S*ltii,C^-f 
 
00 
 
 CD 
 
 
 LCI 003 .06^787^'" ''""^ 
 
 'iSwiiiifini'iiS,,^^ information or as 
 
 3 1924 030 613 016 
 
 CLASSICAL STUDIE 
 
 AS 
 
 INFORMATION OR AS TRAINING. 
 
 BY 
 
 A SCOTCH GRADUATE. 
 
1003 
 CGI 
 

 Date 
 
 Due 
 
 
 \^m 
 
 ^ ^?i5i 
 
 
 
 %•••■' - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030613016 
 
CLASSICAL STUDIES, 
 
 INFORMATION OR AS TRAINING. 
 
 BY 
 
 A SCOTCH GRADUATE. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 
 
 54 9 & Bol BROADWAY. 
 1872. 
 
K J-/ CJX- ■ ■ 
 
 The following pages contain an interesting discussion 
 of an old question from the most recent point of view. 
 It is not only fresh and pungent in its statements, but is 
 liberal in its spirit and practical in its aims. The argu- 
 ■ ment was spoken of very highly by Prof. Bain, of the 
 University of Aberdeen, and excited so much attention 
 upon its appearance in England as to warrant its reproduc- 
 tion here. 
 
 ^^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introductory, ..... 1 
 
 Argument I. — A knowledge of Greek and Latin is desirable 
 as the only means of obtaining an acquaint- 
 ance witb Greek and Roman Life, . 4 
 
 Argument II. — A knowledge of Classics is indispensable to 
 
 the Professions, ... 10 
 
 Argument III. — A knowledge of Classics prevents us from 
 
 mistaking words for things, . . 12 
 
 Argument IV. — Without a Classical Education we cannot . 
 understand our own Language, . 16 
 
 Argument V. — English Grammar cannot be taught without 
 
 Latin Grammar, ... 18 
 
 Argument VI. — Through Classics a knowledge is gained of 
 
 universal Grammar, ... 22 
 
 Argument VII. — Latin Grammar is the best introduction to 
 
 Logic, . . . • .23 
 
 Argument VIII.— A Classical Education is the best training 
 
 in English Composition, 24 
 
 Argument IX.— A Classical Education trains the Mental 
 
 Faculties, .... 27 
 
 The Educational Kesources of English, 
 
 36 
 
THE CLAIMS OF CLASSICAL STUDIES, 
 
 WHETHER AS INFORMATION OR AS TRAINING. 
 
 About six months ago, the present Lord Rector of 
 the University of Aberdeen, Mr. Grant Duff, submitted 
 to the University Court a scheme for reducing the value 
 of Latin Composition in the competition for Bursaries. 
 In a lecture recently given at Edinburgh upon Education, 
 Professor Jowett condemned the existing methods of 
 classical instruction, and asserted that Latin and Greek 
 might be learned in two-thirds of the time now bestowed 
 upon them. And the other day, Mr. Froude, addressing the 
 students of St. Andrew's on the occasion of his installa- 
 tion as their Lord Rector, in place of Greek recommended 
 French, or German, or Chemistry, or Norman-French, or 
 Chinese, or Russian, according to the wants of the indi- 
 vidual. Such explosions of discontent keep the question 
 of classical education in a lively condition. 
 
 In fact, complaints against the Classics have grown so 
 common of late that people begin to be weary of the 
 question before anything has been done to settle it. The 
 cry that we have had enough of discussion about Classics, 
 and the sneer that every scribbler must have his fling at 
 Classics now-a-days, are taken up with such heartiness by 
 those interested in keeping things just as they are, that it 
 is difficult sometimes to get a hearing. 
 
 To vindicate the right of speech on a question that 
 deserves every ventilation, it may be sufficient to say that 
 if there were more doing, there might be less talking. 
 It is contrary to all experience to suppose that if there 
 were a cessation of the talking, the authorities might in 
 course of time begin to act. The importunate widow in 
 the parable knew better than that. 
 
Believing that it is wise to discuss such a question to 
 the utmost, and that the public should be grateful for the 
 smallest contributions to the discussion, the writer of the 
 following essay ventures to add his mite. His object is 
 not to lay down any abstract theories of education. He 
 will confine himself to the simple question, what teaching 
 or training can be imparted to an Englishman of the 
 present day by a classical education, and in no other way. 
 With this view he means to consider in a plain matter-of- 
 fact way the various arguments for classical instruction 
 advanced by its numerous and eloquent apologists. He 
 would ask in the first place : — Are the various ends said to 
 be gained by Classics, desirable ends? He would ask in 
 the second place, how far, under the present mode of 
 teaching Classics, desirable ends are attained. And he 
 would ask finally, whether a knowledge of Classics, of 
 Latin, or of Greek, or of both, whatever be the plan of 
 teaching these languages, is the only way of access to 
 these desirable ends, and the best way, or whether these 
 ends may not be reached otherwise and more economically 
 for the youthful brain. 
 
 It will be found that in most cases the services claimed 
 for the ancient languages are valuable services, and that 
 if a knowledge of these tongues could render one-tenth 
 of the services alleged, it would be a serious crime 
 to utter a word against their continuance as the staple of 
 education. But what if, under the present mode of 
 teaching Classics, many of the alleged services are not 
 rendered ? And what if it be the case that where certain 
 services are rendered, or might be rendered, by a knowledge 
 of Classics, they are rendered, or might be rendered in so 
 far as they are desirable, more economically by other means ? 
 
