Organisation Allerhöchst Dero Monarchie, gefassten oder künftig zu fassenden Beschlüssen, in keiner Weise entgegentreten zu wollen.3

This arrangement with the Duke was principally owing to the recommendation and the diplomatic efforts of Prussia. The late so illustrious Chancellor, Prince Bismarck, was the mediator in this transaction. By it the Duke obtained a very profitable sale of his estates, which in accordance with the ruling law had been forfeited by the felony committed during the insurrection.

These are trivial facts, which Professor Max Müller and Jansen may conceal from their readers, but they will not attempt to deny them if, as now, reminded of them. Was there, it may be fair to ask, anything that in the remotest way resembled these facts when Hanover was separated from England? But how, if this was not the case, can a truthful man compare these two historical events?

6

And what was it that happened in 1863-1864? When Frederick the Seventh died, Duke Frederic of Augustenburg made his appearance as pretender to both Duchies, publishing a document by which his father, the Duke (Christian Augustus), ceded to him his rights, those rights unrecognised by any statesman-which he had, by his princely word and honour,' renounced for himself and his house, and promised never to use to trouble or endanger the tranquillity of Denmark! But this event was, as is well known, the starting point of the war with Denmark. King Christian abandoned Holstein, but when German troops, without any declaration of war, crossed the Eider, they encountered the Danish Army, which soon, left to itself alone and immensely inferior in number and equipment as it was, was overpowered.

In this way the two great Powers conquered the Duchies, but when afterwards the right of the Duke of Augustenburg came to be examined, the Prussian Crown syndicate came to the conclusion that the King of Denmark had been sole legitimate ruler in Holstein as well as in Slesvig (Rechtsgutachten bezüglich der Herzogthümer Schleswig, Holstein und Lauenburg, erstattet auf Grund des Allerhöchsten Erlasses vom 14. December 1864 vom Cron-Syndikat.'Printed in Berlin, 1866).

Thus it was evident that the Danish King's cession of the Duchies to Prussia and Austria constituted a perfectly valid title of seizure to the conquerors. The Duke was pushed aside, and so was, later on, Austria after the campaign in Bohemia. On the occasion Prussia promised to restore to Denmark the northern Danish districts of

5 I solemnly promise, on behalf of myself and my family—on my princely word and honour-that I will do nothing that might trouble or endanger the tranquillity of His Royal Majesty's realm or countries. Further, that I will do nothing to oppose such decisions as His Majesty has or may arrive at regarding the succession to all presently under His Majesty's sceptre united lands, or the future organisation of His Majesty's monarchy. 3 R

VOL. XLII-No. 250

Slesvig-a promise which was never fulfilled. Prussia is thus to this day the possessor of the two Duchies.

The preceding account contains the main features of the events, to the obscuration of which Professor Max Müller has had the courage to lend his illustrious name.

As to Prince Bismarck, it must be admitted that he is more upright. Not without right he prides himself on having conquered the Duchies by small means and great ingeniousness. He has known how to take advantage of all the given circumstances: (1) an unhappy but unavoidable national dissension; (2) the Augustenburg pretension to the succession, which it was possible to put forward because during a generation its legitimacy had been continually preached to the German population, not only of the Danish Duchies, but over the whole of Germany, whereas Bismarck knew that an impartial juridical examination could with the greatest facility prove its utter falseness. (3) The blunder and want of diplomatic finesse committed by the Danish statesmen, who did not see that they were alone, without hope of help, placed in face of a heedless, brutal adversary, and who neglected, in time, to come to terms as cheaply as possible with this adversary.

Thus it came about that the catastrophe which befell the Danish Monarchy in 1864 had much more serious consequences than the circumstances seemed to justify, especially considering its old legitimate right. It was not only that old legitimacy was overthrown by the total disregard of the Gottorp renunciation of Holstein in favour of King Christian the Ninth, nor that old and continually renewed treaties in favour of the Danish Crown's right to Slesvig were torn asunder, but also the principle of nationality-the sole principle which might with some show of right have been invoked against the arrangement of 1852-was put aside in the most shameful way.

More than one half of Slesvig is to this day inhabited by Danish people, who do not wish anything better than to return to the union with the mother country, whereas the Prussian Government endeavours, in spite of the promise given in Prague, by all possible means to subjugate the Danish element, and to efface its national peculiarities. It is a slap in the face to the whole Scandinavian race, and a derision of the favourite talk in Germany of the solidarity of the German peoples.

After having shown how totally wrong Professor Müller's conception of the Slesvig-Holstein question is, it is of minor importance to point out the many errors his article contains. Before concluding there is, however, one thing which cannot be passed over in silence.

Professor Müller calls the present King of Denmark a German' prince, and his consort, the Queen, a German' princess. Now, the King of Denmark was born a Danish subject, in the old Danish land Slesvig, which never has belonged to the German Empire. His

The peace of Prague, § 5.

His mother was a

father was a Danish subject and a Danish officer. granddaughter of Frederick the Fifth, King of Denmark.

