116
The Nation.
[Vol. 71, No. 1832
justly claims for her the honor of having ‘been the first to hear and answer the cry ot ‘the slave for freedom by the decree of the Convention in 17% (revoked under Bona. parte) abolishing slavery in the colonies, and giving to all residents, without distinc- tion of color, the rights of eltisenship, But ‘he ts singularly forgetful of Wilberforce when, referring to a speech of Duke Vie~ tor de Broglie in 1822, he asserts that be “was the first who, in a European Parlia- ment, raised his volco in behalf of the slaves.” Wilbertorce's first speech for the abolition of the slave trade was contempo- raneous with tho outbreak of the French Revolution. During the monarchy there were many more or lees successful efforts made to put an end to the slave trade, to amellorate the condition of the blacks, and to prepare the way for thoir emancipation, which was finally decreed by the republican Government of 1848 under the initiative of Victor Schesleber. From that time the antt- slavery movement in Europe has been pro- moted chiefly by the various international conferences, both soclal and political, trom that of Paris In 1867, presided over by #. de Laboulaye, and at which Mr. Garrison was the American representative, down to that of Paris in 1890, when Cardinal Lavigeris ‘was the principal speaker. More important, however, than M. Bonet-Mauray’s historical revlew 1s hie frank exposition of the forms tn whlch slavery now exists In the French colontes. It is everywhere to be found as a domestic institution, though the trafflc in slaves is nearly extinct. In the French Congo it still lngers in a most revolting and atrocious form, according to allegations made before the Chamber of Deputies by the Abbé Lemire last December, and not yet dented. The system of contract labor prevailing in Réunton and New Caledonia, It {6 also asserted, 1s indistinguishable from slavery, M. Bonet-Maury closes with a sketch of the remedial measures now in force, of which the principal 1s the “village de Mberté” established tn all parts of west- erm Africa, ‘Theso are not merely “cltles of refuge” for fugitive Dut settlements of freed negroes, who are being taught the “dignity of labor and the sanctity of the family,” slong with general morality and the Christian religion. Interference with domestic slavery Is deprecated by this writer, who would have all efforts directed to elevating through education the condi. Hou of the slaves so as to fit them for free- dom, while a rigid system of government Inspection of contract laborers, similar to that adopted by Great Britain, ts strongly ‘urged for the islands. Who shall decide when the slaves are fit for freedom is not if dleate
—Arather singular state of affairs in refer- ence to the conditions prevailing at the Ger- ‘man untversities regarding admission to the examinations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is revealed by the Zeitschrift far Phlosophie und Pdagogik. 10 all of the twenty-one universities of the Empire, the gymnasium graduates are permitted to take examinations in all the departments of the philosophical faculty, while there is n0 ‘Agreement, not even in the universities of the same country, with reference to the pro- ‘motion of the graduates of the Realgym- ‘asia or the Oberrealschulen; the Real or purely sclentife non-classical graduates be- INS Nowhere allowed to become candidates for degrees, ‘Those who have completed the
som!-classical Realgymnasia are admitted to exam{nations in twelve universities (of these six are in Prussia), in all departments of the philosophical faculty, while eight admit them in modern languages, mathematics, and natural sclences; and one, the University of Erlangen, only in mathematics and natural sclonces. The Oberreal-school graduates (in those institutions the solentific studies strongly predominate) are’ admitted to the philosophical doctorate in all sections only by Greifswald, in five universities only in natural sclences and mathematics; and in ten (among these alx are in Prussia) they are not admitted to a degree at all. Two univer- sities have not yet taken final action in the matter. Jn view of this, the action of the German Realschul Association, representing the Interests of the higher non-classical edu- cation in Germany, at the recent convention in Berlin is of interest. At this meeting, attended by more than three hundred phil- ologtans, a petition, originally drafted by the National German Society of Bugineers, and ‘signed by 12,000 names, was adopted, asking that tho graduates of all the nine-class sec- ondary schools, 4. ¢., the Gymnesia, the Realgymnasia, and the Oberrealschulen, should allke and without discrimination be ‘admitted to university privileges and de- ‘grees, and that in future the lowest three classes in all the schools of this kind should have the same non-Latin courses. This pe- tition has been presented to the Cultus-Min- Inter of Prussia.
