Petersburg, all came to the conclusion, after a long study of the subject, that the languages of the great families of the world bear such marks of relationship, as to prove that they had a common origin. Other philologists, such as Herder, S. Turner, Niebuhr, Balbi, and Abel-Remusat, go further, and hold that traces can be pointed out of the separation of the tribes and tongues by some violent and sudden cause. We have, then, a vast array of scientific opinion on the side of the statements given us in the Bible.

Still, a few rash and daring speculators, with Bunsen at their head, have ventured to set up an hypothesis wholly at variance with the Bible narrative. Languages, they say, grow slowly. "It has taken nearly 2000 years to develope modern French, Italian, and Spanish, out of Latin. Must it not have taken much longer to develope Latin, Greek, German, Celtic, Sclavonic, and Sanscrit, out of their mother speech ?" Twenty thousand years, they go on to argue, is a very probable term for the development of human language in the shortest line. And so, upon this bold and reckless guess-for it is nothing more-we are to give up the Bible history altogether, and to suppose that man must have lived upon earth some 14,000 years before the time indicated by Adam's creation.

The inventors of this hypothesis conveniently forget that the Bible plainly and distinctly declares that by the confusion of tongues a number of different languages were constituted and given to different families in a moment of time. But the main fact on which they rely is nothing better than a fiction. It did not take 2000 years to develope the French, Italian, and Spanish tongues out of Latin. The Latin tongue doubtless prevailed in the Western kingdoms up to the time of Theodosius, or nearly 500 years after Christ. And if we pass over, not 2000 years, but 500, we find the French language in France, the Spanish in Spain, the Italian in Italy. A more striking instance might be given still nearer home. When the Normans first conquered England, in 1066, the language spoken by the people was Saxon, and the language spoken by the nobles, and at court, was Norman-French. So matters went on for above a century, and the English language of modern days had no existence. About the middle of the thirteenth century it began to appear, and a few written documents may be found of the date of A.D. 1200-1300, in which a sort of English begins to be used. Pass on only three centuries, and remark the noble, abundant, and wealthy language used by Shakspeare and Milton, and then say, if you can, that "languages grow but slowly." If such a language as the English could thus grow up in three or four hundred years, how monstrous is the assertion that "twenty thousand years is a

very probable term for the development of human language in the shortest line," and that, consequently, we must not believe Moses when he represents that the human race only began its course some 5800 years ago.

THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN.

Essays on the Pursuits of Women. By Frances Power Cobbe. London: Emily Faithfull. 1863.

IT has often been a matter of surprise to us, that, while so much is being constantly written and spoken on the subject of man's education, so little regard should be had to the education of women. We have always been of opinion that the case should be reversed; that the mind of woman really has more need of mental culture than the mind of man; and we are rejoiced to see a lady of such talents and powers of mind as Miss Cobbe standing up boldly to defend this opinion.

One point we wish to make clear before we proceed further. It was with the deepest regret that we read some time ago a book of Miss Cobbe's, entitled "Broken Lights." We feel that it is vain to ignore the school of theology to which Miss Cobbe belongs; and as it is a school from whose tenets we dissent most widely, our readers must not suppose that, in our approbation of Miss Cobbe as a writer on education, we in any way commend her religious views. But the subject of education is to some extent neutral ground, at least in its details, and we feel that we are not forfeiting our character as the upholders of Evangelical truth in the Church of England by meeting Miss Cobbe here.

Nor must our readers do us the injustice to imagine that, because we have spoken little in this article of religious teaching, we therefore esteem it lightly. Human wisdom is nothing, and less than nothing, in the sight of God, when it lacks the religious faith of a little child. Religion is the gold, silver, precious stones of the soul, without which all else is but wood, hay, stubble. But we are writing for Christian readers; and we feel that it would be almost presumption on our part to suggest rules for that religious teaching which fathers and mothers can adapt, far better than any public writer, to the needs of their own children.

Now, we do not wish to examine this subject from any idle curiosity, but on high moral and social grounds. We have often regretted-what Miss Cobbe sets forth so forcibly-the idleness and worthlessness of the lives which many ladies in

our higher classes lead. It is needless to say that these idle moments, so thoughtlessly frittered away, are fraught with danger to the soul and the intellect; that this very idleness is in itself a great sin, as great a sin as the servant's in the parable, who hid his talent in a napkin. We shall make no excuse, therefore, for most seriously calling our readers' attention to so important a subject.