 It may be well to dispose at this stage of a grave 
 historical blunder, sometimes perpetrated by classicists in 
 hopes of foreclosing argument. They place classical dis- 
 cipline within the charmed circle of antiquity. They 
 extol Latin Composition as a venerable link with the 
 
past. As conclusive for the perpetuation of classical 
 study, they cite the authority of the great Schoolmasters 
 of the Reformation. They forget that classical study in 
 the Reformation times was a very different thing from 
 classical study in the 19th century. The ends were 
 different, and the means were different. The ends : Latin 
 beLug the literary language of the west, boys were taught 
 the language they had to write when grown to manhood. 
 The means : nothing but Latin was spoken either in the 
 school or in the play-ground ; the use of the mother 
 tongue was there under prohibition. Now, if a man declares 
 that their education was admirably suited to their neces- 
 sities, I can both understand him, and agree with him. 
 If he contends that our system is adapted to our necessities, 
 I can at least understand his position. But to say that 
 the two schemes are alike ; that our plan of classical in- 
 struction is a venerable device of ancient wisdom, is a 
 historical blunder. 
 
 In what follows, a distinction is observed between 
 DisciPLiNAEiAN and Utilitarian defenders of classical 
 education. 
 
 The Disciplinarian would retain classics as the best 
 possible training for the mind, especially as an invaluable 
 discipline for boys. The Utilitarian would retain classics 
 for their substantial advantages, for the sake of inform- 
 ation, that, in his opinion, is unattainable otherwise. 
 The two schools are unmistakeably opposed ; the one is 
 pi*ecluded in a great measure from the arguments of the 
 other. The Disciplinarian, defending the existing system 
 of instruction, cannot use the main arguments of the 
 Utilitarian ; because, whatever may be the effects of 
 that system as training, it fails conspicuously to convey 
 much information. 
 
 The Utilitarian on the other hand, desirous of change, 
 insists upon the substantial advantages as the main 
 consideration : he must ignore the training ; if he should 
 say that any other mode of teaching classics is as good a 
 
training as the present mode, he would appear visionary to 
 the Disciplinarian, he would border on the heresy that there 
 may be other subjects of study no less valuable as training 
 than the classical languages themselves. 
 
 I shall endeavour to shew that the substantial advantages 
 of the Utilitarian, in so far as they are substantial, may "be 
 procured less wastefully otherwise. Against the Disciplin- 
 arian I shall endeavour to shew that his training, in so far 
 as it is a training and not an encumbrance, may be obtained 
 in more valuable studies than the ancient languages. It is 
 in the middle ground between the two schools that we shall 
 find the most extravagant pretensions ; these I shall be 
 careful to consider in their order. 
 
 ARGUMENT I. 
 
 A Knowledge of greek aTid latin is desirable as the only 
 means of obtaining an acquaintance with greek 
 
 AND ROMAN LIFE. 
 
 Let us ask, in the first place, how far a knowledge of the 
 Ancient world is desirable. 
 
 Does this knowledge refine the manners ? — The opinion of 
 Sir. E. Bulwer Lytton, an opinion much in favour with the 
 illiterate, that classics have a peculiar refining influence on 
 the manners, every body will admit to be thoughtlessly ex- 
 treme. It is rejected as such by Professor Seeley, who, with 
 his usual good sense, points out that the refinement of 
 manners is due to the character of University Society. 
 
 Does this knowledge enlarge the mind ? — The question is 
 vague ; what it means will appear from a quotation or two. 
 " I should consider it a great misftrtune," says Professor 
 Seeley, " if the standard of high scholarship should ever be 
 lowered in England, or the study of antiquity should cease to 
 be one of the most important and one of the noblest of studies." 
 " In studying the great writers of antiquity, says Mr. Mill," 
 " we are not only learning to understand the ancient mind 
 but laying in a stock of wise thought and observation, still 
 
valuable to ourselves." Further, Mr. Mill says that unless we 
 know " the thoughts, feelings, and type of character of some 
 other people than ourselves, we remain, to the hour of our 
 death, with our intellects only half expanded," and that the 
 best people to know, are the ancient Greeks and Romans. 
 These are high authorities for the value of classic lore. 
 
 How far is this knowledge a luxury ? — If a knowledge of 
 ancient life is a luxury pure and simple, it is inadmissible as 
 an end in general education until ample provision has 
 been made for all ends of substantial value. In whatever 
 measure it is a luxury, in that measure is it secondary, as 
 an educational end, to studies that are not luxuries. 
 
 How far this acquaintance with ancient life is a luxury I 
 leave for others to decide. 
 
 I do so because I shall try to make out that ancient life 
 may be intimately understood without a knowledge of Latin 
 and Greek, and would be more generally known if school boy 
 dabbling in Classics were discontinued. 
 
 Let us ask in the second place, how far this enlarge- 
 ment of mind is secured under the present mode of 
 classical study. 
 
 Mr. Mill, of course, runs full tilt at the present mode 
 of classical instruction. Professor Seeley testifies that 
 the English Schools and Universities succeed in expanding 
 only a small minority. As for our (Scottish) University 
 men, the percentage of them indebted for their impres- 
 sions of ancient life chiefly to the ancient authors, might, 
 I venture to say, be passed bodily through the eye of a 
 needle. What little knowledge we have of the ancient 
 Greek and Roman, is embibed for the most part from 
 Classical Dictionaries, Manuals of Antiquities, Histories, 
 and Review Articles, all written in English. On the 
 whole, if familiarity with the good and wise men of old 
 constitutes one half of the fully expanded man, and the only 
 passage to ancient thought is through the ancient language, 
 the majority of educated men in this country are, it is 
 to be feared, in a very embryonic condition indeed. 
 
Let us ask in the third place, whether a knowledge of 
 the thoughts, sentiments, and character of the Greeks 
 and Romans can be attained without a knowledge of the 
 languages of Greece and Rome. 
 
 1. Mr, Mill seems to eocaggerate the value of an 
 acquaintance with the ancient authors. " Modern works," 
 he says, " do not show us the Greeks and Romans ; they 
 tell us some modern writer's opinions about the Greeks 
 
 and Romans When we want to know 
 
 really what a person thinks or says, we seek it at first 
 hand from himself." 
 
