II. and Sogdianus, along with seven of the reign of Artaxerxes, making 44; and as the foundation was laid in the second month of the year, and the temple was completed in the fifth, we may allow another year for current time, making forty-five years, which is a tolerably near approximation, considering the uncertainty in regard to the accurate numbers. The interval between the twenty-second of Artaxerxes I. and the twentieth of Artaxerxes II. is fifty-eight years, which agrees sufficiently with our previous probable estimate.

The real chronological difficulty on this scheme is the arrangement of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. If the first of Koresh be the twenty-second of Artaxerxes, the commencement of the seventy years and of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was only twenty-eight years before the accession of Xerxes; and the destruction of the temple was only nine years before that event. By adopting one of the shorter reckonings of the reigns, we might extend the nine into twentyfive years; but even then, it is not easy to see how all the events of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, of Evil-Merodach's, and of Belshazzar's, can be comprised in that space. There occurs the question, is it possible that the reign of Nebuchnezzar could have run parallel with the reigns of Darius and his successors? This is the view taken by the Duke of Manchester; but while we are inclined to a considerable extent to coincide with him, we cannot now enter upon a new topic which involves so many separate considerations, and among the rest the important one of the identity of Nebuchadnezzar and Cambyses. Nor does the example of the author of the volume before us at all encourage us to prosecute this subject. He appears in several of his conclusions to be inconsistent with himself; and indeed the great fault which we have to find with his work is, that it consists more of a collection of materials bearing on the subject, than of a systematic elucidation of the chronology of the times of Daniel.

But if we decline to meddle with the chronology of the commencement of the captivity, we are at least bound to complete our view of the chronology of its close; and there are still two difficulties which we must attempt to remove. If the first of Koresh coincides with the twenty-second of Artaxerxes, how can we account for the fact stated by Ezra (ch. iv. 6), that in the reign of Ahashverosh the enemies of the Jews wrote to him an accusation against them? Ahashverosh or Xerxes was the predecessor of Artaxerxes, and reigned, therefore, before the time of Koresh and the return of the Jews. There are only two ways of solving this difficulty. One is by supposing that the mention of Ahashverosh is parenthetical, and then it may possibly refer to Xerxes II., who reigned a few months after the death of

Artaxerxes; the other by holding Ahashverosh and Artaxerxes to be the same monarch, which is the solution adopted by the Latin translation of Ezra, and by Philo, and derives support from the fact, that the verse containing the reference to Ahashverosh is omitted in the parallel passage of the apocryphal Esdras. The latter solution we are inclined to prefer.

The other difficulty is that Daniel dates one of his visions 'in the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.' (Dan. ix. 1.) Darius Hystaspes never could be called son of Ahashverosh, and therefore this Darius cannot be the same, consistently with Darius the Mede of chap. v. 31. The Duke of Manchester would identify him with Darius Nothus, on the following grounds. When Daniel offered the prayer contained in chap. ix., the seventy years of desolations were near to a close, and they terminated in the second of Darius Nothus. In his prayer, Daniel confesses the sins of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and speaks of the desolation of the temple; and this agrees with the state of matters in the first year of Darius Nothus. But then Darius Nothus was not the son of Ahashverosh or Xerxes, but of Artaxerxes. The author of the Times of Daniel never fairly meets this difficulty. He is contented with quoting one or two Jewish authors who call Darius the son of Ahashverosh ; but it seems plain that they, under the name of Darius, are speaking of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whom they frequently call Darius Longimanus. If, however, we adopt the supposition by which we attempted to solve the former difficulty, namely, that the name Ahashverosh is sometimes applied to Artaxerxes, our difficulty will be removed. Darius the son of Artaxerxes may on this principle be called Darius the son of Ahashverosh.

There are many other points bearing upon this subject, which, had our limits permitted, we would willingly have discussed, but we must forbear. Enough has been said, we think, to show that Cyrus and Koresh are not the same, and that our commonly received systems of connection between sacred and profane history must be abandoned.

ART. V.-The Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, D.D., late Head-Master of Rugby School. By A. P. STANLEY. 2 vols. London: 1845.

(Second Article.)

SOME minds are like a fertile soil. They are ever teeming with clear and useful thoughts. Such are a true blessing to their land and age. Yet they are not the highest gift to a generation; and

posterity will, in all likelihood, not recognize them. Other minds there are which serve even as a climate. They are replete with the most wholesome influences, and leave no place unvisited. Centuries may elapse between the occurrence of minds like these. But it is a peculiar advantage to live when they live, and their works will follow them after they are gone. When they are but climbing the firmament the air changes, though we cannot tell how. They advance, and we breathe more freely, whilst yet we cannot tell what has wrought this emancipation. But at their meridian, everything bears the mark of dew, and sunshine, and growth, and hopeful fruitage, though still what has led on this more vital season, may continue unknown.

It is but a few years since England had its attention drawn to the subject of pauperism, and we then saw its old economy displaced by that system, which, being right on its principles, would have proved in the end right in its operation. But why is the nation now alive to evils which it has borne with and gloried in for ages? Long before, wise and earnest philanthropists had laid bare the mischief, and implored our statesmen to bring down the axe on this root of bitterness. But no man's ear would open to the voice of these complaints. The minds that had spoken out in warning, it seems, were but minds of the secondary class,— minds of correct perception and judicious feeling,—not minds of deep emotion and prophetic sentiment,-minds only of fruitful and well-cultivated soil. Another mind arose,-and that a mind of the highest class,-one of those minds that has all the force of gravitation, and all its reach, and that spreads its influence like a season over the land. The result was what we have stated. The philosophy of pauperism was expounded by Chalmers, and England had to embrace the conclusions.

