the king, Don Pedro, made himself lord of all his kingdoms, and brought under his obedience all the grandees and people of Spain. Only the Jews of Burgos denied to obey him, and fortified themselves within the city, saying, that God would never have it that they should deny obedience to their natural lord, Don Pedro, or to his rightful successors-a constancy that the prudent king, Don Henry, very much esteemed of, saying, that such vassals as those were, by kings and great men, worthy of much account, seeing they held greater respect to the fidelity they owed to their king, although conquered and dead, than to the present fortune of the conqueror. And a while after, receiving very honourable conditions, they gave themselves over.

28

It is but rarely that Jews have been permitted the opportunity of fighting for their country, but whenever they have been allowed to enter the lists, they have proved that the yellow badge of degradation and contumely had not altogether quenched the soul of manhood within them, that they were not unworthy descendants of the Maccabean heroes who cast off the yoke of the Syrian king. An imperial Austrian standard is to this day suspended in the Alt neu Schule at Prague, one of the oldest synagogues in Europe— a standard presented to the inhabitants of the Judenstadt by the Emperor Ferdinand the Third in recognition of the valour they had displayed in keeping at bay the Swedish besiegers in the year 1648.

During the present century until very recently Jews were not permitted to enter military service. Now that they have been admitted, have they proved themselves cowards or traitors on the day of battle? Patriots they cannot be,' says Professor Goldwin Smith. Is it just to cast this opprobrium upon the Jews of Germany who but lately shed their life's blood in defence of their Fatherland? Is this insult deserved by the brave Jews of France who rallied with equal alacrity under the banner of the Empire and the Republic when the safety of their country was imperilled? The Iron Cross and the badge of the Legion of Honour which decorate the breast of many a valiant Jew of Germany and France prove how confidently a state may reckon upon its Jewish sons in the hour of danger. Nay, even the poor downtrodden Jews of Roumania volunteered in large numbers to serve in the national army, and fought patriotically at the side of their oppressors, in the war with Turkey just ended.

And in this dear England of ours have we Jews ever been guilty of an offence that could deserve the stigma of the Professor? Have the Jewish members of Parliament shown that they cannot really share the political life of a European nation'? Have Jewish magistrates, has a Jewish Master of the Rolls, discharged judicial and magisterial functions less faithfully than their Christian fellowcitizens? When the cry of the famine-stricken indwellers of India reached our shores, did the members of this exclusive race' hold back their hand? When the Heir-Apparent was laid low by disease,

The truth of this fact is attested by a contemporary chronicler, Ayala, in his Cronica for the year 1367, ch. 34, 35.

did the Jews fail to send up their fervent prayers on high? Did not the Primate in that memorable thanksgiving service at the Metropolitan Cathedral state in his sermon, 'None were more hearty in their prayers than God's ancient people'?

I have been informed that of the 200,000 volunteers enrolled in England there are no fewer than 2,000 Jews. And this I can assert without fear of contradiction, that of all the subjects of our most gracious Majesty there is no section more deeply concerned for the honour, the highest and truest interests of our beloved country, no class more ready at the same time to make for its sake every sacrifice of comfort, of substance, aye, and of life, than that which professes the ancient, primæval faith of Judaism.

It is quite true that we Jews feel ourselves bound by the ties of religion with our brethren in foreign lands. It is quite true that when we hear that they are oppressed and persecuted we seek to do what is in our power to mitigate their sufferings. We invoke the powerful help of the British Government that is ever ready to lift up its voice on behalf of persecuted humanity. But does this feeling of kinship militate against the loyalty we owe our country? Are those Christians less loyal citizens of England who have pleaded for the better government of their co-religionists in Bulgaria? Inasmuch as we are Englishmen, it behoves us to sympathise with the oppressed throughout the globe. We never prove ourselves better Englishmen than when we plead on behalf of humanity and justice, and in the name of civil and religious freedom.

