boldt, master of all sciences; Liebig, Wohler, Bunsen, Rose, in chemistry; Gauss and Encke and Hausen, in astronomy. In the department of history, we find Niebuhr, Ranke, Bunsen, Von Raumer, Schlosser, Gervinus, Leo. In philosophy, the immortal names of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Herbert, Jacobi; besides the present eminent teachers of these systems, Trendlenberg, Ritter, Schuller, Erdmann, and others. The science of philology was born in the universities of Germany, and claims as its bright ornaments amongst others, Becker, the great grammarian; Herrman, the best Latin scholar; Boeck and Becker, the celebrated Greek scholars; Roediger, the most eminent in Arabic; Bopp, the most profound Sanskrit scholar. In theology, we find Schleiermacher, "unquestionably," says Professor Schaff, "the most gifted divine of modern Protestantism;" Neander, the modern father of church history, and most learned of church historians; Hase, Giesler, Moschiem; and in other departments of this divine science, such names as Tholuck, Nitzsch, Rothe, Muller, Dorner, Meyer, DeWette, Lucke, Ullmann, Bleek, with a host of others. In the other and more general departments, Carl Ritter, the founder of historical and philosophical geography; Lepsius, the Egyptian scholar; the brothers Schlegler and the brothers Grimm. Nor may we forget the gifts to this country in a Lieber, an Agassiz, and a Schaff. All departments of learning have been developed into new life in Germany. She is the home and source of modern science in all its ramifications. She has quickened the men of other nations, and those who are eminent in any of the branches of human knowledge in England and America to-day will point to her as the source of their inspiration. The very farmers on our hill-sides are familiar with the name of Liebig, and rejoice in more abundant harvests as the fruit of his labors in agricultural chemistry. Scholarship throughout the world would be stricken as with a palsy, were the results of German study swept from the earth. If in some instances this intellectual activity has been on the wrong side-if a Baur and a Strauss have aimed to overthrow the faith they have professed to teachyet others, with learning as profound and acumen as sharp, have arisen to vindicate the truth from their powerful assault; and religion, the world over, stands to-day more secure for her threatened overthrow. The cradle of the Reformation in the sixteenth

century, the universities have proved the nurseries of true Christian science in the nineteenth.

While, however, we regard with the profoundest admiration the achievements of German students in literature and science, we cannot deny that the culture of man as man, as distinct from man as scholar, has not been brought to its perfection in Germany. Dr. Arnold has said, "the German scholars present us many examples of a one-sided literary industry, which transcends the proper limits, without real universality and thorough training to a truly manly, national and Christian character;" and he has said truly. In all those circumstances which call for manly energy, for the exercise and judgment of what is human as distinguished from what is cultivated and refined, the Germans as contrasted with the Anglo-Saxons are deficient.

Statesmanship is at a great discount in Germany, notwithstanding their enthusiasm for Freiheit und Vaterland. The melancholy spectacle of the Frankfort Parliament, in '48, called together by the enthusiasm of a whole people, sitting day after day discussing and wrangling over theories of government, instead of concerting for vigorous action, while the King's soldiers were steadily advancing to put them to flight, shows that there. is a manly fibre which needs yet more development than all their schools of learning afford. We can hardly restrain our indignation as we contemplate the spectacle of men learned in the history and politics of all ages, wasting the glorious hour for decisive action in idle and tiresome discussions, risking the chance of all permanent advance from absolutism, rather than not have reform according to their own particular theory. It is perhaps unfair to charge the universities with this fault, for it is rather the fault of the government. But German universities must be judged by their fruits, and the defect is manifest. The result shows the utter impossibility of the highest culture and development of the faculties and character of man, how great so ever his intellectual advantages, without true political freedom as a basis on which to rest it. This the Germans have not. Political questions are not discussed by the people or students: they are not allowed to be. A student's corps would soon be, as they often have been, disbanded, if politics were known to form the staple of conversation. And liberal-minded professors, inclining to prefer republicanism to monarchy, are silenced as Gervinus

was, and dismissed from their post, or tried as Ewald so recently was, though he was acquitted, if they give utterance to these views in the lecture-room. This condition of things arises from the fact that the people do not govern but are governed. This fact acknowledged for a few generations, as it has always been in Prussia, interest in public affairs dies out and an enlightened public opinion is impossible. The sense of responsibility for the conduct of the government being wholly removed, the conviction of utter want of power to change it fixed, all ability to conduct affairs is soon wanting; and men grow up, so far as the state is concerned, rather as the inmates of a political nursery than the responsible citizens of a great commonwealth. Politics become merely a matter of curious speculation, or learned criticism; and the whole side of man's nature, which in England and America is so quickened and invigorated by free discussion and political responsibility, is left to utter neglect. But God's law written in our nature cannot be trampled down with impunity. The effects of this attempt to crush the soul in one of its loftiest aspirations—the aspiration of self-government—is seen in German scholars, notwithstanding all the treasures of knowledge which are liberally opened for their use. Kings may construct galleries and line them with the noblest productions of human genius of every clime; construct libraries and fill them with the wisdom of every age; open wide the gates of knowledge and invite men to enter and gather the rich prizes awarded to wisdom and learning; but if they will banish them from the conduct of affairs-if they ward off every approach to the sacred seat of law and authority, where man assumes the exercise of that rule which is the function nearest to the godlike within him-then their essential humanity is kept down. Men may be learned, cultivated, refined; but they will not be men, in the noblest signification of that noble word.

