of a certain number of rites belong

a ing to the more celebrated temples, and a long article also on "Oracles.' We do not, however, quite gather on what principle the line has been drawn.

We have, of course, only been able to touch on the parts of greatest importance. Those who consult this work for themselves will find in it plenty of information on points of all kinds; how the Romans played backgammon, and the Greeks played at Cottabos, and how the Greeks put their prisoners to death, the equipment of a trireme and a lady's necklace, music and astronomy, mathematics and anatomyall will be found here. There are few points in which it will not be found that the last forty years have added much to our knowledge. We hope we have shown that at lcast in some departments the new knowledge is both important and of such a kind as to add to the influence of classical studies. We welcome this book as a means of putting this within the reach of a large public, to whom they have the greatest interest. When the study of classics is assailed, and when we are so continually told that their time is past, the best answer is to show that the value and teaching of Hellenism is increasing and not decreasing. Old truths have to be re-stated to each age in a new way. It is no unimportant matter that the researches of scholars should be made available to the larger reading public.



1. The Archbishop's Letter to the Patriarch of Antioch. The

Guardian, October 7, 1891. 2. The Lambeth ' Advice. The Guardian, September 9, 1891. 3. The Church Missionary Intelligencer, October, 1891.

An institution cradled in controversy may sometimes pass, in the course of years, into a peaceable and quiescent maturity. More commonly its future history is coloured by the passions of its origin. They have stamped a character upon it which cannot be effaced. The particular disputes that waited on its birth may be forgotten, but others gather round it, and the new controversy insensibly takes its colour from the old.

Such has been the history of the Jerusalem Bishopric,' and such it seems likely to remain. The original vice of its foundation—that which had so disastrous an effect on Mr. Newman-is a thing of the past. It no longer brings us into relations with the Evangelical' Establishment of Prussia. When this connexion was broken by the death of Bishop Gobat, when, a few years later, the Prussian Government renounced all further interest in the bishopric, when the ques. tion of its continuance thus came to be considered, there was a new objection to be overcome. Our relations with the Orthodox Church were now in controversy.

It is needless to recall the circumstances of the controversy. They are fresh in the memory of all who take any interest in the matter. For our present purpose we are concerned with only two of the reasons urged against the bishopric, and with one of these but slightly.

It was not the work of the English Church to evangelize the unbelieving population of Palestine. It was the Patriarch of Jerusalem and his clergy who were called and sent for that work. If individual Englishmen had a vocation to help in the work they should put themselves under the direction of the Orthodox Eastern Church, from which alone they could receive due mission. There was, therefore, no room for an Anglican bishop to superintend such work.

But again, the English clergymen already established in Palestine under pretext of such mission work were charged with actual aggression on the Orthodox Church. They were proselytizing from her. The bishops, moreover, who had presided over them were subject to the same charge. The bishopric was fully associated with schismatical action. This was ingrained in its traditions. It was not merely needless and irregular, it was positively mischievous.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1887 announced his intention of consecrating a successor to Bishop Barclay, there was in some quarters an inclination to close the chapter of criticism. The clergyman appointed was understood to have no sympathy with the policy of his predecessors. He would put a stop to all proselytizing. He would live in amity with the Oriental hierarchy. A hope was freely expressed that the bishopric, the source of so much inischief in the past, might in the future become an instrument of good, might make for reunion with the ancient Churches of the East.

We did not share this hope. History is not so easily obliterated. A false step in one direction does not become, by the expression of a pious wish, an advance in the opposite direction. Yet there were some slight grounds for such a hope. There was at least a new departure taken in the history of the bishopric. It was stated that the Archbishop of Canterbury was acting with the full concurrence of the Eastern Patriarchs. The revival of the bishopric was said to have been even asked for by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. It was understood that Bishop Blyth was the bearer of letters commendatory to the heads of the Orthodox Church, which placed his mission on a satisfactory footing, clear of any taint of schism.

It would have been well if these letters had been published. They might not have reconciled us to the continuance of the bishopric, but they would have made us acquainted with the terms under which it was revived. We should have known with what intention Bishop Blyth was consecrated, and what powers

and functions he was intended to exercise and to perform. From what we now know of these letters, we cannot but infer that had they been published the controversies of the last four years would have taken a different turn, that Bishop Blyth himself would have acted in a somewhat different way, while the English clergymen in Palestine, whose conduct has been impugned, even if they had not modified their conduct, would probably have defended it by different pleas.

As a consequence of the disputes of the last year one of these letters has been published: It is the letter addressed to the Patriarch of Antioch, on the Feast of the Annunciation, 1887; an official copy was obtained from the Patriarchate, certified by the keeper of the Archives and by the British consul at Beyrut. It is a document that merits attention ; indeed without it we cannot properly understand the situation in which affairs now stand. We must turn to this letter if we would know how and for what purpose Bishop Blyth was sent into the East; we must have it before us when we try to judge how far that purpose is likely to be realized ; and for what concerns our present purpose, we must have it in view when we try to estimate the value of later utterances of its writer. Two features of the letter are specially noteworthy.

I. The Archbishop addresses the Patriarch in terms which imply an absolute solidarity between their respective Churches. It is a ‘brotherly greeting.' It recites the 'assent and consent' of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who is 'our brother in the rule of the Church of God. The two Churches are spoken of, indirectly but not obscurely, as one Flock. No stranger to ecclesiastical history reading this letter would suppose that anything more than a slight breach of charity had ever marred the union of these two parts of Christendom.

II. The duties of the Bishop, again, are defined in this letter in a notable way. Not a word is said about that mission work among Jews and Mohammedans, of which so much had been made in previous discussions. The Bishop is sent simply 'to have the charge and oversight of the English clergy and congregations' scattered throughout the East. He is the representative within the Patriarchate of Jerusalem of ourselves and of our Church, but he is not to use any style or title of Bishop of Jerusalem, or any insignia indicating territorial jurisdiction or authority in the East.' Furthermore,

his desire and study' will be in the first place, to give loving tokens, by his conduct and conversation, of that fraternal desire for union between the Orthodox Church of the East and the Church of England, which many faithful members in both Churches ... have often spoken of with yearning hearts. In the second place, he is to render help and support against encroaching Churches and aggressive organizations,' and he ‘will steadily reprove and discountenance all attempts at proselytism from the Orthodox Church of the East.'

1 In the Guardian of October 7.

« PreviousContinue »