THE NEW OXFORD EXAMINATION STATUTE.
.Lanrumney, Cardiff, January 131h, 1867. Sin—I shall be much obliged if you can find space for a few remarks on the new system of examinations for degrees which has been lately propounded by the Hebdomadal Council at Oxford. You may probably remember, that by a statute passed in 1849 and 1850, the old system was completely. remodelled. The number of examinations was raised from two to three, and the number of schools at the final examination from two to four. The Schools of "Modern History and Jurisprudence" and of "Natural Science" were added to the previously existing schools of Literce Humaniores and Mathematics. These changes were not made without considerable opposition. The school of Modern History and Jurisprudence was'especially objected to, and had to be considerably modified during the passage of the statute through Convocation. As first proposed, it was called a "School of Modern History and the Cognate Sciences." "The Cognate Sciences" were various branches of political, moral, and philological science, which did not seem to be more "cognate" with one period of history than another. To the whole scheme of a }Soden. History School it was objected 1st. That the subject was too vast, and in several ways unfitted for academical study and examination ; while the old system, with some small changes would have afforded the best possible groundwork for subsequent historical studies :
2d.. That a separate Modern History School was specially objectionable, and indeed absurd ; that it tended to keep up the shallow division of history into "Ancient" and "Modern," and to foster popular misconceptions as to the nature of both.
The special system adopted, one which made the necessary knowledge of English History begin with the Norman Conquest, carried, it was argued, its own condemnation on the face of it, as ignoring our truest and most national history, without an acquaintance with which it is quite impossible to understand the periods which follow. Since the statute was loaned, a scheme was proposed in the Commissioners' blue-book, which would have removed the weightiest objection of all. The Commissioners recognized the unity of History, and proposed a single History School, without distinction of "Ancient " and "Modern."
I most deeply regret that, in the present reconstruction of the system, the opportunity was not taken to effect this most desirable and even necessary change. So far from this being the ease it strikes me that the proposed alteration, whereby " Ancient " History ;vill be taken up at " Moderations " instead of at the Final Examination, may actually be a change for the worse. I will not however, enter upon this point, which would involve too many technical details to argue upon in your columns. I will confine myself to the more general business of protesting against retaining, especially in any reconstruction of our examination system, of a separate school of "Modern History," instead of a general school of History without distinction of periods. The merits or defects of the new proposal, so far as they bear upon subjects unconnected with historical studies, I will leave to those who are better qualified to deal with those particular subjects. One remark only will I make on the proposed "School of Classical Literature," because it is closely connected with the present division of our historical studies. In this school of Classical Literature, we are told that "advanced branches of scholarship, such as numismatology, paheography, &c., are to be encouraged." Now I venture to claim, most certainlynumiamatology " and, I am inclined to add, paheography also, as not being "advanced 'branches of scholarship," but subsidiary branches of history. " Numismatology " ought most certainly to be taken up in a general school of History. But the new scheme still recognizes no school of History but one in which the coins of Greek Republics and Macedonian Kings would clearly be out of place. It therefore relegates them to a far less appropriate position in the school of Classical Literature. My main objection therefore is that the existing "School of Modern History and Jurisprudence" is retained in the new scheme without an atom of reform. The objections to the introduction of " Modern " History, whatever their weight when urged eight years ago, are now antiquated. The study exists, and cannot be got rid of. But the objections to the distinction between "ancient" and " modern " history, to the selection of the point of commencement for the necessary quantum of English History, still retain all their strength. What we want is a school of History, untrammelled by unnatural and unphilosophical divisions. No mistake can be more fatal than the notion that " ancient " and " modern " history are two distinct pursuits, and above all that "modern" is the easier study of the two. I believe that one reason for introducing " modern " history was to find something which was thought to be easier and more attractive than the hard work of the old Greek and Latin school. It was preached up as a newly--discovered means whereby the honours of a First Class might be extended to men of small application, much as in the eleventh century the Crusades were preached up as a newly-discovered means whereby the benefits of salvation might be extended to men of small morality or devotion. But the truth is, that man is the same in all ages and countries, and that the study of his history in all ages and countries, reeuires precisely the same faculties and precisely the same kind of application. It is of course quite possible that a man may have the historical faculty in a high degree and yet not be scholar enough to unravel the involved periods of Thucydides. Let such a man, instead of flying off to "modern" history as an " easier " study, boldly betake himself to his Hobbes. It will, to be sure, be only half a loaf, but it will be much better than no bread. But besides this general objection to the attempt, there is the equally fatal one that the division cannot be made. I ant afraid that the framers of the Modern History School took only a very imperfect glance over their own study.. It has often struck me that they had (most laudably) read Hallam and Gruizot, and had (most justly) inferred that English and French history were very interesting and profitable studies. I fear they did not cast their eyes south of the Alps, still leas south of Mount Htemus. It so happens, that English and French history have less direct connexion with the "ancient" world than that of some other equally important parts of Europe. To a person who thought wholly or chiefly of them, it might seem, at the first superficial glance, that they could be mastered without any preparatory study of Thucydides. I will not suppose that they would have thought so, after ever so superficial a glance, of the median-al history of the two classic peninsulas. The mediseval history both of Italy and Greece is essentially an unbroken continuation of that of the Roman Empire. A man who began his "modern studies" with A.D. 476 could never by any possibihty understand the position of the mediteval Emperors. Frederick Barbarossa would be an inscrutable mystery to such a one. Again, of all mediseval history, no portion is so absolutely essential to a political thinker as that of the Italian and Swiss republics. But they lose half their charm and meaning to one who cannot compare them in detail with the republics of old Greece.