 Now it is a well-known fact, often exemplified, that a 
 modem may know an ancient author by heart, and yet 
 have the most erroneous notions of his meaning. A 
 modern naturally interprets ancient writings as if they 
 had been produced under modern circumstances. Before 
 he can either feel or know an ancient writer truly, he 
 must be informed of the circumstances of the writer ; in 
 short, he must KNOW ANCIENT LIFE. To vivify his con- 
 ception of ancient life, it may be well to look now and 
 then into the ancient books ; but without a general 
 knowledge of ancient life, he cannot read the ancient 
 books so as to understand them. 
 
 No man, however aciite, can understand an ancient 
 author without this knowledge. It would be unwise in 
 any man to deny himself the benefit of results attained 
 by the laborious investigations of generation after genera- 
 tion of antiquarian scholars. Whoever goes to the ancient 
 authors without a modern guide, can end only in substitut- 
 ing error for ignorance. Mr. Thomas Carlyle must have a 
 more than ordinary power of realizing history ; yet Mr. 
 Thomas Carlyle is not ashamed to acknowledge that he 
 owed his " introduction for the first time into an insight of 
 Roman life," not to Horace, nor to Livy, but to Virgil's 
 Commentator, Heyne. 
 
 Against the prejudices of modern writers, specially versed 
 in classical literature, we have the usual security. If one 
 
writer is misled, there are others of equal professional 
 learning ready to correct him. 
 
 Our conclusion is, that though we may profitably spend 
 an occasional half-hour with an ancient author to fill in 
 and vivify our impressions of ancient life, we must rely for 
 those impressions mainly, and in the first instance upon 
 modern commentators and historians. 
 
 This conclusion Mr. Mill would doubtless homologate, 
 though from his unguarded mode of expression, he seems, 
 for the moment, to have forgotten it. 
 
 2. Granted that an occasional reference to ancient books 
 is useful to make our conceptions of the ancients more 
 vivid, the ancient authors can he approached well enough 
 for the purpose in translations. 
 
 Mr. Mill says that " translations are scarcely better" than 
 modern writers. " When we want to know really what a 
 person thinks or says, we seek it at first-liand from himself." 
 
 Without farther remark on the question of precedence 
 between translations and modern writers, I proceed to con- 
 sider what translations can do, and what they cannot do. 
 
 (a) What Translations can do.' — That matters of fact 
 can be communicated in a translation will probably be 
 conceded without demur. Objectors are met by the 
 standing example of Euclid ; and if they say that Euclid is 
 bare science, and affords no argument for the possibility of 
 translating history, can they hold the same regarding the 
 history and precepts of the Bible ? If Scripture cannot 
 be understood without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, 
 and so few of this great nation know these languages, surely 
 our clerical guides deserve something worse than disestablish- 
 ment and disendowment. 
 
 Between matters of fact and matters of sentiment it is 
 hard to draw the line. We might say that if the Bible can 
 be fully understood in an English version with the help of 
 histories and commentaries, any foreign work scientific or 
 poetical, might with similar aid be understood in an English 
 version. Further, let any one doubting the efiicacy of 
 
translations and commentaries to convey the sentiments of 
 the original, bear in mind the often-quoted case of John 
 Keats, who 
 
 ■without Greek 
 
 Contrived to talk about the gods of late. 
 
 Much as they might have been supposed to speak; 
 
 If John Keats misunderstood the Greek spirit, what 
 reason have we to believe that he would have understood 
 the Greek spirit had he been able to read Greek authors in 
 the original ? 
 
 (b) What Translations cannot reproduce is i/rmnateriat 
 to a knowledge of ancient thought, sentiment, or character. 
 
 It may be objected that when all has been said that can 
 be said, a translation is one thing and an original is another. 
 
 This I do not dispute. I hold it a blunder to expect in a 
 translation the full effect of the original ; but I wish to 
 point out distinctly what it is that a translation does fail to 
 reproduce. It is neither the facts nor the characteristic 
 sentiments that a translation fails to catch, it is the march 
 of the language, the melody and the harmony peculiar to 
 the- writer. Even various qualities of style, simplicity, 
 dignity, tenderness, may be reproduced to the life. It is the 
 movement of the words and the adaptation of the sound to 
 the sense that the translator finds it hard to compass. I 
 question whether it is possible to reproduce these qualities 
 even in their general effect. 
 
 When we miss this full flavour of the original, we must 
 not suppose that we have missed the meaning. And who 
 will venture to say that for the sake of conferring this sweet 
 titillation of the ear and the voice, on the rare individuals 
 capable of such enjoyment, we are to condemn the multitude 
 to years of forlorn " gerund grinding V 
 
 (c) It may be said that, in every foreign author, there 
 are certain words that cannot be rendered into English. 
 
 It is obvious that such words are names of institutions, 
 officials, and such like, to which we have no parallels in 
 
English, prytamsa, oenturia, liator. Such words have no 
 single equivalent in English, and probably cannot be 
 expressed by any tolerable circumlocution. But nobody will 
 maintain that these words are intelligible in the original 
 without an explanation. To the reader of a translation, 
 they cost no greater effort of apprehension, than to the 
 reader of the original ; the explanation that suffices for the 
 one will suffice for the other. 
 
 Whoever considers that there are untranslatable words 
 not belonging to this class, would do well to let them be 
 known. The incapacity to find equivalents for them, may 
 be an incapacity of the individual. 
 
 We must not judge of what translations might he, from 
 what many translations are. 
 
 It is long since Dryden pointed out that two things are 
 necessary to a good translation. It is not enough to know 
 the original. There is required also a knowledge of our 
 mother tongue. Either knowledge is insufficient without 
 the other. What Dryden said concerning his time is only 
 too true of ours, owing, doubtless, to the dissipation of our 
 energies on Latin and Greek : — " The properties and deli- 
 cacies of the English are known to few." 
 
 Obvious as is the above principle, readers will persistently 
 overlook it. They fancy that nothing is required but a 
 knowledge of the original language. They expect a man 
 with no particular talent for the expression, in prose or in 
 verse, of his own sentiments and opinions, to become a 
 master of Eng'lish when he goes to translate the sentiments 
 and opinions of a master of Greek. They expect a pedantic 
 Professor, immersed in classical idiom from his youth up, to 
 produce a metrical translation of Euripides as readable as 
 might have been produced by Byron at his best. And 
 prose translations they estimate by the article sometimes 
 Smuggled into our class-rooms. What can be more unreason- 
 able I Before a translation can be adequate to the original, 
 the translator must not only understand the author and have 
 lived into his life ; over and above this, the translator must 
 
10 
 
 be as great a master of English as the author was of his 
 native tongue. 
 
 A very pertinent question occurs. Where are we to find 
 chily qualified translators 1 
 
 That may safely be left to the law of Supply and 
 Demand. If the necessity of referring to original authors 
 be strongly felt, they are sure to find qualified interpreters. 
 
 It is to be remarked, that the demand for ancient litera- 
 ture would be greater, were an end put to the pretence of 
 making all educated men able to read classics in the original. 
 At present, most reading men are debarred from the classical 
 authors by the difficulty of making them out. How many 
 of our educated countrymen " keep up their classics " well 
 enough to read Thucydides with ease ? The same men are 
 debarred from translations by their sense of dignity, being 
 supposed learned enough to read the original. Now, were 
 translations the recognised media, the few men that have a 
 taste in that direction might now and then pass an hour 
 with an ancient poet, historian, or philosopher. 
 
 Finally, as regards translations, it must not be forgotten 
 that under the present system of learning classics, such of 
 us as do read classical authors, read them in a more or less 
 inaccurate translation of our own manufoA^ture. For we 
 are not taught to connect Latin and Greek words with the 
 things they signify; we are taught only to remember 
 English words at the sight of their classical equivalents. 
 Now, until the present mode of teaching classics is altered, 
 it stands to the principle of the division of labour that our 
 interpretation of the ancient authors would be more faithful, 
 if performed by translators of professional skill. 
 
 ARGUMENT II. 
 
 A knowledge of classics is indispensable to the 
 
 PROFESSIONS. 
 
 Is the interest of the professions to be made an end in 
 school and college education ? — Mr. Mill thinks not. He 
 
11 
 
 holds that a University is " not a place of professional 
 education." This view appears extreme. If a majority of 
 university men are destined for the professions, their in- 
 terests should be consulted in arranging the curriculum. 
 If, however, classics are useful for professional men only, the 
 classical classes should be made optional for all others. 
 
 Is it then the fact that classics are indispensable to the 
 Professions ? — The Rev. W. G. Clark, the accomplished co- 
 editor of Shakespeare, Fellow of Trinity, Cambridge, puts 
 the question, whether a physician " can pretend to a thorough 
 knowledge of his craft, if he be ignorant of the language of 
 Hippocrates and Galen," or the language " in which, to this 
 very day, he writes his prescriptions'?" On the other hand, 
 Mr. Henry Sidgwick, also of Trinity, asks whether we can 
 " gravely urge " this question, apparently suspecting Mr 
 Clark of a joke. Mr. Sidgwick is not sure that the professional 
 argument " has, on the whole, been of service to the cause." 
 " In some cases," he says, " there is an almost comical dis- 
 crepancy between the labour expended and the utility 
 acquired." 
 
 Leaving the learned Fellows of Trinity and defenders of 
 classical education to settle this matter between them, we 
 need only observe, that as far as Lawyers and Physicians 
 are concerned, all the knowledge of works written in Latin 
 and Greek, that they require for the practice of their 
 professions, can be obtained in translations. The Germans 
 know how to manage these things. Dr. R. G. Latham 
 gives the following case. " Whatever is worth reading in 
 the Danish and Swedish, is forthwith translated into German. 
 E. g., Professor Retzius of Stockholm, wrote a good Manual 
 of Anatomy. He had the satisfaction of seeing it translat- 
 ed into German. He had the further satisfaction of hearing 
 that the translation ran through five editions in less time 
 than the original did through one." If Galen, Hippocrates, 
 and Justinian are so very important, why should they not 
 be translated also ? If the member for west Aberdeenshire 
 had to make a study of Hesiod before he could rear his 
 
12 
 
 famous cattle, I should be sorry to think that he wasted his 
 energies upon the original. The Kev. Dr. Gumming has 
 attained much celebrity as a cultivator of bees ; the Rev. 
 Doctor will doubtless admit that the hints he received from 
 Virgil's Georgics might have percolated through a Bohn's 
 translation. 
 
 Latin and Greek seem to be of more consequence to the 
 clerical profession. Now, it is evident that for all Latin 
 works they may trust, as many do trust, to the ecclesiastical 
 historian, and translations of the leading original author-' 
 ities. And as for Greek, the necessity of Hellenistic Greek 
 to clergymen is surely no argument for imposing Classical 
 Greek upon every person aspiring to a liberal education* 
 Hebrew is not a school study. — And as regards the necessity 
 of Hellenistic Greek even, I may quote what Mr. Sidgwick 
 says : — " We cannot avoid contrasting the great anxiety 
 shewn tljat a clergyman should know Greek, with the com- 
 placent indifference , with which his total ignorance of 
 Hebrew is usually contemplated." 
 
 The above are the main arguments on the Utilitarian 
 side, the chief "substantial advantages" alleged for classical 
 studies. We have found that the present mode of instruc- 
 tion fails consipicuously to impart the information desired, 
 except to a small minority. Further that it is unnecessary 
 to change the mode of instruction on that account, because 
 the desired information can be attained without a knowledge 
 of Latin or Greek in any form. 
 
 ARGUMENT III. 
 
 A .knowledge of Classics prevents us from mistaking words 
 
 FOR THINGS. 
 
 Perhaps this argument is not familiar to readers unac- 
 quainted with Mr. Mill's inaugural address at St. Andrews. 
 " It is," Mr. Mill there says, " a purely intellectual benefit 
 from a knowledge of languages," that we are thereby saved 
 
13 
 
 from " mistaking words for things." I have not met with 
 the argument elsewhere. 
 
 The value of the service is not denied. — If we are accus- 
 tomed to think of a thing always in connection with a par- 
 ticular name, the union being so intimate that the one never 
 occurs without suggesting the other, there is a danger of com- 
 ing to regard the union as mysterious and indissoluble. 
 
 Further, Mr. Mill very justly observes: — " We know how 
 common it is to use words glibly and with apparent propriety, 
 and to accept them confidently when used by others, with- 
 out ever having had any distinct conception of the things 
 denoted by them." 
 
 Classics, as now taught, do not render this service. — We 
 are taught to associate the classic name, not with the thing, 
 but with the equivalent name, ignis, not with the thing called 
 by the people of England " fire," but with the wori fire itself. 
 We are not reminded by classic verbal symbols of the things 
 signified ; we are reminded of the equivalent English symbols. 
 Thus, in translation, the Latin and Greek word never comes 
 in contact with the thing at all, does not occur as an 
 alternative name for the thing, but simply as a word that the 
 corresponding English word will stand for. Conversely in 
 composition. 
 
 Seeing, then, that the thing is rarely or never thought 
 of, either in translation or in composition, as at present 
 practised, it is too much to imagine that by these processes 
 the word and the thing are disassociated. 
 
 The Greek poets read in a man's name an indication of 
 his character and destiny ; they fancied, for instance, that 
 Aias was fore-ordained to a mournful end, because his name 
 signifies Alas ! Now we may safely say that a boy that 
 should consider a person of the name of Black a bad 
 character because so called, would not be disabused of the 
 superstition by knowing that the Latin for black is niger. 
 
 With regard to the glib use of words without knowledge 
 of their meaning, we need only remark that Socrates disco- 
 vered this danger, although he knew no language but his own. 
 
14 
 
 If it be said that Greek philosophy, for all the eflForts of 
 Socrates and his disciples, suffered much from this confusion 
 between words and things, and that the Greeks would have 
 been saved all this, had they known another language, an 
 answer is not far to seek. Greek Philosophy, verbal 
 entanglements and all, has been accepted by more than one 
 nation ; the advantage of knowing two or more tongues has 
 been proved to be no safeguard in this particular. 
 
 Another word on this efficacy of the Classics. A little 
 reflection will make it appear to anybody that a knowledge 
 of other languages than our own, instead of preserving us 
 from vague volubility, rather tends to produce that fault. 
 
 If instead of studying to realize the meanings of our 
 verbal symbols, we spend our time in studying their equivalents 
 in other languages, we must, inevitably, often perplex our- 
 selves and others by vague thinking, speaking, and 
 writing. 
 
 Let this then be carefully noted. The study of Classics, 
 so far from aiding precision in the use of our own la/nguage^ 
 is for that purpose so much lost time. Carried out in 
 practice as far as it is recommended in theory, this study 
 would make precision of language a luxury for men of 
 leisure ; it would, as it often does, occupy all the period 
 available for undistracted study. On the other hand, were 
 the time now spent on Classics spent on our own language, 
 we should undoubtedly speak and write with greater exact- 
 ness of phrase. 
 
 Mr. Mill underrates the difficulty of preventing this 
 confusion between words and things. He speaks as if 
 merely knowing different names for the same thing were 
 sufficient. It is not so. The danger of mistaking words for 
 things must be brought definitely forward. It will not be 
 apprehended, it will never be thought of, unless it is speci- 
 fically insisted upon, however many symbols a man may 
 know. It must be explained and cautioned against, to the 
 man that is learned in many languages, as much as to the 
 man that is learned in one. 
 
15 
 
 Mr. Mill extravagantly overrates the means of meeting 
 this difficulty. In order to understand the explanation and 
 profit by the caution, there is no need to spend years in 
 acquiring two or three huge systems of naming and pre- 
 dicating. The subject might be elucidated without travelling 
 out of the dialects of two provinces or two parishes, or 
 even out of the synonyms of a single homestead. A dozen 
 well worked illustrations will do as well as a million. We do 
 not require to swallow several cart-loads of salt to know 
 the taste of the substance. 
 
 The fact seems to be that this argument of Mr. Mill's is 
 an inconsiderate assertion. To illustrate still farther the 
 random talking of eloquent men concerning the Classics, 
 take another assertion of Mr. Mill's. " If we would repre- 
 sent to ourselves how a Greek thought, we must be able to 
 a certain extent to think in Greek." Now in order that we 
 may know how a Greek thought, at first-hand from the 
 original, it is necessary only that the Greek words should 
 suggest to the reader their proper meanings, without the 
 intervention of the English equivalents ; in short, that the 
 Greek should be read without being translated. And what 
 does thinking in Greek imply ? Quite a different thing. 
 Instead of Greek words suggesting thoughts, the thoughts 
 must suggest the Greek words, a very different order of 
 association. Whoever thinks the two orders of association are 
 the same, may undeceive himself by inverting any familiar 
 association ; let him try for instance to repeat the ordinary 
 " Grace before meat" backwards. Thinking in Greek 
 would be a most laborious acquisition, to be attained after 
 years of practice. And what would be the value of the 
 accomplishment ? Very doubtful indeed. Just as in rapid 
 discussion we jerk out whichever of several synonyms 
 comes handiest, we should often be guilty of giving 
 off Greek words when they were not wanted. In fact, a 
 perfect linguist, after this order of perfection, might as well 
 be dumb, unless for purposea of abuse. Except for exple- 
 tive purposes it is hard to see the use of being, what 
 
It; 
 
 Mr. Glark saya a Latin scholar is " gifted with a new and 
 in some respects, a more perfect instrument of thought and 
 expression." 
 
 ARGUMENT IV. 
 
 Without a classical education we cannot understand oue 
 
 OWN LANGUAGE. 
 