It is in this aspect of his circumstances that an American youth may be said to have an educator of more value than the princely universities of Germany afford, in the responsibilities of his station and the unrestricted field for the free exercise of his powers. As a general rule he certainly is more crude and rough in comparison with the polished specimens of European culture. It behooves him especially to imbibe the thorough and extended culture of his kinsmen across the sea, and to emulate

their diligence and zeal in every department of profound and useful learning. With this, trained in their discipline and enriched by the spoils they have won, he may by reason of his free estate apply it to higher problems, and achieve greater ends for our common humanity. And perchance in the coming generations, men shall find on American soil the best ripened product and the noblest results of German student life.

C. C. TIFFANY.

THE PASCAL FORGERIES IN THE FRENCH ACADEMY.

OUR age of reconstruction seems bent on a rereading of all history, a rehabilitation of all the scamps of antiquity, and the dragging of honored forms down from the niches and pedestals which Clio has assigned. Mr. Carlyle has much to answer for, and his chief disciple, Mr. Froude, has closely followed the example set by the eulogist of Mirabeau, Marat and Frederick. Small men have done worse, misled by the petty instinct of indiscriminate contradiction, and have gravely asked us to accept kings John and Richard III as examples of all that is noble and excellent. One of the most amusing and curious scenes of this drama of historic reconstruction was enacted in the French Academy of Sciences during the past three years; M. Chasles, a member of the Academy, being the magician who, at a sweep of his wand, was to transfer the laurel crown from the head of Sir Isaac Newton to that (not bare) of the great theologian and metaphysician Pascal.

On the 8th day of July, 1867, M. Chasles, at the request of President Chevreul, promised to anticipate his forthcoming book on "The Discovery of the Laws of Attraction by Pascal," and to lay before the Academy the letters on which his views were based. At the next meeting (July 15) he read two letters and four scientific memoranda addressed by Pascal to Sir Robert Boyle, in the year 1652, in which the law of gravitation was fully stated. The date at which Sir Isaac Newton was alleged to have discovered the same law is 1689. We quote from one of these letters of Pascal to Boyle:

"In the movements of the heavenly bodies, the force acting in the direct ratio of the mass, and in the inverse ratio of the square of the distance, suffices for every thing, and furnishes reasons for explaining all the great revolutions which animate the universe."

In the latter part of the letter he illustrates the action of the same force on the surface of the earth by speaking of "the foam which floats on a cup of coffee, and which moves with a very sensible impetus towards the sides of the cup." In one of the memoranda, Pascal gives, for proportional values of the masses of the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and the Earth, the following numbers, as derived by induction from the general law of gravitation: 1,

1 1 1 2067 3021 169252*

He gives no proof of the accuracy of these figures, nor does he indicate the method by which he arrived at them.

We may here anticipate M. Chasles' subsequent statements (September 13, 1869) by saying that he had obtained these letters and memoranda from a person calling himself a palaeolographic archivist, who furnished them during the six preceding years, together with some thousands of others, professing to come from the pens of Galileo, La Bruyere, Moliere, Montesquieu, Copernicus, Christopher Columbus, Calvin, Melancthon, Luther, Machiavelli, Raphael, Michael Angelo, Shakspeare, Montaigne, Cervantes, Dante, Petrarch, Bocaccio, and a host of others. This marvellous collection extends back to the first centuries of our era, including epistles from the Apostles, St. Jerome and St. Augustin. This precious and rare assemblage of documents, the archivist assured him, had been carried to America in 1791, from which country their present possessor had brought them, and he was now perusing them at his leisure, so that he would only dispose of them to M. Chasles piece by piece; and that gentleman felt a great delicacy about mentioning his name at the meetings of the Academy, as it might cut off posterity and the public from the rest of the documents, and inflict an irreparable loss upon literature.

During the two years between M. Chasles' first statement and this last disclosure a warm controversy agitated the Academy, and extended to England and Italy. In the Academy only a few members, and those the least distinguished as men of science, took ground in favor of the genuineness of the pre