uch an examination is, in the first place, a most
meagre view of literature: it does not necessarily exercise the faculty
of critical discernment. In the next place, it is chiefly a matter of
compilation from English sources; the actual readings of the candidate
in Greek and Latin would be of little account in the matter. Of course,
the choric metres could not be described without some knowledge of
Greek, but the matter is of very trifling importance in an educational
point of view. Generally speaking, the questions in literature, which in
number bear no proportion to historical questions, are such as might be
included under history, as the department of the History of Literature.

[LANGUAGES EXAMINATION PAPERS REVIEWED.]

The distribution of the 750 marks allotted respectively to Latin and to
Greek, in the scheme of 1875, is this. There are three papers: two are
occupied exclusively with translation. The third is language,
literature, and history: the language means purely grammatical
questions; so that possibly 583 marks are for the language proper. The
remaining number, 167, should be allotted equally between literature and
history, but history has always the lion's share, and is in fact the
only part of the whole examination that has, to my mind, any real worth.
It is generally a very searching view of important institutions and
events, together with what may be called their philosophy. Now, the
reform that seems to me to be wanted is to strike out everything else
from the examination. At the same time, I should like to see the
experiment of a _real_ literary examination, such as did not necessarily
imply a knowledge of the originals.

It is interesting to turn to the examination in modern languages, where
the ancient scheme is copied, by appending literature and history. Here
the Literature is decidedly more prominent and thorough. There is also
a fair paper of History questions. What strikes us, however, in this,
is a slavish adherence to the form, without the reality, of the ancient
situation. We have independent histories of Greece and Rome, but
scarcely of Germany, France, and Italy. Instead of partitioning Modern
European history among the language-examiners for English, French,
German, Italian, it would be better to relieve them of history
altogether, and place the subject as a whole in the hands of a distinct
examiner. I would still allow merit for a literary examination in
French, German, and Italian, but