He

I am aware that I have left one loophole to the Professor. may say, 'Granted then that you are patriots, but then you are not genuine Jews.' Genuine Jews perhaps not, according to the distorted conceptions of an Eisenmenger, a Chiarini, or a Billroth. I, however, deny the right of an historian to first set up the travesty of a Jew and then to say, 'This is a Jew, and he who does not resemble him is not a genuine Jew.' And so, conscious of my own Judaism, I distinctly refuse the Professor the right to deny me the appellation of genuine Jew.

An old Talmudic adage has it that it is the function of the scholar to plant peace and goodwill upon earth. It should, in truth, be his mission to extirpate prejudice and to banish sectarian hatred. Is it not then to be deplored that a teacher of history should have lent the weight of his name to perpetuate prejudice and to galvanise into a spurious vitality the Hydra of religious intolerance?

A teacher of history should regard himself as an apostle of truth. If, pandering to popular prejudice, he substitutes sensational fiction for inexorable fact, though he may achieve distinction among the ephemerida of his time, posterity will refuse him the title of historian.

HERMANN ADLER.

THE GOOD AND EVIL OF EXAMINATION.1

In an interesting survey of English education by a high German official 2-a man thoroughly conversant with the subject, and inclined to look upon our system with no lack of intelligent sympathy -there occur certain passages (one of which was quoted not long ago by Mr. Forster) expressing the utter astonishment with which any one, looking from his point of view, naturally regards the extraordinary multiplication both of examinations and prizes in England at the present day.

Examinations and prizes are looked upon in England as the most effective means of producing the desired effect; other means are either unknown, or are not attempted. The administrations of German schools are more concerned about securing the right way to the goal, and about seeing it rightly followed. The number of candidates for the leaving examination who have privately prepared themselves, is comparatively very small. In England attention is almost exclusively directed to the demonstrable final result. From time to time something like an alarum bell sounds throughout the country: Come and be examined! And they come, boys and girls, young and old, having crammed into themselves as much knowledge as they could. How they have acquired what they know is never asked, nor are they shown what is the best method; and yet what work could after all be more worthy of a university than to point this out? Results! results! this is characteristic of England, and best explains the present high value set upon examinations in schools and universities. . . .

Of all the contrasts which the English mode of thinking and acting shows, none has appeared to me so striking and contradictory as the fact that a nation which has so great and sacred an idea of duty makes no use of that idea in the school education of the young; it has rather allowed it to become the custom, and it is an evil custom, to regard the prospect of reward and honour as the chief impulse to industry and exertion. Nelson's words to his men before the battle of

Since writing this article I have had the opportunity of studying Mr. Latham's most valuable and interesting book on The Action of Examinations (Deighton, Bell & Co.). In some points I have the pleasure of finding my own conclusions confirmed by his high authority. In others I am compelled to differ with him. He writes (I venture to think) as one who has suffered much under the hard pressure of Cambridge Examinations is likely to write, doing fair justice to the good of the system, but dwelling most pointedly and humorously on its defects. But the book will repay careful study, especially in its historical sketch of the old system of disputation and the growth of the Tripos.

2 German Letters on English Education. By Dr. L. Wiese, late Privy Counciller in the Ministry of Public Instruction in Prussia. Translated by L. Schmitz, LL.D. (London: William Collins & Co. 1877.)

6

Trafalgar are well known, and whoever resides in England has plenty of opportunities of observing in the family life and elsewhere in the actions of men the effects of a wide-spread and deep sense of duty; every child that learns the English catechism carries from it into life the command everywhere to do its duty. . . . Even he who is not so rigorous as to condemn in schools every appeal to ambition, will not be able to approve of the manner in which it is fostered in English schools. At all stages of instruction, from the university to the elementary school, rewards and prizes are in England among the chief incentives to industry; even in Sunday schools, which are sometimes held in churches incredible as it may seem, this means is thought indispensable. Prizes and medals are given not only for good progress in learning but also for good conduct. As the custom is universal, no doubts about it ever arise: it has always been so. . . .

...

