to the representation of particular local institutions, or of sectional or professional interests, but solely because of their presumed acquaintance with various forms of educational work, and their sympathy with the larger interests of learning. The 'Association for promoting a Teaching University for London,' however, is perfectly consistent in demanding, as a first step, a drastic and revolutionary change in the constitution of the Senate. For, in the view of that Association, the prime duty, if not the only legitimate duty, of the University is to effect the re-organization of academic teaching in London; and it matters little whether the present work done by the Senate in encouraging the efforts of non-collegiate or provincial students is well or ill done, or whether it continues to be done at all. Accordingly the Association invites the University to fashion a new governing body of an exclusively local and professional type, and to empower this body to grant degrees of an academic character to London students only. This new body, we may assume, is intended either to supersede the present Senate altogether, or to discharge its own special functions, side by side with that body; and thus form a separate department or teaching wing' of a re-constituted London University.

To the second of these proposals, the objections are grave and very manifest. A central body under one name, giving at the same time to two different classes of students, degrees and honours of different characters, and under different conditions, would place itself in a wholly novel and untenable position, and would be confronted with enormous practical difficulties, as to the relative value of the distinctions it conferred, and the status of the several classes of its graduates. On the other hand, to recast the governing body solely in the interests of London, and London schools, and yet to confide to such a body the duty at present fulfilled by the University, as an Examining Board for students in all parts of the Empire, would be obviously unwise and inequitable; for it is not to be supposed that the authorities of provincial colleges and schools, and the hundreds of students now working with private tutors or in classes at a distance from the metropolis, would feel the same confidence in such a body, as in the present Senate. The practical question, therefore, before the friends of the University would seem to be -How far is it possible, by some one cautious and moderate measure of re-adjustment, to meet the reasonable views of London teachers, and at the same time to continue the present work of the University without any sacrifice of efficiency and public favour? And in the solution of this problem, it may be hoped that two considerations of cardinal importance will not

be

be overlooked. (1) That it is not by the separate and distinct representation of rival colleges, or rival groups of teachers, but rather by the introduction into the University system of a body of advisers, representing the views and wishes of teachers as a profession and as a class, that the University can be effectually strengthened; and (2) That any such council should be consultative only, not administrative; and should perform its duties subject in all respects to the control and approval of one governing body, responsible not only to the London public, but to the whole nation. The various proposals for Faculties, Boards of Studies, Councils of Education, Representatives of Inns of Court and of Medical Corporations, present to the eye of any one familiar with public business a somewhat bewildering prospect of conflicting interests and divided counsels. these evils, as well as the more serious danger so clearly indicated in the unanimous testimony of the Council and Professors of University College in 1835-the danger of lowering the public estimation of University degrees by permitting them to be awarded to students at the discretion of their own teachers -can only be averted by preserving to the Senate as the supreme governing body, its absolute independence, and its undivided responsibility.

And

It has been a very significant feature of recent discussions, that one object, strongly advocated by some of the reformers from without, was promptly disavowed by the graduates of the University assembled in the House of Convocation. The wish to obtain a cheap and easy medical degree was very natural on the part of many of the humbler medical practitioners, who found the title of M.D. useful to them in obtaining practice, but who were unwilling to comply with the conditions exacted by the Senate. They complained of the severity of the Matriculation examination, and especially of regulations which required a knowledge of Botany, or of the laws of reasoning, or any subject which was merely ancillary to medical studies, and which had no visible relation to the requirements of medical practice. But the graduates appear to have given no encouragement to this complaint, and to have expressed a decisive objection to any reduction in the present requirements for a medical degree. In this they evinced a true instinct. Mere licences to practise may be obtained from medical corporations, on the ground of professional qualification only. But the M.D. of a University is, or ought to be, not only a licensed medical practitioner, but something more. He should have received a liberal education, and should have devoted some attention to those studies which, if not bearing immediately upon the duties

of

of his profession, nevertheless serve to broaden his intellectual horizon, and to place the special work of his life in its true relation to other departments of human culture. If a University degree does not imply this, it has no longer any raison d'être. It is not the chief business of a University to add recruits to the rank and file of the professions: still less is it its duty to propitiate Mrs. Grundy by decorating all her favourite medical attendants with titles. But it is its duty to set up a high standard of professional qualification, and to use its influence in such a way as to encourage the worthiest students to attain that standard.

On a review of the whole situation, we are inclined to conclude that, while some of the objects contemplated by the reforming Association are, even if desirable, hopelessly unattainable by any modification of the existing University, several of those objects might be secured with great advantage, and without impairing or dislocating the machinery which is now at work. If by a Teaching University for London is meant a local institution for the Metropolis, adapting its examinations to the needs of London students as interpreted by their own professors, it is scarcely to be expected that any institution, already possessing an ecumenical character, will be content thus to restrict itself, or to admit that the interests of a few London teachers are wholly identical with the true interests of the public at large. But if, on the other hand, the University of London, without parting with any of its present means of usefulness, will strengthen itself by admitting to its councils representative teachers, who, though not dominant, shall be honoured and influential, the present discussions will have had a valuable result. The University must not permit itself to be beguiled by programmes, however attractive, into undertaking work which it is unable to perform thoroughly well. by availing itself of the help and suggestions of skilled teachers, it would greatly enlarge the area of its present work, and become qualified to do that work still better. Increased confidence would be felt in its fairness and wisdom, even by the unrepresented schools and colleges which supply it with candidates. New agencies for the encouragement of learning would by degrees cluster round and attach themselves to it. Endowments and gifts for the promotion of special studies will come to it from time to time; and in the second half century of its existence, on which it is now entering, it may reasonably hope for a large extension of numbers and repute, and of useful and beneficent influence.