We may observe at starting, that education in the present day is no longer what education was half a century ago. Our daughters and sisters cannot stop where our mothers, still less where our grandmothers, stopped; any more than the least intellectual squire of the present day can content himself with the same amount of learning that proved amply sufficient for his most intellectual predecessor of seventy years ago. Knowledge, and the means of acquiring knowledge, have increased vastly since the beginning of this century; questions are daily started in which ladies can and ought to take a part; the means of travelling are far easier, and far more within universal reach; and social intercourse is less constrained and less exclusive. It is impossible to shut our eyes to all this. It is impossible to dream of placing young ladies of the present day on a par with Rose Bradwardine and Miss Hardcastle. These self-evident facts seem to have impressed Miss Cobbe very forcibly. She says, and we feel the sad truth of her words, that no inconsiderable portion of women's lives is aimless and profitless. The reason of this Miss Cobbe conceives to be twofold: firstly, the erroneous teaching, which makes women look to marriage as the aim and end of existence; and secondly, the equally erroneous teaching, that woman has a certain magic circle, out of which she may not step. On the first of these points we agree with her most heartily. Nothing can be more horrible than to make the entry into the highest and holiest of all lives-the married life-a mere social speculation; to sacrifice to its success loftiness of thought and purity of aim; duties which are owing to self, and friends, and God; to care only for outward appearances, which may attract the gaze of the passerby; to study only those superficial attainments which can never captivate any man whose affections are worth the having. And yet, we fear that the instances of this are without number; that there are young ladies, capable of better things, who make an idol of marriage, and sacrifice themselves to it, never thinking it worth their while to consider if they possess those real, solid qualities by virtue of which alone they can become good wives and good mothers. To the second of these reasons we assent with equal cordiality. Society seems to have set up a boundary of knowledge which women are not to pass, and this boundary both sexes alike would seem to have tacitly agreed in recognizing. If a lady at any time feels that she

does not know so much as she ought, or would wish to know, she consoles herself by the reflection that she is not expected to know more, and that the knowledge to which she aspires lies in a region where she may not tread. And we fear that men are too apt to encourage these ideas, that in ordinary conversation they seem to let themselves down to the level of their companions, and studiously avoid any topics which are commonly supposed to be too lofty for their comprehension. Nor is the fault, even in this case, so entirely on the side of the gentlemen as we might imagine; for nine-tenths of the young ladies of the present generation studiously discountenance, both at dinner tables and evening parties, any conversation that does not verge on absolute nonsense; and gentlemen, if they would not lose caste for ever, are compelled to humour this absurd weakness.

The question then arises, how are these mistakes to be set to rights? In the first place, we may remark that too much stress is laid on the importance of marriage. Undoubtedly, to marry well is the greatest blessing that can fall to women's lot; but it is a blessing which is not granted to all. Our statistics incontestably prove that the number of births of female children exceeds by four per cent. those of male children; and they prove further, what is of more importance, that, as a fact, thirty per cent. of the young women of England never marry. The knowledge of these particulars cannot fail to give rise to serious reflections. If it be indeed the case that thirty out of every hundred of our women, even in the higher classes, are condemned to a life of celibacy, what can be more ridiculous than to sacrifice every other object to the chance of drawing a prize in the lottery? We fear, if the truth were known, that there are many mothers who are always impressing on their daughters, that to marry, no matter whom, provided he be able to maintain a wife, is the only thing worth living for; who, like Horace, would say of their main chance :

"Tibi melius suadet qui rem facias, rem,

Si possis, recte, si non, quocunque modo rem."

Such conduct we cannot condemn too strongly. But it bears with it its own punishment. No young ladies perhaps fail more constantly of marrying, none certainly fail more constantly of marrying well and happily, than those young ladies who lay themselves out most to captivate gentlemen. They are mistaken, greatly mistaken, in their estimate of our sex if they fancy that to dance nicely, or to chat pleasantly about the last novel, qualifies them for the character of wife and mother in the eyes of any man whose esteem deserves to be gained. Let them be assured, that though outward charms and showy ac

complishments may dazzle for a moment; yet, if a man once appeal to his better judgment, the quiet, unassuming, unattractive lady, who has striven to fit herself to become a helpmeet for him, will sway his heart with a far more potent and truer love than all the beauties of Europe.

We agree, therefore, with Miss Cobbe, that we should, if only for the sake of the ladies themselves, strive to provide them with a better education than they generally receive. The doubt is in what this education shall consist. Ought it to be at all like the mental training through which men pass at their schools and their universities? Against this suggestion three objections are raised: firstly, that there is a natural incompatibility between classical studies and feminine duties; secondly, that the powers of woman are inferior to those of man; thirdly, that Greek and Euclid, though good in themselves, are yet inappropriate studies for women. The first and last of these objections are in reality the same, though put in different forms; and we confess we are not disposed to think that either of them is worth very much. Miss Cobbe quotes the remark of Sydney Smith, that "a woman's love for her offspring hardly depends on her ignorance of Greek, nor need we apprehend that she will forsake an infant for a quadratic equation." This criticism, like all Sydney Smith's criticisms, is based on sound common sense. Indeed, the argument against women learning Greek and Euclid may be placed in the same class with the argument against the pursuit of the same studies by man. Why, it is often asked, should men learn dead languages and geometrical problems, which can be of no possible use to them in after life? The most obvious answer to such a question is the best. It is to train their powers of mind, to develope their reasoning faculties, to accustom them to continual application, to teach them close accuracy, to cure them of slovenly ways of thinking and writing; and if this be so, why should not women go through the same course? It is nonsense to take for granted that the training which proves beneficial to the intellects of men must of necessity be ill adapted to the intellects of women. Nay, we fully believe that these very studies are best adapted to strengthen the weak part of the intellect of women. On this point we will let Miss Cobbe pass judgment upon her own sex :

"One of the most obvious differences between the mental constitutions of man and woman is the preponderance in the latter of the intuitive over the reasoning faculties. This rapid intuition of

woman may, or may not, prove a defect. Properly trained and balanced by that carefulness of truth which comes of conscientious study, it is no defect at all, but a great advantage; but unregulated quickness is a peril and misfortune. Jumping at conclusions is a