THE STORY OF EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY.* Tim is a disappointing and
unsatisfactory book—a criticism which we regret to have to make on any work by one who has done so much for Aristotelian scholarship and the higher education as Sir Alexander Grant. His object, he explains in his preface, has been "to produce, if possible, a readable book of moderate size, and, above all things, to tell a continuous story." This object he has signally failed to accOmplish. The book he has produced is anything but readable, its size is any- thing but moderate, and the continuity of its " story " is broken in upon in a positively exasperating fashion by appendices that are sandwiched between the various chapters that compose it. The first portion of the first volume is written with care, although essentially of the Dryasdust kind ; and Sir Alexander Grant shows patience and ingenuity in removing the mystery which, in spite of the labours of previous historians of the University, such as Cranfurd, Dalzel, and Bower, has en- veloped its origin. After this, however, Sir Alexander seems to "go to pieces." His "story," to the extent of two- thirds, is a crudis indigestcurne moles, a clumsy piece of book- making. No doubt, the history of a university must, like itself, be deficient in homogeneity; and Sir Alexander Grant's literary training has not qualified him for the:work of a " graphic " artist. But by relegating to appendices almost all references to the men—Professors, and the like—who have really made the University, who have given it distinction by distinguishing themselves, he has deprived the narrative of its natural vitality, and has made it almost as dreary reading as an old almanack. This is not all. These volumes have evidently been got up in a hurry, and to meet a possible demand for a work of the kind in April, when the tercentenary of Edinburgh University is to be celebrated, although it actually "fell due" in October last. Every second page is disfigured by slovenly writing. Hack- neyed quotations, like 'sweet reasonableness" and "it is a poor heart that never rejoices," confront the reader far too often. The biographical notices of the Professors that have held the various Chairs in the University have not been prepared. with an eye to proportion and relevancy. Some are absurdly long, others stingily short. Thus, in the notice of the late Dr. Robert Lee, who occupied the Edinburgh Chair of Biblical Criti- cism, far too much is said about the ecclesiastical and altogether extra-academic squabbles which played such an unfortunately large part in his life. By the way, too, the name of Dr. Lee's successor is Dr. Archibald, not Dr. Alexander, Hamilton Char- tens. Sir Alexander Grant's humour is thin and parochial. For example, in suggesting that the Edinburgh students might be all the better for having suitable restaurants and sets of cham- bers, he says:—" Perhaps this idea may be carried out before the 400th birthday of the University, if not by a benefactor, by a company (limited) !" There is parochialism, and also something more disagreeable than parochialism, in the reference to the Duke of Edinburgh with which this work closes, which we can scarcely believe Sir Alexander Grant to have written, but which he is, nevertheless, responsible for. The Duke, while Prince Alfred, and "in his youthful beauty," resided for nine months in Holyrood Palace, and during that period attended some of the classes at Edinburgh University. So his bast has been placed "in the Library Hall, at the apex of two long lines of the marble effigies of the most eminent Professors of the University in bygone times. And every one must feel that the post is worthily occupied by a Royal Prince who, by his great ability and scientific attainments, might, if his other public duties did not prevent him, take a distinguished place among the savants of the kingdom." Surely this playing at the historian-in-wait-
• The Story of She Univerrity of Edinburgh, during i's First Three Hundred rears. By Sir Alexander Grant, Bart. With Illustrations. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1884.
ing is poor work, for the editor of Aristotle and the Principal of Edinburgh University.
It will be gathered from what we have said that this Story will be found useful chiefly as a sort of reference-book, and, in- deed, ordinary readers cannot do better than consult the index for such subjects as the female-education movement, and the names of such men as Robertson, Hamilton, Wilson, Black, Leslie, Playfair, Christison, Simpson, and Syme, and then read what Sir Alexander Grant has to say. As a historian, Sir Alexander makes two points, if he does not make two dis- coveries. In the first place, he makes it clear that Bower, a previous historian, is wrong in declaring that the University owed its origin to the generosity of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Bishop Reid, of Orkney. Its real founders were the Town Council and city clergy of Edinburgh. The Council began its efforts in 1561, but was thwarted by Queen Mary in its desire to get the famous or infamous Kirk o' Field to build a college on. The Reformation took place, however, and the Protestant clergy coming to the aid of the Council, the Kirk o' Field was purchased in 1581, and the year following James VI. granted a charter to the college. Sir Alexander Grant shows much ingenuity in trying to prove • that there must have been an earlier charter than this, but into such investigations we do not feel concerned to follow him. Edinburgh University, therefore, made, as Sir Alexander Grant allows, a very humble start. In no sense was it, like the senior Universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, a etudium generate. It was simply a town's college, for giving the higher learning of the time; and, indeed, up to a quite recent period, the town through its council exercised patronal and other control over the University. Gradually, however, the institution developed, as the range of the studies included in it extended ; ultimately, its patrons "abolished the tutorial system, and substituted Professors of special subjects for the Regents of Philosophy." This great change was con- summated—here Sir Alexander Grant makes his second point—in 1708, when the Principal of the institution was William Carstares, the sagacious Presbyterian adviser of Dutch William, who, returning to his native country with Dutch ideas on education, induced the Edinburgh Council to remodel its college on "the most famous Universities abrdad," that is to say, on Utrecht and Leyden. Edinburgh, therefore, although the youngest of Scotch colleges, may be said to be the oldest of Scotch Universities. At all events, the substitution it made in 1708 of "specialised Professors" for "rotating Regents" was followed by Glasgow in 1727, by St. Andrew's in 1747, and by Aberdeen in 1754.
From 1708 to 1858, when the well-known Scotch Universities Act was passed, Edinburgh University had its vicissitudes. There was a long and bitter struggle between its Senatus Aca,demicus and the Town Council, whose position as govern- ing body was found less and less tolerable. The story of this struggle Sir Alexander Grant tells with impartiality, if not in a very picturesque or entertaining style, proving that not infrequently the Town Council authorities were wiser and more magnanimous than those of the University. All the while that this conflict, which in time merged in another occasioned by the Disruption of the Free Church, was going on, the very remarkable evolution of the University was quietly proceeding also. A livelier pen than Sir Alexander -Grant's might have invested with something like romance the history of its great medical school. Since 1858, it is unneces- sary to say the career of the University has been one of unin- terrupted and, in certain respects, even embarrassing success. Fresh legislation in regard to the Scotch Universities being in the air, we forbear to allude to these elements of em- barrassment. The following précis of the financial condition of the University may be found useful, and it tells its own tale :— "The total amount of the benefactions received by the University of Edinburgh from private sources during the last twenty years is
considerably under-stated as follows :— For Scholarships 2142,000 For Bursaries... ... 90,000 For Professorships ... 58,000 For Increasing Professors' Salaries 18,000 For Buildings... ... 130,000 For Miscellaneous Purposes... ... 14,000
In addition to which the University has received a subsidy from .Government of 280,000 for its new building. And, as since 1862 the number of students attending the classes has increased from about 1,500 to over 3,300, we may truly say that since the Commissioners of 1858-62 left the University settled under its new constitution, its prosperity has been constantly advancing 'by leaps and bounds."
Previous page