But

ART.

ART. III.-1. Naukratis; Part I., 1884-5; the third Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. By W. M. Flinders Petrie ; with chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest Gardner, and Barclay V. Head. London, 1886.

2. Geschichte Aegyptens, von Psammetich I. bis auf Alexander den Grossen. Von Dr. Alfred Wiedemann. Leipzig, 1880.

T has more than once fallen to us to draw attention to

light ancient

and manners, made on the soil of Greece by Dr. Schliemann and other German excavators. It is with still greater satisfaction that we have at present to record the results of successful excavations, made mostly by Englishmen, which are of not less interest to lovers of Greek history and literature, though made not in Greek lands, but in Egypt.

During the four years which have elapsed since the bombardment of Alexandria by the English fleet, learned excavators, equipped by the Egypt Exploration Fund, have been at work in the Delta; and from their labours important discoveries have resulted in both Biblical and Classical geography. M. Naville has determined the position of Pithom-Succoth, the first station of the Jewish Exodus, as well as of the capital of the Land of Goshen. Mr. Petrie has identified the palace of Pharaoh at Tahpanhes, a spot very notable in the story of the later Jewish Captivity; and has further discovered and excavated, with the help of Mr. Ernest Gardner, the site of Naucratis, the meeting-point in the seventh century, B.C., of Egyptian and Greek, and the fulcrum by which the enterprising Hellenic race brought the power of their arms and of their wits to bear on the most ancient and venerable empire in the world. We must leave it to others to speak of the gains thus resulting to Biblical archæology; our intention is to sketch, in the light of the newly-discovered facts, the relations between the ancient Greeks and Egyptians down to the final establishment of a Greek dynasty in Egypt.

Whether the first contact between Egyptian and Greek can be traced so far back as the thirteenth century before the Christian era is the subject of a notable controversy. On the walls of the temple at Medinet Habu is painted a wonderful record of invasions of Egypt by great allied armies coming from the north, a record which for completeness and vigour is surpassed only by the memorable tapestry of Bayeux which records the Norman invasion of England. But the fate of Egypt's invaders was not that of the Normans; they are said to have been defeated successively by the warlike Pharaohs Menephthah II. and Rameses III., and either slain or reduced to slavery. Of

their ships, their arms, and their ethnological character, the wall-paintings give us a vivid representation, and their nationalities are reported in the hieroglyphic text which runs with the scenes of conflict and triumph. Nevertheless the best authorities are not agreed as to who the invading armies were and whence they came. There is no doubt that their main force consisted of Libyans, but with the Libyans came as allies other races, Pulosata, Tekkari, Danaü, Shardana, Leku, Turisha, and Akaiuasha. Wiedemann considers that all these races dwelt near the frontiers of Egypt; Brugsch identifies them with the peoples of Asia Minor, the Teucri, Lycians, Sardians, and the like; while Chabas and Maspero incline to spread them over a still wider area, and regard the invading army as a great confederacy drawn from the northern and eastern shores of the Egean Sea by the hope of conquest and plunder. Certainly the theory that the contingents called those of the Danau and Akaiuasha consisted of Danaans and Achæans, and so of men of Hellenic race, is very tempting, and is as yet by no means. disproved.

But whether the Greeks took part in the invasions of Egypt in the thirteenth century or not, it is interesting to find that such great expeditions were not unknown at that early period in the Mediterranean. That the Greeks would not be behind other peoples in organizing them we may be sure from our own knowledge of the Greek character. And tradition lends ample countenance to this conviction. The two sieges of Ilium, the two expeditions against Thebes, certainly had historical prototypes, and the Argonautic expedition is a reflection in the mirage of tradition of many a voyage of banded heroes or pirates sailing from the Greek ports in quest of plunder or adventure. Odysseus beguiled the divine swineherd Eumæus with a feigned story, how he had set sail from Crete with a pirate crew, and made a descent on the coast of Egypt; and how the king of the country, with many chariots, came out of the city, and put his companions to the sword, and carried himself away captive, just as Menephthah and Rameses slew and captured the invaders from the north. Nor would Homer have put such a tale into the mouth of Odysseus, unless it had been a tale of every-day life and plausible on the face of it. There were certain times in the course of their expansion when even Goths and Gauls, though not maritime peoples, organized great expeditions by sea; swarming times when, like colonies of those most political animals ants and bees, they wandered out boldly in search of new seats; but we cannot think that a people so naturally fond of the sea as the Greeks would at any time in their history be F 2 unable