The tutor (also a master), under whom each boy is necessarily placed, supplies to some extent the personal tie which should exist between master and pupil, if the boy is to be really influenced for good by the master, as well as corrects the deficient intellectual training which overgrown classes must produce. To the non-public school mind, however, this seems but a clumsy mode of introducing the element of individual care and individual training into a school. We are not at all surprised that Mr. Thring should have at once felt this deficiency in the old public school idea, and, having felt it, that he should have resolved on providing an antidote. We think, however, that he has carried this into the opposite extreme. We go with him entirely when he speaks of the necessity of restricting the numbers in each class to the capacity of one man to teach them adequately; we recognise that in the over-grown class— "The lecturer must insist on a certain quantum of visible work being produced by all, and take no excuse if it is not forthcoming. For he has no time to judge whether everybody can or cannot do this quantity always. Everything would go to pieces if he began making distinctions between the boys, and he would lay himself open to unlimited imposition." On the other hand, when the master has a form of manageable numbers, "He is able to make himself acquainted with the powers and attainments of every boy under him, and as far as his judgment goes, to apportion fairly their tasks to each, to help them when needful, to deal with them singly, weighing each case; and though his judgment may err in some instances, errors of judgment are very different things from arbitrary routine.”(P. 131.) The same principle, no doubt, is also true in its degree as applied to punishments. In the adjudication of these a wise master will exercise discrimination, forming his judgment according to his individual knowledge of the culprit's character. Though here we at once step on very delicate ground, as no animal is so keenly alive to, and at the same time tolerant of strict impartial justice, even if it amount to severity, as the schoolboy. Nevertheless, this very sense of justice in them recognises the differences in different cases, and endorses a master's distinctions in dealing with them differently, provided they are made with wisdom and sound discrimination, and, above all things, with a corresponding sense of justice on his part. Individualism too may, to a certain extent, be carried safely into the playground. Boys' tastes undoubtedly widely differ, and it is right that in the relaxation hours the boy should be permitted to indulge his taste. Hence we admit that where possible, among the more important buildings of a school, "Provision should be made for a school library, museum, workshop, gymnasium, swimming bath, fives courts, or any other pursuits that conduce to a healthy life. The welfare of the majority greatly depends on something being provided to interest every kind of disposition and taste. Plenty of occupation is the one secret of a good and healthy moral life."-(P. 179.) But along with this freedom of action to each individual to follow his own bent, we unhesitatingly hold the wisdom and justice of compulsory participation on the part of all during a fraction of the leisure time in the recognised games of the community; first, because the community has a right to the services and sympathy of its individual members. That is to say, if cricket, for example, is recognised as the one great game of the school, every boy, in right of his allegiance to the republic to which he belongs, ought, in all fairness, to support and advance this object by his own personal services. But we hold this chiefly in the interests of the individual boys themselves. Few boys like the rudiments of anything, whether it be the Greek alphabet or fielding out at cricket. It is therefore well for them that they should be required by a superior power to apply themselves to these disagreeables. Eventually they reap the fruit of their distasteful labour; in the one case in intellectual culture-in increased manliness in the other. But chiefly it is good for the individual boy, however young, to learn the duty of making his self-good bow to the good of the commonwealth to which he belongs. It is a first lesson in selfdenial; and it is none the worse that this should be exercised on behalf of the community, instead of some other individual like himself: but this self-denial is the foundation of true esprit de corps. This tribute, however, should not encroach unduly upon each boy's fund of leisure, if other pursuits have greater charms for him. He will enter on these pursuits with all the greater zest for having thus paid his due of homage to the interests of the body; provided the homage is not over burdensome, and does not degenerate into bondage. But a schoolboy ought never to forget that he is but a unit of a great whole, that he is a member of a body; and hence it is that we dissent, in toto, from any plan which tends to detach a boy, during the hours he has to himself, from the community and its duties and interests, and to encourage him, however indirectly, to isolation from his fellows. This we believe to be exaggerated individualism, and though it may practically work well for the present, and will undoubtedly find great acceptance with the indulgent tenderness of parents, we believe that it is a cutting off of a valuable, though often unpalatable, ingredient in school education; and we venture to predict that in the long run it will not produce as sterling an article as the harder discipline of training from the earliest years to accommodate oneself to circumstances, however unpromising, and to adapt oneself to the ways of those, however uncongenial, among whom one's lot in life is cast. But while we thus frankly differ from Mr. Thring on one important point of detail, we thank him for his book. We have forborne comment on many of its important features, because to handle the subject at all worthily exceeds the limits of a brief review. We have forborne to follow him through his masterly defence of the classical languages as the basis of school education; or through his manful and fearless grappling with the difficult question of school punishments. Suffice it to say that in most of what he says on either head we heartily concur. Nor have we attempted to criticise the hints he has thrown out elsewhere for the rehabilitation of old foundations, and for breathing into them life and activity. But Mr. Thring not only deserves our thanks for a piece of very pleasant and suggestive reading upon a subject in which all profess interest. He deserves the thanks of all who believe that there is enormous power for education scattered up and down the country, in the shape of the old endowed schools, waiting to be utilized. Mr. Thring has shown in act, as well as in word, how this may be done; if not in all, at least in many of our provincial grammar schools. In the conflicting clamour for public school education and modern education, the poor old grammar schools. and their capabilities for good have been forgotten. It is refreshing to find some one who believes in them still, and who can give a reason of the faith that is in him. Mr. Thring deserves the famous resolution of thanks accorded by the Roman Senate to Terentius Varro after Cannæ, "because he had not despaired of the republic." It is pleasant to see a man derive strength and encouragement in his work from the associations of the past, for they are indeed a mighty engine for good to those who know how to use them. "Not in the least on this account are the old foundations a saving power in the land. They are strong in the fact that their origin dates from the liberality of the dead. Their roots are in the hallowed past; and out of the grave of great and good men-great and good at all events so far as they grudged not money in a good cause-grows the shelter under which the work of education is carried on. Those who believe in education, believe also in this, and feel a deeper, truer sense of life and work from carrying on a good man's purpose; are freer from not being beholden to living taskmasters; are chastened into more patient endurance by the memory of the trust they have received. It gladdens and cheers them that they are links in a chain of life and light, Vitai lampada tradunt,'-and not merely sitting in the temple as money-changers."-(P. 119.) Who knows if, after all, the old grammar schools, reformed and reinspired, are not to be the Deus ex machina of upper middle-class education? Reform they most, if not all, need-perhaps on a very extensive scale. But reform does not necessarily mean revolution ; and there is no reason why at least a large number of them should not be worked on the principles advocated in this book, and have a grand career of usefulness opened out before them. A Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the DEQUATELY and truly to criticise a work like this within the compass usually allowed to criticism in a Review is almost out of the question. We shall not attempt to do more than notice some of its most salient arguments, and the general principles of criticism and interpretation on which it proceeds. Dr. Pusey tells us in his Preface that these Lectures were planned as his "contribution against the tide of scepticism which the publication of the Essays and Reviews' let loose upon the young and instructed." But whilst "others," he says, "who wrote in defence of the faith, engaged in larger subjects, I took for my province one more confined and definite issue. I selected the Book of Daniel, because unbelieving critics considered their attacks upon it to be one of their greatest triumphs." But though he has so far apparently narrowed the range of his argument as to confine it to a single one of the points at issue in that controversy, he has brought to bear upon this point a perfect encyclopædia of learning. He has cast into his volume the labour of a lifetime. It is by far the most complete work which has yet appeared, no Continental writer having handled the subject with anything like the same fulness or breadth of treatment. In England we need scarcely say it is unrivalled. Few men amongst us could have produced such a book. It is a monument of learned industry, which reminds us rather of ancient folios than of modern octavos. But this exhaustive method of treatment, it must be confessed, has its drawbacks. It is exhausting as well as exhaustive. The reader must labour as well as the author, and his patience is severely tried. He is not charmed to forget the ruggedness of the path either by lucidity of arrangement, or by graces of style. The argument is often embarrassed by the accumulation of matter, the style is cramped and heavy, and a large portion of the criticism is uninviting, and, to the majority of readers, even unintelligible. Still, in spite of these drawbacks, the great value of the book cannot be questioned. Whether we agree with Dr. Pusey's conclusions or not, we must be glad to find thus collected for us in one volume all that has been written, all that can by possibility be brought to bear upon the authorship and age of a book, presenting, on any hypothesis as to its origin, so many remarkable features as the Book of Daniel. Every day widens and deepens the interest felt on such subjects amongst educated men. And numbers, we cannot doubt, have already turned eagerly to this volume, attracted to it not only by the name and reputation of the author, but also by the importance of the subject, and the keen desire to ascertain what can really be said as to the date and genuineness of one of the most remarkable books of Scripture. We wish we could speak as favourably of the general tone and temper of Dr. Pusey's volume as we can of its learning and completeness. But unhappily, its greatest defect is the bitterness of its language, the indiscriminate censure with which all are assailed who have ventured to entertain any doubts as to the time when the Book of Daniel was written. The charge of wilful blindness, so repeatedly brought against those whose misfortune it is to be Dr. Pusey's opponents, is rather apt to enlist sympathy on their side than to convince us that their assailant is right. Instinctively we feel that such charges betray a weakness somewhere. Truth, we say to ourselves, is calm, majestic, unruffled, not impatient, because fearless. of consequences. Is it wise, we ask, to be angry with the storm which shakes our dwellings? Is it not better to examine whether the foundation is secure, and the walls so built as to keep out the blast? We lament these defects the more, because we have not forgotten that Dr. Pusey could once write in a very different strain. Thirtyseven years ago there appeared a work from his pen, entitled "An Historical Enquiry into the probable Causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany." Let any one, after reading the "Lectures on Daniel," turn to the earlier work, and he will be painfully struck by the contrast. Dr. Pusey could then speak with candour and generosity of men from whom he differed. He could do homage then to the genius and the piety of Schleiermacher. He could speak of him as "that great man who, |