under the blighting influences of imperialism, and the sterility of those
pedantic disquisitions upon style which are the inevitable consequence of
the lack of healthy subject-matter. Indeed, on the last page of his
history Mr. Mahaffy makes a formal recantation of most of his political
prejudices. He is still of opinion that Demosthenes should have been put
to death for resisting the Macedonian invasion, but admits that the
imperialism of Rome, which followed the imperialism of Alexander,
produced incalculable mischief, beginning with intellectual decay, and
ending with financial ruin. 'The touch of Rome,' he says, 'numbed Greece
and Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor, and if there are great buildings
attesting the splendour of the Empire, where are the signs of
intellectual and moral vigour, if we except that stronghold of
nationality, the little land of Palestine?' This palinode is, no doubt,
intended to give a plausible air of fairness to the book, but such a
death-bed repentance comes too late, and makes the whole preceding
history seem not fair but foolish.

It is a relief to turn to the few chapters that deal directly with the
social life and thought of the Greeks. Here Mr. Mahaffy is very pleasant
reading indeed. His account of the colleges at Athens and Alexandria,
for instance, is extremely interesting, and so is his estimate of the
schools of Zeno, of Epicurus, and of Pyrrho. Excellent, too, in many
points is the description of the literature and art of the period. We do
not agree with Mr. Mahaffy in his panegyric of the Laocoon, and we are
surprised to find a writer, who is very indignant at what he considers to
be the modern indifference to Alexandrine poetry, gravely stating that no
study is 'more wearisome and profitless' than that of the Greek
Anthology.

The criticism of the new comedy, also, seems to us somewhat pedantic. The
aim of social comedy, in Menander no less than in Sheridan, is to mirror
the manners, not to reform the morals, of its day, and the censure of the
Puritan, whether real or affected, is always out of place in literary
criticism, and shows a want of recognition of the essential distinction
between art and life. After all, it is only the Philistine who thinks of
blaming Jack Absolute for his deception, Bob Acres for his cowardice, and
Charles Surface for his extravagance, and there is very little use in
airing one's moral sense at the expense of one's artistic appreciation.
Valu