prizes, we thank you for the gifts you have conferred upon us." "Now," said the prefect, "I come to the bachelors."

At these words there was a movement and excitement in the hall, which showed how deeply the admiration of the competitors had been stirred by the unparalleled beauty of the two sisters. To both Tsin and Te the moment was one of supreme concern. Tsin held his breath and bit his lip, while Te wrung his perfectly dry pockethandkerchief as though it had been used, as well it might have been, to wipe the perspiration from off his streaming forehead.

"With regard to the winner of the first prize," he added, "I have no hesitation in pronouncing my decision. Beyond compare the essays of Tsin, in whom I am glad to recognise the son of an old friend, are infinitely the best. Not only do they display originality of thought and brilliancy of diction, but the depth of the scholarship they manifest is perfectly wonderful. I could not have believed that any scholar could have possessed so minute and accurate a knowledge of the writings of the scholiasts of all ages. I have known men who have been thoroughly acquainted with the critics of the Chow dynasty; others with those of the Han dynasty; others, again, with those of the T'ang dynasty; but never have I met with any who had mastered so thoroughly the writings of all of them. And it becomes almost bewildering when one thinks that his knowledge of the scholia on every other ode in the 'Book of Poetry' is as perfect as his knowledge of the commentaries on this one. For why should I suppose that his attention has been especially attracted to this

ode? Without question, then, I give the palm to Tsin. But with regard to the second prize I confess to have been in some doubt. However, after mature consideration, I have determined to award it to a gentleman of the name of Te." Here Convolvulus, who had been leaning forward to catch every word, threw herself back in her chair with a sigh of relief. "The genius," went on the prefect, "displayed by Tsin is wanting here, and there is a lack of literary ease, and sometimes a confusion of thought which has surprised me; but at the same time I cannot overlook the fact that, like Tsin, Te possesses an extraordinarily accurate knowledge of the ancient commentators. His power of quotation is prodigious, and it would almost seem that he had learnt the commentaries by heart. Proof of such untiring diligence and of such a wonderful memory may not be passed over, and I therefore proclaim Te the winner of the second prize. Tsin and Te, stand forth."

With some trepidation the two young men stepped forward and made a profound bow to the prefect, who rose and went over to the twins.

"Do these young men satisfy your requirements, young ladies?" asked the prefect, smiling on them.

Exceedingly well, your Excellency," said Plum-blossom. Then returning to his seat, the prefect continued

"To you, O most fortunate Tsin, the fates have awarded the incomparable Plum-blossom; while to your lot, Te, falls the equally matchless Convolvulus. Ascend the dais and let me introduce you to your brides."

With alacrity the young men mounted the steps and advanced

towards the alcove. At the moment that they made their bow and swore their fealty, the band, which the prefect had provided for the occasion, struck up the wellknown wedding air, "The Phonixes in concord sing," and the courtyard rang with the shouts of "Good!" "good!" Very good!" "good!" "good!" After a short pause, caused by the difficulty of getting Ma and his wife to their appointed places in the hall, the happy couples made obeisance to heaven and earth, and to their parents; and then, with a deep reverence to the prefect, turned at his invitation towards the private apartments of the yamun, where, as I afterwards learned, he entertained them at a sumptuous feast. At the moment that the bridal procession passed from the hall the prefect turned to the crowd and said—

"I am quite aware that the course I have pursued on this occasion is an unusual one, and that it could only be justified by circumstances such as I was called upon to encounter. The result, however, has surpassed my highest expectations, and to-day we have seen two veritable dragons of learning united to beings of more than earthly beauty. Such a consummation is worthy the labours of the wisest of mankind, and reminds me of those well-known lines of the great poet of the T'ang dynasty

I HAVE endeavoured in a previous article to point out the nature and the causes of the educational deficiencies of those students who come up to the universities too ill prepared to obtain the full benefit of a university course. The facts which have been adduced prove conclusively the following points:

1. That students who have received a regular training in a good secondary school evince an incontestable superiority to other students throughout their university course, so that whereas their numbers, as regards other students, are only as one to three, the distinctions they carry off are in the proportion of three to one; and

2. That the course of higher instruction afforded in ordinary public schools by means of the Specific Subject system, is utterly inadequate as a foundation for a successful university course. Further, this inadequacy does not show itself only or mainly in an insufficient and inaccurate knowledge of the subjects studied at the university, but still more in a want of general knowledge, of disciplined habits of thought and work, and of that sound basis of literary culture without which the mind cannot assimilate the teaching of the university, nor receive its natural and full development.

The consideration of this latter point leads naturally to the question of the teaching of English, and of that set of subjects which may be called the English subjects of instruction-namely, Grammar, Composition, History (whether secular or sacred), Geography, and Literature. These subjects form the indispensable basis for all higher education; and what I

wish especially to insist upon, from my experience in the teaching of classics, is this, that the deficiencies of our students in classics result not only from an imperfect and too short course of instruction in the classical languages themselves, but also from the fact that the English subjects are too often taught in a barren, lifeless way, with a view to accurate mechanical results, but without any attempt to stimulate the intelligence or to feed the natural curiosity of the young mind by supplying it with suggestive information, and leading it on to make for itself the first steps in thought. And thus our students fail not merely or mainly from imperfect knowledge of Latin and Greek as languages, but from a want of knowledge generally, and especially of those general ideas which lie at the root of language, of history, of literature, and to which the knowledge of language is the most appropriate introduction.

