ELS I

SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 1884.
No. 623, New Series.

THE EDITOR cannot undertake to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscript.

It is particularly requested that all business letters regarding the supply of the paper, &c., may be addressed to the PUBLISHER, and not to the EDITOR.

LITERATURE.

The Story of the University of Edinburgh during its first Three Hundred Years. By Sir Alexander Grant. In 2 vols. mans.) SD IN anticipation of the tercentenary celebration of the university of Edinburgh, Sir Alexander Grant has compiled these two handsome volumes, which, with their large type and thick paper, are as much a contrast to the thin little octavo volume wherein Thomas Craufurd, "regent of philosophy and professor of mathematics," writing in 1646, sought to embody the main facts relating to the same subject, as are the present buildings of the University to the humble structure in which Robert Rollock and Duncan Narne commenced the instruction of their classes in

1582.

The real founder of the University of Edinburgh was James Lawson, the intimate friend of James Melville and Walter Balcanqual, and himself sufficiently notable as the successor of John Knox in the Reformed Church in Edinburgh. It was in the year 1578 that Lawson in a manner extorted from the Town Council the measure which is generally considered to mark the origin of the university, and his success was largely aided by that strong current of reactionary feeling against the Scottish bishops which in the same year deprived them of their titles. The University of St. Andrews, founded in 1411 by Bishop Wardlaw-that of Glasgow, founded in 1450 by Bishop Turnbull that of Aberdeen, founded in 1494 by Bishop Elphinstone, are all memorials of episcopal influence exerted for wise and salutary ends. The proposed foundation at Edinburgh, on the other hand,

"not to found a university, but to put the Town Council of Edinburgh in the same position as the Municipal Council of Geneva, and enable them, with the advice of the ministers,' to found a college just as the Municipal Council of Geneva, with the advice of the Venerable Company of Pastors,' had established their academy” (p. 127).

There is, however, another hypothesis put forward by our author which would serve to divest this assumption of a degree-bestowing power of the appearance it otherwise wears of something like a usurpation; and he devotes some fourteen pages to setting forth certain considerations which would lead us to conclude that the charter given by King James, April 14, 1582, was not the original charter, but one simply supplementary in character, and that there was an earlier document, afterwards lost, which invested Edinburgh with all the customary privileges and functions of a regularly constituted university. The adoption of such a hypothesis, to which sundry items of evidence would certainly seem to point, is, however, rendered difficult by the fact that the charter of 1582 makes no reference whatever to any earlier document. The arguments with which Sir Alexander endeavours to meet this difficulty will probably not appear to all readers to be of the same value.

It is more important to note that, although conceived in a spirit of defiance of Edinburgh, like Dublin, started untrammelled episcopalianism; and the three bishops who by those mediaeval theories of learning which then represented the chancellors of the older still continued to cling round the older Prouniversities did their best, to quote the ex-testant universities, it was fain to fall back, pression of Craufurd, "to let the enterprise." in practice, upon traditions which it at first It is evident, again, that King James VI., who had studied at St. Andrews, although he professed his intention of being "a godfather" to the new foundation, regarded it with but little sympathy. "He was not ikely," says Sir Alexander, "to be zealous bout the aggrandisement of a college the oundation of which had been so greatly due the ministers of Edinburgh, and in the overnment of which they were associated" . 175). It will be noticed that Sir Alexder speaks of the society at this period as a college;" and in this expression he designs imply another distinctive feature in the rlier history of Edinburgh-viz., that it as not from the first a university, a studium erale, but simply a college-like Owens llege, for example, before it expanded into