About the end of July of the present year, when after the closing of the schools many pupils went home for the holidays, I heard a father greet his son at the railway station with the question: How many prizes?' And when the boy said Three,' the father's countenance seemed to ask, 'No more?' In Scotland I heard a mother on a similar occasion say: 'What place in the class?' With us in Germany the question would be: 'Have you been promoted?' or 'Have you a good report?'. . . You may hear Englishmen say: 'You must pay people if they are to learn anything, otherwise it will not do,' and their argument, the logic of which looks like cynicism, is, 'Do you suppose that barristers occupy themselves with law, or the physician with medicine, from a love of the thing? No! they want to earn money. Why should we demand greater disinterestedness from young men ?'

I imagine that these words will strike a chord of sympathy in many English hearts. On every side we hear a chorus of discontentgroans from examiners and examinees under the burden which weighs equally on both-cries of commiseration from a sympathetic body of bystanders, looking on both classes of victims with that mixture of contempt and pity with which Aristophanes contemplates the pale students of the Phrontisterion. That chorus at the present moment is so loud, that it bids fair to drown the triumphant pæans of the band which has marched on so confidently under the banner of ' payment by results,' and trampled resolutely down all educational considerations, which cannot be brought to the test of examination and tabulated in the appendices to Government Reports. But is it not too loud? There is a very useful function which is discharged by what Mr. Carlyle calls 'shrieking.' In many cases the public cannot be wakened from apathy, or the official mind scared out of the groove of routine, except by a shriek, a long shriek, a loud shriek, and a shriek all together.' But on this matter this preliminary operation has been so well performed, that we can now afford to take the wise advice 'to stop shrieking and inquire.' There seems to be no inconsiderable danger that to an exaggerated trust in examinations there may succeed an excessive and indiscriminate condemnation of them. Whenever one party vaunts a medicine as a panacea, their opponents are seldom content without denouncing it as a mere sham, or perhaps a deadly poison.

6

Some signs of this tendency are traceable in the passages quoted

above. For the principle of examination and the principle of competitive prize-giving are there spoken of as virtually one; whereas it is clear that they may be perfectly distinct, and are certainly far from coextensive with each other. So, again, arguments are, I think, used for and against examination generally which apply only to one of its many functions. It is thought sufficient, moreover, to condemn a system dependent on examination, if we can prove that it offers but an imperfect test of excellence, without attempting to discover a more perfectly discriminative system by which it may be replaced. Again, when it has been eloquently shown that, under an ideal system of teaching and for ideal scholars, examination is likely to be a questionable gain, if not an actual hindrance, it is concluded by acclamation that it must be useless, or worse than useless, to the educational world in its actual state. All this is natural enough to the irritation of overburdened teachers and learners; and popular judgment always loves the sweeping generalities, from which fuller experience shrinks. But it will be an unhappy thing if it leads to an indiscriminate onslaught on the whole examination system; and it is with a view to offer a few suggestions on the different characteristics and functions of examination that these pages are written, after some experience of it both from below and from above.

I venture at the outset to insist on two general considerations. First, I hold it possible by examination, deliberately and carefully conducted, to test and to estimate in those who are submitted to it, not only formed knowledge on this or that subject, but intelligence, thoughtfulness, and promise of future growth. That this is a difficult task I admit; but I believe that an examiner, who brings to this difficult task the natural qualifications and the amount of study which it requires, can in very great degree succeed in the attempt, provided that he is allowed sufficient time, and that he makes use of all the various means of examination which are at his command. Written papers, for example, without the addition of a vivâ voce examination, are plainly insufficient as a complete test, especially of capacity and intelligence. If taken alone, they may give an undue advantage to 'cram' (properly so called), that is, to undigested and superficial knowledge. But it is not fair to charge on examination in the abstract a defect which is due to the wilful neglect of one of its most important elements. It seems to me almost as foolish to decide wholly by written examination papers, as to elect a man to an office simply on written testimonials.

Hence, I cannot believe what is commonly asserted-that the system of examination necessarily plays into the hands of 'crammers.' After all, what is a' crammer,' and how far is he (to borrow an ironical phrase from Mr. Lowe) 'abhorred of gods and men'? It is absurd to apply the odious title to a teacher, who simply directs the studies of his pupils into the lines marked out by the requirements of certain