 The Schools Inquiry Commissioners for 1868, reported 
 that " Latin has entered so largely into English that the 
 meaning of a very large proportion of our words is first 
 discovered to us on learning Latin, and to a no less degree 
 has it entered into English literature, so that many of our 
 classical writers are only half intelligible, unless some Latin 
 precede the reading." 
 
 This argument is unsubstantial. Perhaps one man in 
 a thousand of our countrymen has some smattering of 
 Latin, fresh or faded ; say one man in a hundred ; do the 
 Commissioners mean to aver that ninety-nine men in every 
 hundred of us have not discovered the meaning of " a very 
 large proportion " of what we say 1 Would they maintain, 
 for example, that the President of the Board of Trade does 
 not know the meaning of " radical," or " conservative," or 
 " chartist " ? 
 
 It is useless to reason with men capable of putting on 
 record, or of accepting such a proposition. It is useless to 
 point out, what seems obvious enough, that the meaning of 
 a word is determined not by its derivation, but by usage. 
 
 If anybody, after ten minutes' reflection, continues in 
 such a belief, he had better have recourse to practical 
 experiment. Let him call a servant a " slave," a sturdy 
 rustic a " pagan," a Presbyterian father of a family a 
 " pope." He will thus be delivered from his error very 
 eifectually, if not so agreeably as he might desire. 
 
 i he same argument is put on a somewhat grander scale, — 
 Mr. Clark contends that, "whatever the subject matter may 
 be, no man can expound it with scientific precision unless he 
 
17 
 
 is acquainted with the etymologies and mutual relations of 
 the terms he employs." 
 
 English Philology is doubtless an interesting study. Like 
 other artists, the verbal artist takes a pleasure in the 
 makers and the materials of his instruments. And some 
 time might not unprofitably be devoted to the sources of the 
 language, and the leading rules of verbal change. 
 
 That is all that can be said for the study of Philology, 
 and it is no small recommendation. To go Mr. Clark's length 
 is a mistake. The meaning of root words, and the history of 
 their transformation down to the present time, are no more 
 essential to clear and effective composition than a historical 
 knowledge of tools is essential to good carpentry ; and the 
 reason is manifest. The meaning of a word is determined 
 not by its derivation but by usage. We can no more know 
 the meaning of a word from the meaning of its etymon than 
 we can know the size of a river at its mouth by going to its 
 source. 
 
 How should English Philology he studied ? Philological 
 knowledge, however delightful, being a luxury, and there 
 fore a secondary object, my space will not permit me to 
 expatiate upon it. I make a brief statement. 
 
 The enormous acquisition of Latin and Greek is both 
 insufficient and unnecessary. 
 
 It is insufficient. — A thorough knowledge of Greek and 
 Latin clearly will not help us in such parts of our vocabulary 
 as are not derived from those sources. 
 
 It is unnecessary, and even useless. — The roots in 
 English are computed at 500. The only rational way to 
 study our Philology, is to take up these roots, and trace 
 their ramifications, so far as these have been ascertained. A 
 collateral study would be the importation of words from 
 various sources : for this purpose it would be ridiculous to 
 master the syntax and literature of the various original 
 languages. The main groups are determined by simple 
 rules. 
 
 The Philological argwment assumes yet another form. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 The Latin scholar is supposed to have a peculiar advantage 
 
 in SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY. 
 
 Mr. Torr, a Lincolnshire farmer, examined before the 
 Commissioners, says : " All botany and all chemistry have 
 a sort of Latin derivation. There is a sort of knowledge of 
 Latin in everything. For instance, a man could not go 
 into chemistry or botany without knowing the derivation 
 and. finale of every word." 
 
 In this matter, many argue as if the meanings of the 
 original words were learnt without an effort. The real state 
 of the case is obvious enough. If the meaning of the 
 original is adopted without change in the derivative, it can 
 be learnt as easily in English as in Latin. If the meaning 
 of the original is not retained in the derivative, a know- 
 ledge of the one will be no aid towards the knowledge of 
 the other. 
 
 Where several words come from the same root, let the 
 comnion element be explained. If Philology were really 
 taught in our schools, as it might be were less time occupied 
 with classics, the root words in scientific nomenclature 
 would be no less familiar to the average boy than they are 
 at present to the best classical scholar. 
 
 The argument that through Latin and Greek we obtain 
 an introduction to Universal or Comparatwe Philology, 
 is too absurd to- deserve a formal refutation. It is equiva- 
 lent to arguing that through Latin and Greek we obtain 
 an introduction to Sanscrit, Parsi, all the Teutonic lan- 
 guages, Ethiopic, and all other languages, dead or alive. 
 One is tempted to doubt whether this most interesting 
 study is very familiar to such as think they have exhausted 
 it when they know Latin and Greek. 
 
 ARGUMENT V. 
 
 English Grammar cannot be taught without Latin 
 ^.. Grammar. 
 
 " All masters," say the Commissioners, " appear to be 
 agreed that nothing teaches English Grammar so easily, or 
 
19 
 
 so well, as Latin Grammar ; and next to that they would 
 place the teaching of some other Foreign Grammar, such 
 as French." Mr. Clark, who carries all the favourite 
 arguments for classics to such a height that he may be 
 suspected of a covert design to make them ridiculous, 
 alleges that " a youth who has mastered the Latin Gram- 
 mar, and learnt to apply its rules, speaks and writes English 
 without a fault, albeit innocent of Lindley Murray." 
 
 7s this argwment verified by experience ? On this point 
 I might appeal to the individual reader. But we have 
 definite testimony. We have the evidence of Mr. Dasent, 
 who '' has had considerable experience as an examiner " for 
 Military and Civil Service Appbintments. So far from 
 certifying that Latin scholars " speak and tvrite English 
 without a fault," Mr. Dasent says : — " I have known young 
 men who write very good Latin prose^ indeed, and very 
 good Latin verse. I know what good Latin prose and 
 Latin verse is, and I have known the same young men 
 utterly incapable of writing a letter in their otun language, 
 or a decent essay." And again, "I think I know good 
 writing when I see it, and I must say that some who had 
 great classical reputation, have been the worst English 
 writers I have known. I have observed this over and over 
 again. I have known men recommended solely in conse- 
 quence of their University reputation, and I have found 
 that they have been signal failures in English writing — 
 splendid scholars, but utterly incapable of expressing them- 
 selves in their own tongue. They have no choice of words, 
 and very often have a heavy cumbrous way of expressing 
 themselves." What could be stronger than this 1 Coming 
 as it does from one of the few men qualified by experience 
 to pronounce an opinion, this evidence is not to be lightly 
 set aside. 
 