He came

to Copenhagen as a mere lad, entered the Royal Military School, and served afterwards in the Horse Guards, of which corps he was a Colonel when he was elected heir apparent. How he could ever claim the honour of being a German' prince is a perfect riddle. The Queen is the daughter of a Princess of Denmark, the sister of King Christian the Eighth. Her father, it is true, was, by his title, Landgrave of Hesse, a German prince, but lived nearly the whole of his long life in Denmark he was a Danish officer even before the Queen was born. His uncle, the Landgrave Charles of Hesse, and his son Frederick were Danish subjects and officers.

According to Professor Müller's conception of nationalities, the Prince of Wales must be a German' prince pur sang, being the son of a German prince. The Princess of Wales, who is, according to the Professor, a daughter of a ' German' father and mother, must also be a German princess. It is doubtful if the English nation will relish the idea that the next heirs to the throne of Great Britain are Germans!

A. D. JÖRGENSEN

(the late Historian and Keeper of the State Archives of Denmark).

THE NEW LEARNING

AT no other period than this were there so many people who wanted to know about books without reading them. The demand, as usual, has created the supply. Little books on big books are the most popular books of all. Charles Lamb might have said that they were no books. But nobody reads Charles Lamb now. The cultured' classes, as they love to call themselves in their delightful English, take their Lamb from Mr. Ainger or Mr. Birrell, and even Lamb himself did something to relieve the public from the tedium of perusing Shakespeare. The Greek and Roman classics have naturally not escaped the attention of the compiler. Greece (ancient Greece, I mean) is treated as the most favoured nation. In Mr. Gosse's Short Histories of the Literatures of the World, published by Mr. Heinemann, Greek literature comes first, like golf, if I remember rightly, in the Badminton Library. It has been entrusted to Professor Murray of Glasgow, who is nothing if not modern, and may be taken as a type of the New Learning, within the reach of everybody and out of nobody's depth.

'Woe to them that are at ease in Zion!' The old warning of the Hebrew prophet must occur to many of Professor Murray's readers, Mr. Murray's learning is great and his cleverness is undeniable. His book is sure to be widely read and to exercise a great influence upon his readers. It is, however, to be feared that his influence will not be altogether a wholesome one. For he is determined to be knowing and modern, or, as he would himself call it, up to date and in the swim. Before the masters of Greek literature and of all literature he stands with his hands in his pockets and his hat on the back of his head. He winks at them and laughs at them, and insinuates that he is up to all their dodges. He gives them his blessing and his patronage. He even compares them with Ibsen. In letters, as in life, it is a mistake to display ostentatious familiarity with the great. Mr. Murray's unappeasable jauntiness leads him to pass strange and crude judgments upon men and things. Few people care for Pindar now,' says the Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow. Readers are wearied by the strange mixture of mules and the new moon and trainers and the acidæ.' Pindar is difficult. He is more than

difficult; he is obscure. The modern reader will be apt to take him in extracts or to taste him in anthologies. But he is one of the few poets who can without absurdity be called sublime, and there is more truth in the magnificent verses of Gray on the Theban Eagle than in all the slapdash criticism of Mr. Murray. A love for episodes and anecdotes is Herodotus's chief weakness.' Surely it is his chief charm. But the father of history, as Cicero called him, and the first of lyric poets are not Mr. Murray's only victims. They are in good company, though they cannot be in better company than their The Electra of Sophocles is admitted to be brilliant.' But we are told that it is typically uncharming,' and we are invited to ask why it is so. I respectfully decline the invitation. Tò őr ὅτι comes before Tò SióTI. Let us be sure of the fact before we inquire into the reason, lest we present such a spectacle as Dr. Johnson and Hannah More presented in their day, when, as Rossetti says, they deliberately sat down before the outspread sonnets of Milton to ascertain for him why they were so bad. Aristophanes seems to have deserved his success.' He does indeed. But Aristophanes

own.

6

For on the same

seems to puzzle the learned professor not a little. page we read that only his own age could really stand' him, and that at the present day he seems to share with Homer and Æschylus and Theocritus the power of appealing directly to the interest and sympathy of almost every reader.' Is this sound criticism? Is it criticism at all? Plato is labelled by Mr. Murray as 'a facile and witty writer.' The system of Aristotle is described in a strange jargon as rather "cocksure" and arrêté.' Mr. Murray's English is far from pure. Stylist' is one of his favourite words; 'cultured' is another. But the prime favourite of all is certain.' Everything with him is certain, especially what is shadowy, intangible, and hard to define.

These, however, are small blemishes, which could easily be removed. Mr. Murray has treated his subject with much ability, and the Homeric question in particular he handles with exhaustive thoroughness. There is a great deal in his book for which humble and unlearned students like myself can only express their sincere gratitude. But there are some points of taste and judgment which require no very profound learning to solve. One may be quite unable to correct Mr. Murray in his treatment of Atticisms and Æolisms; one may have the vaguest idea of what Orphism was; one may lose oneself readily in epic cycles,' and yet have some idea of the spirit in which Greek literature should be approached. The Greek intellect had not arrived at the modern and advanced conception that everything is a vulgar joke. The most boisterous and audacious humourist of antiquity could be serious when he pleased, and wrote choruses unsurpassed for their melodious beauty. Compared with the Lysistrata and the Thesmophoriazuse the fun of Rabelais is almost timid, and his jests are almost decent. But Aristophanes was a patriot, and, according to