Victoria University-and that its real

refused to adopt. Disputation, especially theological disputation, absorbed its best energies; and Henderson, its master spirit, died in 1646, worn out by incessant and interminable controversies respecting doctrine, just as, half a century before, Whitaker had prematurely closed his career at Cambridge, a martyr to the same all-absorbing, baneful influence. It at one time embraced, as did Cambridge, the new logic of Ramus, which, however inadequate as a system, had at least the merit of undermining the slavish subjection to Aristotle; but in a few years this attitude of mental independence was abandoned, and the seventeenth century-" the period of deepest depression for literature and science in Scotland"-witnessed a complete relapse into all that was perfunctory and meagre in treatment and unprogressive in con

ception. At the same time the influence of the ministers of the churches in Edinburgh was paramount in its university, and at times almost despotic. On a certain occasion one of their number gave expression to his contempt for metaphysical studies by publicly speaking of philosophy as "the dishclout of divinity;" and when a painstaking, conscientious regent, whose services as a teacher extended over a period of four-and-twenty years, ventured to call this language in question, his opposition cost him his office, and he was compelled to retire, with the inadequate compensation for his dismissal of a thousand pounds Scots.

In the second volume Sir Alexander traces the development of the four faculties from 1708 down to 1858. He gives us the somewhat unedifying narrative of the continual bickerings between the Senatus Academicus

and the Town Council, which culminated in a thirty years' war" between the two bodies; and he follows the history of the Universities Act and its operation down to the present time, concluding with "the enfranchisement of the university. Of the advantages resulting from this last measure he speaks in terms which contrast somewhat forcibly with the language that has of late been heard in the two older universities south of the Tweed. "The University of Edinburgh," he says, "has found it a great advantage to have a representative in the House of Commons cognizant of its circumstances and watchful over its many important interests." We may feel well assured that Oxford and Cambridge will not hastily resign the privilege which they strove so long and earnestly to obtain.

Sir Alexander's labours have resulted in the bringing together of a large and valuable collection of facts which he has embodied in a narrative of considerable interest. The pressure under which his volumes have been produced is indicated, however, by the relegation of a great mass of material to a series of Appendices, much of which would, if interwoven with the main story, have added in no slight degree to its elucidation and significance. Haste is recognisable, again, in certain misconceptions that appear in the introductory pages, where he seeks to deal with the general antiquities of his subject and with mediaeval times. He finds fault, for example, with those who, relying on the bull of Nicholas V. in 1450, have asserted that the University of Glasgow was created after the model of the University of Bologna; and he does so on the ground that, if it had been intended that the newly founded university should have been a copy of that of Bologna, "there would have been special encouragements, either in its charter or its institutions, for the study of law" (p. 20). He then proceeds to speak of Bologna as though it had never been much more than a school of law, although the other three faculties of theology, arts, and medicine were all successively developed in connexion with the university. Citing Cosmo Innes, he puts forward the notion that the real model for Glasgow was Louvain, "then and for all the following century the model university of Northern Europe." As Louvain was founded in 1426, it would have been somewhat surprising if in less than a quarter of a century it had become a model alike to earlier and subsequent foundations. But such a descrip

tion is really applicable only to the University of Paris, the Sinai of the Middle Ages,' to which, however, Sir Alexander scarcely once refers in his outline. The question of course arises, How did it happen that Nicholas V. named Bologna, and not Paris, as the model for Glasgow? Most students of mediaeval French history will be able readily to solve the difficulty. The University of Paris was distinguished by its Gallican (as opposed to Ultramontane) sympathies, and it warmly supported the Pragmatic Sanction; and Nicholas V. and his predecessor had already evinced their dislike of these tendencies by supporting the project of founding a new university at Caen-a project which Paris denounced as a blow aimed at her own influence. In short, the speculative theology and philosophical spirit of Paris had become odious to Rome; and so, when, at the prayer of Bishop Turnbull, the University of Glasgow was founded, Nicholas decreed that Bologna and not Paris should be the model. Now the distinctive constitutional characteristics of Bologna as compared with Paris were, as every student of Savigny is aware, that while in Bologna the students elected the academical officers, whom even the professors were bound to obey, in Paris it was the regents or teachers who constituted the corporation (to the exclusion of the students) and exercised the electoral functions. And when Glasgow was founded on the model of the former university, her matriculated students were, as at Bologna, invested with the supreme electoral power.