 Does the argument in question stand the test of reason ? 
 It is a common rejoinder to whatever is said against the 
 existiag system of education, that educational results are 
 impalpable. Now this is not one ot the impalpable cases : 
 
20 
 
 a certain definite acquisition, the command of the literary 
 usages of our language, is said to be conferred ; the alleged 
 possessors are tried and found wanting. However, for fear 
 the evidence should not be considered wide enough, and the 
 report of the Commissioners be adduced as counter-evidence, 
 let us take the only other way of determining the point, — 
 let us apply the test of reason. We shall find that Latin 
 Grammar, so far from being the only means of teaching 
 iEnglish Grammar thoroughly, teaches hardly any English 
 Grammar. And not only so : what little English Grammar 
 it does teach indirectly, had better be taught directly. 
 
 How much English GrammiaT is acquired through 
 Latin Gram/mar ? The names of the parts of speech, and 
 
 NOTHING ELSE. 
 
 Latin agrees with English in employing similar parts 
 of speech. A Latin sentence, like an English sentence, is 
 made up of nouns, adjectives, verbs, conjunctions, &c. 
 Now, a boy that understands what a noun is, or an adjec- 
 tive, or a conjunction, in a Latin sentence, will probably 
 know what name to give to words performing similar 
 functions in an English sentence. If he knows that 
 *' cum " is called a preposition, and that '' cum " means 
 "with," he will probably be able to say that " with " is a 
 preposition. 
 
 A pupil acquainted with English Grammar, before com- 
 mencing Latin, has the same advantage towards knowing 
 Latin Grammar. If he has been taught to call "with" a 
 preposition, and that " with " stands for " cum," he will 
 probably be able to tell that '' cum " is a preposition. 
 
 In the above I make a very full concession. It is 
 extremely doubtful whether an ordinary boy would recog- 
 nize an inflected part of speech in English, from knowing a 
 similar part of speech in Latin. How many boys if told 
 that " bona " is an adjective, would make out that " good " 
 receives the same grammatical name ? 
 
 There is no farther coincidence between English Gram- 
 mar and Latin Grammar. The two languages have very 
 
21 
 
 different modes of inflection, whether for noun or for 
 pronoun, or for verb, or for adjective, or for adverb ; different 
 concord, different government, different order ; and, of 
 course, different derivation and different composition. In 
 all these respects — that is, in all the important or prac- 
 tical part of grammar — the usages of the two languages are 
 wholly different. We cannot know English declensions 
 from Latin declensions, English conjugations from Ijatin 
 conjugations, English syntax from Latin syntax. Would a 
 boy know that the past participle of have is had^ from 
 knowing that the supine of Kabeo is habitum ; or knowing 
 the one would he more easily remember the other ? What 
 boy, familiar with Latin declensions and conjugations, 
 would discover by his unaided reason that there were such 
 things as declensions and conjugations in English? Mr. 
 Dasent's evidence clenches this. He bears witness of good 
 Latin scholars that " they did not know even that there 
 was any syntax or construction of the English language." 
 
 We are driven to conclude that this too common argu- 
 ment is an example of the error deplored by Mr. Mill — an 
 example of using words without thinking of their meaning. 
 Nobody, after remembering that Grammar is an account of 
 the usages of a language, would be guilty of saying that 
 the best way to get acquainted with the usage of one 
 language is to study the usage of another. 
 
 It may be said that the knowledge of another grammar 
 than our own, helps our acquaintance with our own 
 grammar by way of contrast. True, but foreign usages 
 may be illustrated well enough for this purpose with our 
 own vocables. Take, for example, the inflections of Latin 
 and Greek : what hinders the English teacher from show- 
 ing that, in those ruder and less flexible tongues, relational 
 particles were struck on at the end of a word, instead of 
 being placed before the word in a separate form ? That, 
 instead of saying " He struck with a sword," a Eoman 
 would say " Sword-with-struck-he," — a partial advance on 
 the agglutination of more savage dialects, where, instead 
 
22 
 
 of " He saw a pig on the road," we should have one word, 
 " Road-pig-saw-he." 
 
 We are told that " American Indians run a whole phrase 
 or sentence into one word — e.g., hoponi, to wash ; hopocuni, 
 to wash hands ; hopoaduni, to wash feet ; ninacaqiM, I (ni), 
 eat (qua), flesh (naca)." Must we, before we can understand 
 this mode of combination, know the whole dialect where it 
 occurs ? 
 
 ARGUMENT VI. 
 
 Through Classics a knowledge is gained of universal 
 
 GRAMMAB. 
 
 This argument is used by Mr. Mill. By Universal 
 Grammar he does not mean Comparative Grammar : no 
 sane man would maintain that the usages of Latiu and 
 Greek miraculously inform us of all the lingual usages of 
 all the nations of the earth, past and present. Mr. Mill 
 gives as " the subject matter of Universal Grammar " in his 
 sense, a knowledge of the distinctions between the subject 
 and predicate of a proposition, between the agent, the action, 
 and the thing acted upon, between co-ordinate and subordi- 
 nate statements, and such like. In short, it will be recog- 
 nised that Mr. Mill means by Universal Grammar what we 
 are accustomed to under the less ambitious title " Analysis 
 of Sentences." 
 
 Now, all agree that this analysis of sentences is a valu- 
 able process. 
 