I will add the converse proposition, that reading Thucydides is but an imperfect process, unless it is accompanied by that of Sismondi or his authorities.
I will even go a step further, though with fear and trembling. I will transfer myself to the other side of the Adriatic. Surely the events of the last few years must have taught us all that there is an Oriental Christendom. The discovery may even have suggested the thought that that Oriental Christendom has a history. Some may have been found content to embrace the guidance of Mr. Finlay, and to admit that, without disrespect to Charlemagne and St. Lewis, some little attention may also be profitably bestowed upon Leo the 'saurian and Basil the Bulgarian-Slayer. / ask, in which school shall we take up the last thousand years of the Roman Empire ? Are sovereigns preserving their unbroken succession from Augustus and Constantine, speaking the tongue of " ancient " Greece, ruling by the laws of " ancient " Rome, to be degraded or promoted to the " modern " school ? Or shall contemporaries of the Crusades, of the Barons wars, of the wars of the Roses, be taken up as " ancient " history at Moderations ? In a word, the mere existence of the Byzantine Empire is an unanswerable objection to the division into " ancient " and "modern." For about a thousand years the "ancient" world existed side by side with the " modern " ; and for the first half of that period the "ancient" was the more important of the two.
It may certainly be said that there is this difference between the study of " ancient " and " modern " history, that in the first we can take up original authors, while the latter must to a certain extent be studied secondhand. To get up the whole mass of original authorities, from Gregory of Tours to Spyridon Trikoupes, would require the years of the raven rather than the few hours of an Oxford undergraduate. Now this was one of the objections urged against the introduction of "modern" history at all ; and it is hardly fair to retort it. The line taken was that the history of old Greece was a normal history, containing by implication all history ; and that the best course was for the "University to require a detailed knowledge of that, as the best possible groundwork for future and more mature study,. But, after all, the difference is more apparent than real. In both cases, the student will, or ought to, read some—not all—of the original authors, together with some—not all—of their modern commentators. There Will be no occasion for him to trouble himself with Diodorus and Mitford, while he can get Herodotus and Thucydides, Thirlwall and Grote. Even Polybius, being fragmentary, must be eked out by the harmony of the great Prelate of St. David's. So the student of early English history should take up his Saxon Chronicle and his Florence, his Liiagard and his Lappenberg ; he need not encumber himself with Bromton, Wendover, or Hume. In the last paragraph I have assumed the impropriety of that wonderful arrangement by which English history is made to begin in 1066. Surely, in such a case, the way is to begin at the beginning, go on as far as you have time for, and then stop. You can add the vault to your walls at a later time; you cannot so easily insert the foundation. Of all possible points the Norman Conquest was the very worst to select for a commencement. To understand English history, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of English laws, language, and nationality. How can you understand the Norman Conquest itself, unless you know something of those whom the Normans conquered ? To understand a dispute, you must know something of both the disputants. It would have been very shallow work, but it would have been less grotesquely self-contradictory, to have begun somewhere about the time of Edward I, when the struggle was pretty well over, and when some approach was beginning to be made to the form of our present laws and language.
I trust, therefore, that those who possess the initiative in our Academical
legislation will not refuse to reconsider the subject from the beginning, and will consent to take this opportunity of reconstructing this important portion of our system, giving us a general "School of History," instead of a "School of Modern History and Jurisprudence." Not being a member of Congregation, I have not myself the power of moving an amendment ; but I certainly trust that the proposal will not be allowed to pass in its present form without some such amendment being moved. It will be most unfortunate to lose so favourable an opportunity of putting our historical studies on a better basis.
I may owe you some apologies for descanting at such length on what some
of your readers may deem a matter of merely local interest. But the Spectator is so extensively read in the University of Oxford, that I know of no channel more favourable for bringing my views before the notice of its resident members.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, EDWARD A. Faionrssr.
Previous page