Sir Alexander adverts with complacency to the fact that a Scotchman taught at Louvain. At a time when so many distinguished members of the two great English universities are about to cross the Tweed to receive honours at Edinburgh, it would have been a not inappropriate reminiscence if he had recalled to memory how Andrew Melville once sought, though ineffectually, to prevail upon two of the most distinguished Cambridge teachers of that day, Cartwright and Walter Travers, to become instructors of the classes at St. Andrews. The letter, written in the very year when the Town Council of Edinburgh made its first grant to the new "college," is still extant, and may serve to remind us of the advance which academie learning in Scotland has since made, as we see the best scholarship of both Oxford and Cambridge not only adorning her chairs, but receiving recognition at her hands.

J. BASS MULLINGER.

Occasional Papers and Addresses. By Lord O'Hagan. (Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co.) THIS Volume possesses sterling merit, yet we notice it less for its own sake than for that of its distinguished author. Lord O'Hagan belongs to a class of Irishmen who have attained great and peculiar eminence in their own country during the last half-century, and have left a mark on the annals of Ireland not to be soon effaced by time and its changes. These men adhered to a proscribed creed, and were all born in a state of society in which the Irish Catholic found himself at a disadvantage, in every respect, with the Protestant reared in the lap of Ascendency. Yet these men rose to high power in the State, having conquered difficulties of every

kind; and, while they remained Irishmen in of the co-operation of States and Governments the best sense of the word, true to their in furthering this desirable harmony. To the ancient faith and their country's interests, lawyer and the student of law who hopes to they did not hesitate to ally themselves with rise above mere routine, we commend the study the party of progress in the Commonwealth, of the five lectures on Jurisprudence in its nor did they conceive that Irish patriotism wider aspects; it shows very well how the consists in ferocious abuse of England and scientific knowledge of the best and most in paralysing and thwarting the Imperial rational system of law is even now of the Government. Wyn, Shiel, Woulfe, O'Loghlen, highest value in various departments of legal Pigot, Ball, Monahan, Fitzgerald, rise to practice, and is rapidly growing in use and our minds as we survey this noble procession importance. The sketches, too, of the points of worthies; and Lord O'Hagan-almost the of difference between some of the laws of last survivor of the illustrious concourse-is England and Ireland are very able and well entitled to hold a high place among them. finished, if of hardly more than professional We shall not deny the undoubted traits of the interest; and the same may be said of one or men who of late have become conspicuous in two papers on economic and statistical subthe troubled arena of Irish politics; but will jects. Lord O'Hagan, moreover, deserves the Parnells, the Davitts, the Healys, the great praise for his method of handling Irish Sextons, ever achieve the pure and unsullied history-the theme, incidentally, of some of fame of this generation of great Irish these pieces. His views are always liberal Catholics? will they even approach them, in and just, if not specially profound and searchthe sight of history, for the good they shall ing; and they are animated by the best spirit. have done to their common country? His portraits, for instance, of Moore and These addresses and essays are fugitive O'Connell, as we have said, might have been pieces, composed, for the most part, amid more life-like; but no one, perhaps, has the toils and anxieties of professional life; shown so clearly how valuable was the worth and they surely afford a true measure of Lord of both, not only in raising Catholic Ireland, O'Hagan's intellectual height. Like the but in breaking down the barriers of caste works, too, of many able men who have which were the blight and curse of the domi become eminent in a public cause, they deal nant Protestants. All this is admirably with the province of speculation, when they thought out and written; and even in the enter it, on the practical side; and occasion- domain of pure criticism the many-sided ally, therefore, they are somewhat wanting in author has been successful. For example, we comprehensiveness, depth, and completeness. know of no better sketch of the characteristics Lord O'Hagan, for instance, is not a Savigny of English poetry in the seventeenth and when he surveys the domain of Roman Law; eighteenth centuries, and of the external and, in treating of the ancient laws of causes to which they were due, than is to be Ireland-a heritage, so to speak, of his family, found in the striking essay on the genius of once the judges of the O'Neill princes-he Coleridge. shows few traces of the profound knowledge and of the extraordinary constructive skill of Sir Henry Maine in his well-known lectures on those most interesting archaic usages. As a biographer, too, he does not possess, in a high degree, the artistic faculty; his sketches, for example, of O'Connell and Moore (men known to him during many years), though of real merit, in some respects scarcely present to us the living images of the great Irish Tribune and of the versatile poet who wrote the "Melodies" and the "Fudge Family." It must be admitted, besides, that, in dealing, as he repeatedly does, with the Irish Question, Lord O'Hagan has shown that in some particulars he has not thoroughly grasped his great subject; he has not fathomed Ireland in the inmost depths of her national passions, wants, and tendencies; and his views are, we believe, too sanguine, and are coloured with the unconscious optimism of one who, in spite of many obstacles, has risen to a high place in the State. Notwithstanding drawbacks like these, if we consider these papers in their true aspect-as the holiday work, to use the phrase, of a very able and accomplished man, who has generally aimed at treating practically, and in an easy and popular way, a variety of important subjects they rank high in this class of performances. The address, for instance, on International Law deserves the attention of thoughtful men as indicating, with much clearness and force, the agencies which in modern times are tending to bring the civilised world into accord in this great province of thought; and it contains valuable and frequent remarks on the expediency

The best feature, however, of this book is that it expresses clearly, although unconsciously, what is most distinctive in the author's character. Those who know Lord O'Hagan will bear witness how noble and kindly his nature is, how gracious and genial are his courtesics, how his disposition is lofty yet urbane; and we trace these qualities throughout this volume. The fine and loveable spirit of the man is especially seen in what he has written on Ireland in the past and the present, and this is honourable to him in the highest degree. An Irish Catholic, who, in early birth, was subject to legal and social wrongs, and was not free to fight the battle of life on equal terms with his Protestant fellows, might well indulge in bitter invectives against the system that kept him down, and, having achieved distinction, might view with dislike those of the once favoured creed who had been distanced by him. Yet Lord O'Hagan only refers to the Catholic disabilities as evil things, pernicious alike to all Irishmen, and to be forgotten as bad memories; and in his large sympathy for all ranks of his countrymen-which is very uncommon in an Irish writer-he has no regard for religious distinctions. A manifest purpose pervades his book whenever he touches Irish questions that of smoothing away the differences of the past, of reconciling sectarian feuds, of bringing together and uniting Irishmen; and this rare excellence more than makes up for deficiencies already noticed, and gives his book the stamp of sincere patriotism. A high-souled and philanthropic nature is also seen in his admirable

Dartmouth-a journey which was absolutely uneventful.

Mr. Little does not flatter the colonists, least of all the Natalians, to whom he administers some home-thrusts which are likely to penetrate rather deeply. The prevailing vice of intemperance is not confined to any particular class, and is the great stumblingblock in the working-man's way. The restrictions on drink are fewer, and the temptations greater, than in England; no wonder, then, that, with higher wages, drinking in these colonies is carried on to a far greater excess than at home. Many men employed on the railways save considerable sums of money, and come into Cape Town to spend their earnings on a week's dissipation;

"the same thing may be said of the successful diamond-diggers, many of whom come to Cape Town with the fruits of their labours, intending to proceed to England, but with the assistance

of a coterie of boon companions they soon empty their hoard into the pockets of the hotel and canteen keepers. One of the worst phases of this evil, moreover, is that drinking commences so early in the morning. Not a few ardent votaries of the cup begin spirit-imbibing before they are fairly out of bed, and a very much larger number take to it immediately after breakfast. A man can scarcely meet an acquaintance, as he sallies forth in the forenoon, without receiving an invitation to 'come and have a drink.'"

The financial condition of Natal is a serious one; almost every sugar estate in the colony is mortgaged, and a vast majority of business and private houses also.

"The land which might, and does, flow with milk and honey is yet powerless to support the very sparse European population on it. . . . A truly remarkable state of things obtains in this country. Despite its countless dairy farms, it is as yet under the necessity of importing the greater portion of the milk in ordinary use from Norway and Switzerland, in the form of the

familiar tins of condensed abomination. The

colonists rely upon Europe in a large measure for their cheese supply also."