Fortunate 1s the scholar who can say, as Professor Aulard does in the preface to his ‘Histoire Politique de ta Révolution Fran- caise' (Paris: Armand Colin & Cie.); “I do not think I have omitted a single important source, or made one assertion not directly drawn from the sources.” Professor Aulard hhas long been an indefatigable editor of the documents of the period. His most note- worthy work of this sort—"Le Recuell des Actes du Comité de Salut Public’—1e just reaching completion in about a dozen stout octavo volumes. He ts also, with the pos- sible exception of M. Sorel, the most au- thoritative writer om the political phases of the Revolution. This new work, which ts appearing in monthly fascicules, may be re- garded as a comprehensive statement of the reeults of his studies for the last twenty years. Its subtitle, “Origines ot Développe- ment do Ia Démocratic et de 1a République (1789-1804),” indicates more clearly its scope. In the first tascicule Professor Au- lard attacks the tradition that there were, in 1789, men who were consciously repubit- cans, although he shows the strong drift to- ‘wards republican institutions under the guise of a monarchy. He also brings out clearly the scheme of the bourgeoisie, alarmed by the events of the frst summer of revolution, to fortity ther own power by constructing constitutional defences against the proléta- Fiat as well as against the monarch. Pos- aibly he overemphasizes this aspect of the Constitution because of his prejudice in fa- Yor of what he calls “Ia République démo- eratique et soci Indeed, this predilec tion leads him to insist that the men of 1789 wore tnconsiatent because from the firat article in the Declaration of Rights they did not conclude that it was necessary to abolish the right of inheritance, as an obstacle to equality, handicapping the sons of the poor tn thelr race with the sons of the rich. Such ‘an interpretation of the Declaration ts con- trary to the principles of that historical
sclence of which Professor Aulard is 90 @istinguished an expounder. But this ts ‘a single dofect in an otherwise enlighten- ing study of the political beginnings of the Revolution,
MRS, MEYNELL'S RUSKIN.
John Ruskin, By Mrs. Meynell. Dodd, Mead
& Co. 1900,
‘This book 1s one of a projected series on “Modern English Writers.” How far its plan is that lata out for the whole series, or how far it ia the method of the particular author, we cannot yet be sure, but it 1s « Gisappointing plan. There are many things that the book does not give us, some of which, at least, might have beon expected, and all of which would have been welcome. It does not give us even the outline of « Diography; it doesnot give us anysystematic exposition of Ruskin's teaching; It does not sive us any analysis of hls character, either ‘as man or critic; It does not give any broad or general view of anything. Mrs. Meynell’s plan is to take up each of Ruskin's books tn the order of publication, to summarise its contents, and give a few quotations of atrik- ing passages, and to make a running com- ment thereon. Occastonally there is a bit of critictsm,and sometimes it is shrewd enough, Dut it 1, necessarily, piecemeal critictam, and gets to the root of nothing; it amounts only to an infrequent note of disagreement, which saves the book from mere eulogy. It says, “Here, in the writer's opinion, Rus- kin was wrong,” but it does not show how his nature, his training, bis line of thought betrayed him into error—how he was in- evitably wrong.
On the whole, Mrs. Meynell is a Ruskinian and inclined to accept Ruskin’s wildest opin- fons with reverence, if not with entire agree- ‘ment, and this especially in his incuratons into science and political economy. His art criticism even she sees to be limited, one- sided, even, at times, contradictory or tirely erroneous. In goneral, she defends ‘him from the charge of self-contradiction, trying to reconcile his opposite statements, and boldly protesting that she sees no inoon- sistency; but sometimes she gives it up. She notes his abuse of Constable and his en- tire oblivion of the Barbizon school, say- ing:
‘The reader has to resign himself to the
tshment from Ruskin’s thought of all the great French landscape. Once or twice he ‘Dames French modern work with horror as jomething deathly; but what he knows, if anything, of the young Corot, for example,
or of Millet, one cannot #0 much as con: Jecture.””
Here the one word “young” seems to be 8 sort of excuse, and to intimate that this school was so new that Ruskin could not be expected to have observed it. Yot she is writing of the fifth volume of ‘Modern Painters,’ published in 1860, when Corot was ‘sixty-four years old! Indeed, Corot was twenty-three years older than Ruskin him- self, and the great revolution in French landscape painting, which has so profound- ly influenced all modern art, began ten years before the first volume of ‘Modern Painters’ was written. Mrs, Meynell defonds Ruskin from what she calls the “slander” that he “would have his disciples to ‘select nothing and to noglect nothing,’ pointing out that this Is meant for advice to beginners caly, and that “be allows a great imaginative
�
