abide at Rome as a subject, or as a sovereign without subjects, or that he should take up his abode elsewhere. That he cannot be a subject, especially of the King of Italy, Dr. Döllinger affirms on behalf of the Church; and the judicious friends of Italy need not wish to saddle the newly-created institutions of a yet halforganised country with a responsibility so serious, and a cause of such incessant dispute with foreign Powers. He might, perhaps, remain nominally sovereign; the Vatican being exempted from Italian jurisdiction, and a sufficient income being provided for him by treaty. It would not seem impossible that such a sovereignty, guaranteed by the Catholic Powers, might satisfy their scruples, and suffice to maintain the dignity and independence of the Holy See. Or if the idea of a sovereign without subjects be too great a novelty or too palpable a sham, might not Europe borrow for once a precedent from Japan, and the Pope become a Christian Mikado? Might not the patrimony of St. Peter remain his, and even the Romagna be restored to him, on condition that he should delegate irrevocably to the King of Italy, as vassal or as viceroy of the Church, the temporal administration and political authority in her dominions? The nominal distinction of Victor Emanuel's titles need not prevent the administrative and political unity of the countries subject to his sceptre; Rome might be, if Italy insist on it, the Italian capital, as the seat of the viceroyalty, and Romans would soon forget the unpleasantness of a nominal allegiance, of which they would never be reminded. We believe that no oath or obligation forbids the Pope to give his assent to a scheme of this kind. He cannot lawfully alienate any part of the Church's patrimony; but we do not learn that any thing prevents him from delegating the temporal charge of that patrimony to a permanent viceroy, as his predecessors sometimes delegated it to a temporary senator or other vicegerent. Nor does it seem impossible that the transfer of authority to the King might be made so absolute as to deprive the Pope of all power to interfere, even if the secular arm should be necessarily stretched out against the offences of spiritual persons and the property of religious corporations; to prevent him, for instance, from effectually opposing the introduction of a law of mortmain-a reform absolutely necessary to the well-being of the people and the material progress of the country-or the gradual suppression of the hordes of idle, and therefore ill-conducted, clergy who infest the land.

The one great obstacle to any compromise of this kind is that it could not be accomplished without the Pope's consent, and that the passive resistance of Pius IX., or of any probable successor, to any such practical abdication, is likely to be insuperable. If no compromise be effected, then the Pope

must abandon the seat of his authority; the Bishop of Rome must sever his connexion with his bishopric, and choose himself a residence elsewhere. This will be, no doubt, painful to the feelings and repugnant to the pride of the Catholic Church; but to this issue papal obstinacy threatens to bring the inveterate feud between liberty and the Papacy. This issue Dr. Döllinger contemplates; not indeed without sorrow and indignation, but with calmness and confidence. In no part of Christendom can the Universal Bishop be really an exile; every where he will be the most welcome and the most honoured of guests; so long as he do not fix the seat of the Papacy in France-and this he will hardly do--he will every where be less dependent than now in the seat of his episcopacy and his sovereignty. Further, the time will come when the germ of decay, which the new Italian kingdom bears within itself, will have ripened and borne fruit; and on the dissolution of a unity founded in fraud and cemented by violence, "Roman envoys will seek out the Pope, and earnestly entreat him to return to his faithful city." Thus it is that a devout Catholic regards the possible, may probable, dethronement and exile of the Head of the Catholic Church, as a misfortune which will be endurable, which is not likely to be permanent, and which cannot be fatal. Differing with him in toto with respect to the character and prospects of the Italian kingdom, we must differ with him also as to the probability of the restoration of the pontifical sovereignty. We cannot believe that any institution so alien to the spirit of modern civilisation will ever be voluntarily recalled by a people once freed from the incubus. But we are not disposed to think it improbable that, after a more or less lengthened wandering, the Papal See may finally return to its old habitation. The attraction of Rome for the Pope must ever be powerful; it is his proper dwelling, and the original seat of an episcopacy which, though now œcumenical, has not ceased to be Roman. Nor is it unlikely that the Italians, whose Catholic feelings will regain strength when no longer in daily conflict with their political aspirations, would be glad to bring back the Papacy on any terms consistent with the maintenance of their newly-acquired national freedom and unity, and would bid higher than any other Catholic nation to recover for Italy the distinction of being the residence of the Holy Father. And this, perhaps, would afford the happiest and safest solution of this vexed question. Once lost, the temporal power could hardly be reclaimed; a single decade would probably induce the Church to accept the loss, if not as a gain, yet as an irrevocable fact; and after a few years of separation, Italy and the Papacy might come together with mutual forgiveness in cordial reconciliation: the Church no longer at war with the country, the

people ready to forget that such a war had ever been. If not, time will of itself resolve the difficult question of a new seat for the Papal Court; and if we do not affirm with Dr. Döllinger that "a Delos will not be wanting to the Chair of St. Peter, should it even have to arise from the depths of the sea," we can hardly think that among two hundred millions of Catholics the Pope will ever want a home; or that Catholic diplomacy will prove unequal to the onerous task of providing him with such revenues, and surrounding him with such guarantees for his honour and independence, as may satisfy the requirements of pontifical dignity and the necessities of European policy.