And there is another point not less important for the teacher of languages to bear in mind. Whatever may be the language taught to the pupil, the teaching of English should never cease. Whether we teach him Latin or Greek, French or German, one permanent object to be aimed at all through is to enable him to understand English more perfectly, and to use it with greater accuracy and freedom. The knowledge and the use of the new language being learnt must be dovetailed through and through with the knowledge and the use of English; for it is only by battling with the difficulties and the peculiarities of other languages that

we can attain a complete mastery over our own. This point is so important, and its importance is so much overlooked by our teachers of classics in Scotland, so little understood by the public, that it is necessary to insist on it with some detail, and to point out that in regard to this matter of English there is no real contrast, from an educational point of view, between the training to be gained by a study of the classics, and that derived from a study of modern languages.

It is often supposed that a classical education is to be contrasted with a modern or English education; and it is common to hear the merits of an education in English and modern languages contrasted favourably, with a view to utilitarian purposes, with the study of the "dead" languages, Latin and Greek. But there is no term with regard to the ancient tongues which is, in fact, less appropriate, and which will be more strenuously repudiated by all true educationists, than the adjective "dead." If the classical languages are indeed "dead," then the sooner they are buried and put out of the way the better. But it is not so. The classical languages hold their place in education, not because they belong to a bygone age, and are removed from the present purposes of life, but because they have been held to offer the best vehicle for instruction in the principles of language in general, and therefore, of all languages in particular; and because the study of the best classical authors has been held to supply the best foundation for the study of the literature, the history, the philosophy, of all times and of all ages. The principles of language are the same for all tongues; and no man can be considered a cultured being who has not grasp

for

ed those principles in connection with some particular language. The principles of grammar are forms of thought. They are a universal logic, used by all men, applicable to all times, and corresponding to the fundamental and elementary conditions of human thought. A study of language, therefore, has been always held to be the first and most essential study for mankind; and the question we have to consider is not, Shall we make language the foundation of our higher education? but, What language or languages are the best suited for the purpose? It might at first sight be thought that the best vehicle for teaching the principles of language to any man would be his mother tongue, with which he is familiar; but the very fact of its familiarity renders it unsuitable for the purpose, and it is, in fact, more easy a learner to gain a knowledge of language through a language not his own. Our own language is too near to us to be an object of study; to examine it is an act of introspection, and, to a young mind, introspection of all kinds is difficult. Our own language is part of ourselves. We cannot without effort recast, analyse, and classify by logical methods the speech which comes into our mouths by natural and illogical methods, and to whose irregularities and idioms we have been accustomed from the first day that we could speak at all. The young mind will not believe in the existence, or see the meaning, of rules which it does not need in practice; to explain by abstract rules what we know so well in the concrete seems a reversal of the natural order of knowledge, proceeding to the known from the unknown, instead of to the unknown from the known. Again,

of all known languages English is one of the most difficult as a subject for the teaching of grammar. To teach language easily and simply, a teacher requires a normal, typical language; English abounds in the abnormal. He requires a language obedient to general rules; English is notoriously the reverse. He desires a simple language; English is a most complex language. To explain the formation of words, he needs a language with a word - history and a word-formation which can be simply and uniformly traced; English borrows forms and meanings right and left from every tongue. The result is that English grammars are for the most part prodigies of difficulty. They abound in refined distinctions, in subtle abstract explanations conveyed by complicated rules which often have not the merit of being true, and, even when they are true, are difficult to bring home to a boy's mind, because the language, not being inflected, bears no trace of the rule upon its surface. It is difficult to explain in English even the relations of the cases; for when a child is told that the same form Brutus is the accusative in the sentence "Cæsar killed Brutus," but the nominative in "Brutus killed Cæsar," the form of the language gives him no help the idea is purely abstract to him, and therefore hard to grasp.

A few instances will show how baffling English is to the young student of grammar, and how likely he is to be led astray by the fact that differences of meaning are constantly concealed by similarity of form; while, on the other hand, differences of form by no means correspond to differences of idea. It is difficult to explain to a boy that the words him and me are in different cases in such

sentences as "Give him back his book," "Give him back to his mother;" and again, "He sent me down some dinner," "He sent me down to dine." Take, again, the word "to." How hard to explain to a young mind the distinctions in the following: "Go to bed," "I want to sleep,' "I take porridge to my breakfast," "Man must eat to live," ""He laid him down to die." And the word "to" itself is outdone by "that" in a language which permits such a sentence as "C My grammar informs me that that "that' that that grammar of yours explains is wholly unnecessary." The pronouns and conjunctions present an inextricable labyrinth of difficulty. The principles of verb formation and of the consecution of tenses are in English irregular and illogical; and it is impossible to explain the syntax of the language without resorting to refinements of a highly cumbrous and complicated character. Hence ordinary English grammars, even those specially designed for schools, bristle with complicated distinctions and formula which are highly unsuited for the purpose of instructing the young. In one grammar I find that the participial termination ing exercises four different functions in English. Thus the word passing is a verbal noun in the sentence, "He sang of the passing of Arthur." It is a present participle in, " And Arthur, passing thence, rode on to the wood." It is a gerund in the sentence, "This is only good for passing the time;" and, finally, it is an adverb in, "He was passing rich on forty pounds a-year.' Even a gender becomes bewildering in English grammar. What are we to think of a question lately set to Glasgow pupil - teachers, "What is the masculine of