less consciously imitated the manner of Lord Tennyson, Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, such imitations of Mr. Browning are uncommonly scarce.  He is lucky enough not to have had the seed of his flower stolen and sown everywhere till—

“Once again the people
Called it but a weed.”

The other new poet of these days was Mr. Clough, who has many undergraduate qualities.  But his peculiar wistful scepticism in religion had then no influence on such of us as were still happily in the ages of faith.  Anything like doubt comes less of reading, perhaps, than of the sudden necessity which, in almost every life, puts belief on her trial, and cries for an examination of the creeds hitherto held upon authority, and by dint of use and wont.  In a different way one can hardly care for Mr. Matthew Arnold, as a boy, till one has come under the influence of Oxford.  So Mr. Browning was the only poet added to my pantheon at St. Andrews, though Macaulay then was admitted and appeared to be more the true model of a prose writer than he seems in the light of later reflection.  Probably we all have a period of admiring Carlyle almost exclusively.  College essays, when the essayist cares for his work, are generally based on one or the other.  Then they recede into the background.  As for their thought, we cannot for ever remain disciples.  We begin to see how much that looks like thought is really the expression of temperament, and how individual a thing temperament is, how each of us must construct his world for himself, or be content to wait for an answer and a synthesis “in that far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves.”  So, for one, in these high matters, I must be content as a “masterless man” swearing by no philosopher, unless he be the imperial Stoic of the hardy heart, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

Perhaps nothing in education encourages this incredulity about “masters” of thought like the history of philosophy.  The professor of moral philosophy, Mr. Ferrier, was a famous metaphysician and scholar.  His lectures on “The History of Greek Philosophy” were an admirable introduction to the subject, afterwards pursued, in the original authorities, at Oxford.  Mr. Ferrier was an exponent of other men’s ideas so fair and persuasive that, in each new school, we thought we had discovered the secret.  We were physicists with Thales and that pre-Socratic “company of gallant gentlemen” for whom Sydney Smith confessed his lack of admiration.  We were now Empedocleans, now believers in Heraclitus, now in Socrates, now in Plato, now in Aristotle.  In each lecture our professor set up a new master and gently disintegrated him in the next.  “Amurath to Amurath succeeds,” as Mr. T. H. Green used to say at Oxford.  He himself became an Amurath, a sultan of thought, even before his apotheosis as the guide of that bewildered clergyman, Mr. Robert Elsmere.  At Oxford, when one went there, one found Mr. Green already in the position of a leader of thought, and of young men.  He was a tutor of Balliol, and lectured on Aristotle, and of him eager youth said, in the words of Omar Khayyam, “He knows! he knows!”  What was it that Mr. Green knew?  Where was the secret?  To a mind already sceptical about masters, it seemed that the secret (apart from the tutor’s noble simplicity and rare elevation of character) was a knack of translating St. John and Aristotle alike into a terminology which we then believed to be Hegelian.  Hegel we knew, not in the original German, but in lectures and in translations.  Reasoning from these inadequate premises, it seemed to me that Hegel had invented evolution before Mr. Darwin, that his system showed, so to speak, the spirit at work in evolution, the something within the wheels.  But this was only a personal impression made on a mind which knew Darwin, and physical speculations in general, merely in the vague popular way.  Mr. Green’s pupils could generally write in his own language, more or less, and could “envisage” things, as we said then, from his point of view.  To do this was believed, probably without cause, to be useful in examinations.  For one, I could never take it much more seriously, never believed that “the Absolute,” as the Oxford Spectator said, had really been “got into a corner.”  The Absolute has too often been apparently cornered, too often has escaped from that situation.  Somewhere in an old notebook I believe I have a portrait in pencil of Mr. Green as he wrestled at lecture with Aristotle, with the Notion, with his chair and table.  Perhaps he was the last of that remarkable series of men, who may have begun with Wycliffe, among whom Newman’s is a famous name, that were successively accepted at Oxford as knowing something esoteric, as possessing a shrewd guess at the secret.

   “None the less
I still came out no wiser than I went.”

All of these masters and teachers made their mark, probably won their hold, in the first place, by dint of character, not of some peculiar views of theology and philosophy.  Doubtless it was the same with Socrates, with Buddha.  To be like them, not to believe with them, is the thing needful.  But the younger we are, the less, perhaps, we see this clearly, and we persuade ourselves that there is some mystery in these men’s possession, some piece of knowledge, some method of thinking which will lead us to certainty and to peace.  Alas, their secret is incommunicable, and there is no more a philosophic than there is a royal road to the City.

This may seem a digression from Adventures among Books into the Book of Human Life.  But while much of education is still orally communicated by lectures and conversations, many thoughts which are to be found in books, Greek or German, reach us through the hearing.  There are many pupils who can best be taught in this way; but, for one, if there be aught that is desirable in a book, I then, as now, preferred, if I could, to go to the book for it.

Yet it is odd that one remembers so little of one’s undergraduate readings, apart from the constant study of the ancient classics, which might not be escaped.  Of these the calm wisdom of Aristotle, in moral thought and in politics, made perhaps the deepest impression.  Probably politicians are the last people who read Aristotle’s “Politics.”  The work is, indeed, apt to disenchant one with political life.  It is melancholy to see the little Greek states running the regular round—monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, democracy in all its degrees, the “ultimate democracy” of plunder, lawlessness, license of women, children, and slaves, and then tyranny again, or subjection to some foreign power.  In politics, too, there is no secret of success, of the happy life for all.  There is no such road to the City, either democratic or royal.  This is the lesson which Aristotle’s “Polities” impresses on us, this and the impossibility of imposing ideal constitutions on mankind.

“Whate’er is best administered is best.”  These are some of the impressions made at Oxford by the studies of the schools, the more or less inevitable “curricoolum,” as the Scotch gentleman pronounced the word.  But at Oxford, for most men, the regular work of the schools is only a small part of the literary education.  People read, in different degrees, according to their private tastes.  There are always a few men, at least, who love literary studies for their own sake, regardless of lectures and of “classes.”  In my own time I really believe you could know nothing which might not “pay” in the schools and prove serviceable in examinations.  But a good deal depended on being able to use your knowledge by way of literary illustration.  Perhaps the cleverest of my own juniors, since very well known in letters, did not use his own special vein, even when he had the chance, in writing answers to questions in examinations.  Hence his academic