It is a pity that Mr. MacCabe should not have taken more pains with his task. It will be obvious to our readers, even from the few passages we have cited, that his translation is exceedingly defective. It is often un-English, not seldom ungrammatical, and sometimes fails to convey any consistent meaning. So far as we can judge, his errors arise entirely from haste and carelessness; faults not easily to be pardoned in the translation of a work so important as that of Dr. Döllinger.

ART. III.-HERODOTUS AND HIS COMMENTATORS.

A Critical History of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece. By William Mure, of Caldwell. Vol. IV. London: Longman and Co. 1853.

Herodotus; with a Commentary. By Joseph Williams Blakesley, B.D. 2 vols. London: Whittaker and Co. 1854.

The Geography of Herodotus. By J. Talboys Wheeler, F.R.G.S. London: Longman and Co. 1854.

The Life and Travels of Herodotus; an imaginary Biography founded on Fact. By J. Talboys Wheeler, F.R.G.S. London: Longman and Co. 1855.

The History of Herodotus. A new English Version, &c. By George Rawlinson, M.A.; assisted by Colonel Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., and Sir J. G. Wilkinson, F.R.S. 4 vols. London: Murray. 1858-60.

The Historical Evidence of the Truth of the Scripture Records, &c., in Eight Lectures delivered in the Oxford University Pulpit at the Bampton Lecture for 1859. By George Rawlinson, M.A. London: Murray. 1859.

The Tale of the Great Persian War, from the Histories of Herodotus. "By the Rev. George W. Cox, M.A. London: Longman and Co. 1861.

An Historical Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients. By the Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 1862.

THE Father of History has certainly not been neglected by English scholars during the last ten years. Without at all going out of our way to seek for them, we have gathered together a long list of books which are, either professedly or virtually, devoted to illustrate the ever-fresh and charming history of Herodotus. His name appears in the title-page of all our authors except Sir Cornewall Lewis and Colonel Mure; and it might have appeared in the title-page of Colonel Mure, as Herodotus forms the main subject of his fourth volume. The work of Sir Cornewall Lewis, and the Lectures of Professor Rawlinson, do not deal directly with Herodotus; but the facts of his history are closely connected with their several subjects. Next to its bearing on Scripture history, the most interesting aspect of recent Oriental discovery is certainly its bearing on the narrative of Herodotus. Of the other works, Herodotus, viewed in one aspect or another, is the direct subject, the authority to be followed, or the text to be illustrated. And, various

as are the objects of the several writers, widely different as is their tone of thought, unequal as is their amount of ability and success, none of them can be charged with any lack of love for his subject, or with any failure to labour to the best of his power in the task which he has undertaken. Mr. Wheeler has made a great part of his labours useless by the absurd form into which he has thrown them, and he would himself probably shrink from personal competition with any of the scholars in whose company we have placed him. But even Mr. Wheeler is entitled to the full credit of much diligent and praiseworthy research, and his labours in the department of Herodotean Geography need not be discredited because of the want of judgment which led him to make the Life of Herodotus the subject of a ro

mance.

Our other authors approach Herodotus from very different sides. To Colonel Mure he is primarily a Greek writer, to be made the subject of literary criticism by an accomplished Greek scholar. To him the truth or falsehood of historical statements is important only as illustrating the character of the historian. Colonel Mure's criticisms on Herodotus are of much the same character as his criticisms on the other Greek historians. As we said long ago, we do not think any of them so happy as his criticisms on the poets. On Herodotus, indeed, we think he is a little hard, not to say unfair. He judges him too much by the standard of a modern historian; a standard perfectly fair when applied to political historians like Thucydides and Polybius, but which is quite out of place when dealing with the old Halikarnassian chronicler. The same occasional love of paradox, the same tendency to a sort of wanton inaccuracy in detail, appears in Colonel Mure's account of Herodotus, as in the other parts of his work. But Colonel Mure is a writer who is always instructive, even when we think him mistaken. His objections, even when ill grounded, are always ingenious, and are commonly worth answering. Still, in dealing with Herodotus, he was not altogether in his element. If his great work was doomed to be unfinished, we would gladly have exchanged all that relates to the historians for such a view as Colonel Mure was sure to give us of Pindar and the Attic dramatists.

Mr. Blakesley is an editor, not a critic, except so far as criticism is one of the manifold duties of an editor. We do not know that Mr. Blakesley's edition exactly answers our ideal of an edition of Herodotus; and his notes certainly contain some historical positions which we think are open to dispute. But it is the careful work of a sound scholar, and we can bear our own witness to its practical usefulness. Not the least of Mr. Blakesley's merits is that he knows when to stop, and that,

U