Another illustration of our remark, and one equally striking, is supplied by those volumes which stand at the head of this article. Education, whether preparatory or ultimate, had unhappily cooled in its original moulds, and that, which of all institutes ought to be most diligently carried forward to perfection, under the lights of experience and philosophy, gathered from every every age, seemed to be held as incapable even of improvement. Many and loud voices were lifted up on the subject, and at times a valuable alteration might be grafted upon former systems. But any change that was effected was partial and compulsory, and could be viewed only as a bribe to those who appeared set upon the introduction of larger reforms. No impulse, assuredly, was given to our parish schools, or the great foundation seminaries in England, or to the universities of either kingdom. On the contrary, it is well known that a few years past, the education of this country, on both sides the Tweed, was little in advance of

what had been established centuries before, and in some instances it had fallen down to a meagre, parched, and hollow routine. Neither Christianity nor literature-which never are stronger, never fairer,than when walking hand in hand-flourished the more because of it, but both seemed as if arrested in all their channels.

At length, however, the effete and palsied framework of our academical institutions occupied the thoughts of the nation, and men felt that they had slept too long amid the achievements of their ancestors. The entire subject of education is revised, and a new tone imparted to its systems. A mind has arisen in the south, to which education is its one idea, and which understands it as profoundly, as it enthusiastically promotes it. The minds of mere soil give place to one of climate, and the influence of Arnold tells upon this great question over the whole land. We may not be able, directly, to connect with the Head Master of Rugby the unquestionable advancement which has taken place, since 1827, in our educational seminaries of every description, but we have no hesitation in saying, that to him, beyond a doubt, we owe the impulse which has wrought in them all those beneficial reforms of which we are now reaping the advantage: And an extract from a letter of Dr Moberly, head master of Winchester, will be sufficient to establish this.

"The tone of young men at the university, whether they came from Winchester, Eton, Rugby, Harrow, or wherever else, was universally irreligious. A religious under-graduate was very rare, very much laughed at when he appeared, and I think I may confidently say, hardly to be found among public school-men; or, if this be too strongly said, hardly to be found except in cases were private and domestic training, or good dispositions, had prevailed over the school habits and tendencies. A most singular and striking change has come upon our public schools--a change too great for any person to appreciate adequately who has not known them in both these times. This change is undoubtedly part of a general improvement of our generation in respect of piety and reverence, but I am sure that to Dr Arnold's personal earnest simplicity of purpose, strength of character, power of influence, and piety, which none who ever came near him could mistake or question, the carrying of this improvement into our schools is mainly attributable. He was the first. It soon began to be matter of observation to us in the university, that his pupils brought quite a different character with them to Oxford than that which we knew elsewhere. I do not speak of opinions; but his pupils were thoughtful, manly-minded, conscious of duty and obligation when they first came to college. We regretted, indeed, that they were often deeply imbued with principles which we disapproved, but we cordially acknowledge the immense improvement in their character, in respect of morality and personal piety, and looked on Dr Arnold as exercising an influence for good which (for how many years I know not) had been absolutely unknown to our public schools." Vol. i. 190, 191.

At the very best, the public schools of England, such as Winchester, Eton, Westminster, and the Charter-house, are not framed after a model for which we have much partiality. Their popularity is hereditary, their expenditure enormous, but their national benefit, either to religion or science, has yet to be established. Even as literary institutions they want breadth and liberality, and are rather fitted to sustain the universities than elevate the country,-more especially as they are deficient in that moral and religious training which forms the character at the same time that it developes the mind, and prepares a Christian as well as a classical youth.

If Rugby, at the date of Dr Arnold's appointment as its head master, was not under, most certainly it was not above, the average of English seminaries, and it did stand greatly in need of being revised throughout all its departments. But Arnold was just the man for such circumstances, and he knew it. He discerned the exigency at once, and rose to meet it with all his resources. Teaching, which to most men, and these truly benevolent, is so positively irksome, was the employment which, above all others, elicited the energies of this singular individual, and afforded him his happiest hours. It was not less his choice than his vocation; and his genius in this sphere was equal to his enthusiasm. He loved the service; and it was one for which he was likewise eminently qualified.

"The post at Rugby," says his biographer," was not, in many respects, remarkably suited to his natural tastes-to his love of tuition, which had now grown so strong upon him, that he declared sometimes that he could hardly live without such employment-to the vigour and spirits which fitted him rather to deal with the young than the old-to the desire of carrying out his favourite ideas of uniting things secular with things spiritual-and of introducing the highest principles of action into regions comparatively uncongenial to their reception." i. 100.

And Dr Arnold's own statement is to the same effect.

"If my health and strength be spared me, I certainly feel, that in no situation could I have the prospect of employment so congenial to my tastes and qualifications." i. p. 88.

The fact is, Dr Arnold in some respects possessed not a little of what might have become a military genius: and the same turn for combination, and discipline, and order which might have proved essentially useful in the field, he brought to bear with uncommon tact on all the arrangements of his school; and the result was, that he gave to it a unity and life far beyond anything that had been previously attempted. Yet it was not the mere clockwork of the school he sought to improve. He bent himself not less to select and diversify its course of instruction in such a