Butter and eggs are dearer in Natal-a country specially adapted for their production-than in London. This shows a singular want of enterprise. The whites, according to our author, take advantage of every loop-hole to escape labour. The Kaffirs have little inducement to work; hence the necessity for the importation of coolies. Mr. Little is sufficiently alive to the danger to Natal from the enormous preponderance of blacks, and writes very sensibly on this subject. It must always be borne in mind that the Natal blacks are not natives, but refugees from Zululand; that we have not dispossessed them of their country, but they have come into ours to escape the military service and oppressions of their own chiefs. Mr. Little is a strong advocate for confederation, and is unsparing in his denunciations of English policy-if it can in any sense be called a policy-in South Africa. The political outlook, he thinks, could scarcely be darker. We fear it requires a very sanguine disposition to differ from him. It is a pity that he is not more careful in revising what he has written; if he was, we should not be told that the battle of Worcester was fought in the month of May; and where can he have discovered that loaf-sugar costs 2s. 6d. a-pound in Natal?

WILLIAM WICKHAM.

By John Williams

ment criticism, the majority of critics would say that it is precisely the opposite of this, and that of the spuriousness of those verses there can be no reasonable doubt. Again and again Dean Burgon affirms that the Vatican is the most depraved of all MSS. Of course, it is either the most depraved, or it is the purest; but which it is is not to be settled by clamour and invective, but by sober reasoning; yet it is not till towards the close of his book that the author seems to waken to the propriety of presenting the case

The Revision Revised. Burgon. (John Murray.) WHEN (now a good many years ago) it became certain that there was really to be a Revised Version of the New Testament, and when a company of learned men was actually appointed to execute the task, there was a very widespread feeling that, unless the text was dealt with as well as the translation, the work would be only half done. There was little doubt that the Revisers would omit from the text, though it was feared that they might retain in the margin, such a notorious corrup-in tion as 1 John v. 7; but how would they deal with the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark? Would they bracket or omit or transfer to a note the passage De adultera in John? Would they have the courage to give the true reading assuming that to be who" instead of "God"-in 1 Tim. iii. 16?

version made its appearance, it was found When, on May 17, 1881, the new that the Revisers had been bold beyond all expectation. It was felt that they had given us a text which, though not, of course, above criticism or question, might be relied on for its fearless honesty, and in which the most advanced critical scholarship of the day was fairly represented; and it is probable that many were willing to condone the numerous faults, as they might deem them, of the translation, for the sake of the greatly improved

text.

The work was, on the whole, very favourably received by the Press, and by scholars of various shades of opinion, if not as a perfectly satisfactory version, yet as one well deserving to be placed by the side of the Authorised translation, and used as a help towards a better understanding of the New Testament. The new version, however, had not been long before the public (not more than three months) when there appeared in the Quarterly Review a tremendous attack upon it from the pen, as quickly became known, of Dean Burgon. This first attack, which was directed entirely against "the new Greek text," was followed by another, in the January number of the Quarterly, in which the translation was mercilessly handled; and this, again, by a third article, in which the Dean made it his business to expose I use his own words "the absolute absurdity of Westcott and Hort's new textual theory." It is these three articles which are now reprinted under the title of The Revision Revised; and to them is added a reply to Bishop Ellicott's pamphlet in defence of the Revisers and their text. Vigorous, learned, full of audacities and self-assertiveness, these pages will prove, to those who take an interest in their subject, delightful and often entertaining reading; and assuredly they must not be neglected by anyone who wishes to arrive at an independent judgment on the matters under dispute.

this alternative form. Then, at last, he does say, and says quite truly, "Codd. B and are either among the purest of manuscripts, or else they are among the very foulest." Again and again Dean Burgon impresses upon us that he takes the Textus Receptus merely as a standard of reference, not of excellence, which, of course, is perexpected from a fectly intelligible and quite what might be man of his consummate

scholarship; but the suspicion that he was inclined to suffer no appeal from it was not unnatural, and there is everywhere apparent a bias in its favour, or, at any rate, against that shorter and less elaborate text which it is supposed to have superseded. After all, however, the great question is, What is the true position of B and N, and especially of B Is B (the Vatican MS.), as it is the oldest, also the purest and best of our authorities, as Drs. Westcott and Hort believe they have demonstrated, or is it, as the reactionaries maintain, the most corrupt and untrustworthy? Dean Burgon speaks repeatedly of the omissions of B, thus at once prejudicing the case. But are they omissions, or is it that in later copies additions have been made for which there was no warrant in the original? We will bring the matter to the test; and, writing as one of the unlearned or half-learned-for in respect of documentary or patristic learning I have, of course, no pretension to compare with either Dean Burgon on the one side or Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other-I will take an example which will be easily understood of all men. It is well known that the two great uncials, the Sinaitic and Vatican, both present the Lord's Prayer in an abbre viated form in Luke's Gospel. Both omit one whole clause, "but deliver us from evil." The Vatican further omits "Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth." Both begin "Father, hallowed be Thy name," leaving out "Oar) and "which art in heaven." Now, which is easier to suppose, that a scribe having the Lord's Prayer in full before him should omit such important words and clauses, as must be the case if this is an example of the depravity of the Vatican, or that later scribes added to the text such words as were required to bring Luke into harmony with Matthew? entirely a question of probability, and Dean Burgon flouts at transcriptional probability; but this is such a plain case that I fancy the general verdict must be that the Vatican has here preserved the true text. But has Dean Burgon no way of accounting for these omissions? Yes; he would apparently have it believed that the Vatican Luke is little more than Marcion's mutilated recension of that gospel-a suggestion which seems to be alto

It is

There is, at any rate, one person to whom this work seems to give supreme satisfaction, and that is the author of it; for has he not "demonstrated the worthlessness" of the new Greek text, and shown the new translation to be a mass of error and bad taste from beginning to end? Again and again we are assured by Dean Burgon that he has "demonstrated "the last twelve verses of Mark together preposterous. be genuine. Now, if there is anything more plausible to say that the scribe, being in capable of being demonstrated in New Testa- haste, did not think it necessary to write in

It would have been

full so well known a passage; but then surely he would have written "Our Father, &c.,' ," and not omitted a clause here and a clause there. On p. 50 of his work, moreover, I find Dean Burgon making an admission, or perhaps he would call it simply a statement, which I must venture to think is fatal to his whole case. Referring to the ancient scribes and critics, he says, "That it was held allowable to assimilate one gospel to another is quite certain." Precisely so. That is exactly what is maintained by Drs. Westcott and Hort and the critics of the school in which they have taken a foremost place. And yet, with this knowledge in his mind, Dean Burgon can treat with contempt the remarkable reading in which both B and agree in Matt. xix. 18-"Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Now, while it is impossible to imagine what motive there could be for such a corruption as this, if, on the other hand, it be assumed to be the true reading, there could be no better example of assimilation than that furnished by the later

text.

to some at least of his readers, to apply most admirably to himself. In his reply to Bishop Ellicott, Dean Burgon labours hard to defend that notorious, and now generally acknowledged, corruption of Scripture-eòs épavepúon—in 1 Tim. iii. 16; but his learned and plausible arguments will convince none but those who are determined to read eos at any rate. If some shadow of doubt still hangs over the reading of the Alexandrian MS., it is not possible that it can now ever be dispelled; and Dean Burgon, by producing instances of O actually standing for in the uncials, has certainly weakened the force of the transcriptional probability in favour of OZ, but that is perhaps as much as can be conceded. For my own part, so difficult is it to make either grammar of os or sense of o, that I confess I should, on those grounds, greatly prefer Ocós, though that, too, is not without difficulty; but the external evidence meaning by that the evidence of the most ancient authorities-is decidedly against it. Had the original reading been cós, it is simply impossible to account for the all but But it is perhaps rather superfluous, if not unanimity of the Versions in reading either indeed a little presumptuous, for me too or os; as to the Fathers, and especially Cyril attempt to enter into controversy with Dean Burgon, especially in such a short article as this must be. Drs. Westcott and Hort will doubtless feel that a strong attack has been made upon their position-stronger, it may be, in words than in argument-but they will be well able themselves to defend it. In the foregoing remarks I trust I have done no injustice to the Quarterly Reviewer. It is impossible not to admire his learning, his industry, his courage, and even his zeal, although it may sometimes be a little wanting in charity. In much of his criticism of the Revised Version, I must confess myself very much at one with him. But if he supposes that he can turn back the course of critical enquiry, and re-establish the hitherto received text-or something much more like it than that of Drs. Westcott and Hort-in face of the conclusions of the most advanced scholarship, he will undoubtedly find that he has undertaken a hopeless task.

At the same time, it would be a pity, and probably a great mistake, if it were assumed that the Cambridge Professors had finally settled the text of the New Testament for all coming time. It is much more likely that their text will require to be re-corrected in many places, and a return made to readings hitherto generally accepted. Much, however, will no doubt depend on the final settlement of the question of the relation of B to . The evidence of their independence is perhaps hardly so decisive as might be desired, but Dean Burgon may be assured that he will produce little effect by simply reiterating, with whatever increased emphasis, that they are the most corrupt MSS. in existence, and alleging in proof of it their agreement in the very readings which are the principal matters in dispute. "When I am taking a ride with Rouser' (quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe), I observe that if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words-only in a louder tone of voice." The excellent Dean must not be astonished if this anecdote, told by him as applicable to Profs. Westcott and Hort, seems,

of Alexandria, notwithstanding that Dean Burgon claims him as a witness on his own side, the arguments of Sir Isaac Newton, in his well-known Historical Account, seem pretty conclusive.

I will make only one other remark. There is a large and increasing number of persons, of whom I must count myself one, who have come to think it a matter of no importance (except, of course, in the sense in which every question of nice criticism is important) whether the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 be cós or os, but who think it immensely important that such questions should be rated at no more than their true value. Dean Burgon rates them far too high. He writes throughout in the spirit of a partisan, and therefore he can hardly be accepted as a very safe guide.

ROBERT B. DRUMMOND.

are unable to win the game within the necessary number of fifty moves allowed by the rules, when they are left with the knight and bishop against the solitary king, when, with absolutely correct play, the mate can be effected from any position within twenty. The end games with pawns alone on each side are also a terrible stumbling-block to the knight player. After having judiciously worn out his antagonist by a system of exchanges, and correctly given up his knight for his opponent's last pawn, he will constantly throw away the fruit of his victory by losing the opposition at the last moment, and so turn a won game into a draw.

The game of chess can be divided into three parts-the opening, in which the player is entirely dependent upon book-knowledge, and where, if he accepts attacking openings without knowing the details of the proper defence as laid down by the leading authorities, he is pretty certain to find himself, against an experienced antagonist, with a game absolutely lost by its nature; the middle game, in which, if the inexperienced player has got through his opening without ruinous loss of position, he may fairly hope by his unaided powers to hold his own against the most learned antagonist, for here, and here alone, mere book-knowledge is of no avail; and, finally, the end game, in which, as I have said above, the inexperienced amateur is generally doomed to his most bitter disappointments, and where again acquired knowledge is as necessary as in the openings of the game.

Mr. Horwitz has long been known as the most able exponent of this branch of chess. It is now more than thirty years since he published, in conjunction with the problem composer, Kling, his Chess Studies-the most beautiful collection of end games that has ever appeared; and during that period he has devoted himself to a continued research on the same ground, the result of which is now brought before the public in the book under notice, which contains about four pieces that can constitute an end game. These hundred studies on every combination of have been divided by Mr. Horwitz into what he is pleased to call elementary and advanced chess-endings; but the classification is purely arbitrary, and, so far as I have been able to judge from a cursory examination, the socalled elementary endings are quite as difficult and quite as beautiful as the advanced ones. The latter will be old friends to the readers of the Chess Monthly, in which they have regularly appeared since the publication of its first number, and in this way have enjoyed the advantage of careful examination by Dr. Zukertort-alone sufficient to ensure their accuracy both in chess analysis and, what is of almost equal importance to the student, in freedom from errors of the press, which so often mar the usefulness of chess publications.

In addition to the two hundred positions which have stood the test of publicity, the student will find in the book as many more, all of interest, many of them of extraordinary complexity, all original, and of a character, like the others, specially suited to improve the student's powers in practical play. It is this quality which in reality distinguishes the end game from the problem, which, how