 But all must admit that whatever valuable results may 
 accrue from it, they are not gained at present through Latin 
 or Greek ; for the simple reason that the method has not yet 
 been introduced into Latin or Greek Grammars. 
 
 Wherein consists the sv/periority of classics over our own 
 lamguage as a means of explaining the analysis of sentences "'. 
 " The languages," says Mr. Mill, " which teach Universal 
 Grammar best are those which have the most definite rules. 
 
23 
 
 and which provide distinct forms for the greatest number of 
 distinctions in language." 
 
 Now, manifestly, in order that Universal Grammar, as 
 detailed above, may be learnt from a given language, it is 
 necessary only that the sentences of the language should 
 have a subject and a predicate, be conditional or categorical, 
 and so on. For the mere understanding of the grammatical 
 distinctions nothing more is required. A boy will understand 
 the nature of declension and conjugation without learning 
 some thousand vocables of another language. By studying 
 the processes in another language he will have no clearer 
 comprehension of their meaning. 
 
 But Mr. Mill may have in view the principles of Gram- 
 mar in the abstract, a body of rules regarding the best modes 
 of expression, apart altogether from the usages of Roman, 
 Hindu, or Englishman. Now a schoolboy cannot be ex- 
 pected to strike out these principles for himself; and if he 
 is expected only to understand them, surely they may be 
 illustrated from his own language. The worst that his own 
 language can do is to depart from these rules, and the best 
 that his teacher can do is to show what forms his own lan- 
 guage should have assumed to correspond with the rules. 
 If one's own language can be brought into harmony with 
 abstract rectitude of expression without doing violence to 
 idiomatic usage, well and good. If another language con- 
 forms better to the abstract principles, it would undoubtedly 
 be a matter of curiosity to see whether it does so, but except 
 for a professional it could be nothing more. 
 
 ARGUMENT VII. 
 
 Latin Geammar is the best introduction to Logic. 
 
 Grammar is praised by some as a very good way, by 
 others as the best possible way of learning to classify and 
 to apply general rules to particular cases. This is what is 
 meant when Grammar is said to be an introduction to Logic. 
 
 I do not stay here to enquire whether a boy does or can 
 
24 
 
 do more in the way of classifying grammatical usages, than 
 learn them by rote, or whether a pupil is best introduced to 
 a process by the most abstruse examples ; nor shall I con- 
 sider at present how far special training is needed in such an 
 everyday matter as the application of general rules, or how 
 far the application of grammar rules is the best introduction 
 to the process. I shall content myself with the obvious posi- 
 tion that for all purposes of discipline in grammar, English 
 Grammar is as good as Latin ; that English usages, English 
 nouns, prepositions, conjunctions may be classified with as 
 much benefit -to the pupil as Latin usages ; that the general 
 rules of English Grammar may be applied to particular cases 
 in English Composition with as much benefit as the general 
 rules of Latin Grammar to Latin Composition. In short, 
 that whatever polish or keenness may be put upon the 
 intellectual powers, or any other powers through the one 
 grammar, may be put equally well through the other. 
 
 ARGUMENT VIII. 
 
 A Classical Education is the best training in English 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 This argument, in so far as the end alleged is gained 
 through grammar, I have already shown to be groimdless. 
 I have still to deal with the direct exercise in English Com- 
 position obtained in classical translation. 
 
 It is to be observed that this value is not special to Latin 
 or Greek, but is common to all foreign languages. Further, 
 if the idea of Mr. Mill and of some others were carried out, 
 and we were able to read foreign tongues as we read our 
 own, we should not translate at all, and could have no con- 
 ceivable exercise in English Composition. If we are exercised 
 at all in English Composition by foreign translation, it must 
 be under some- such system as the present mode of classical 
 instruction. 
 
 Is it impossible to write good English without a know- 
 
25 
 
 of Classics 1 I need only repeat the stock answer. Some of 
 the greatest names in our literature have won their reputa- 
 tion without a knowledge of classics. 
 
 Does the power of composing good English always follow 
 upon a good knowledge of classics 1 Mr. Dasent's evidence, 
 quoted at p. 19, gives to this question as explicit a denial 
 as could be desired. 
 
 ITow far, then, is translation an exercise in English 
 Composition ? Let us consider translation in detail. The 
 pupil has to master the construction, that is, to recall the 
 meaning of the relational particles and endings. He has to 
 muster, partly from memory, partly from his dictionary, the 
 English equivalents for the foreign words, settling which is 
 the word for the occasion. Finally, he has to range the 
 English words in the form of a sentence. This last is the 
 exercise in English Composition. 
 
 What proportion of the whole time given to translation 
 does this exercise occupy ? Sometimes hardly any time at 
 all. The pupil prepares the meanings of the words, and 
 blurts them out anyhow. In the most favourable cases, 
 the time spent on this operation must be comparatively 
 small. The other operations are much more arduous, and 
 must occupy at least five-sixths of the whole time. 
 
 What is the nature of the composition done in this sixth 
 of the translating time 1 Is it calculated to train in good 
 English composition? On the contrary, literal translation 
 is often insisted upon ; that is to say, the pupil is drilled in 
 unidiomatic English. This is worse than no English drill 
 at all for purposes of English composition : its only effect 
 in that direction must be to foster a habit of writing bad 
 English. 
 
 Where the arrangement of the English words is made in 
 accordance with English usage, this sixth of the translating 
 process becomes an exercise in the amendment of unidio- 
 matic English. But the result is little more profitable than 
 in the other case, for two reasons. One is that the preli- 
 minary mustering of the main English words, and the 
 
26 
 
 puzzling over the constructions, absorbs so much of the 
 pupil's attention that the finished English rendering is 
 little thought of. The other and principal reason is, that 
 the English version, where attended to — as it must be in a 
 good translation — is remembered only in connection with 
 the Latin, and is not readily remembered when a natural 
 object has to be described. A good translator has no 
 facility in original composition, unless he has practised the 
 art of composition by itself : the words used in translation 
 do not occur as symbols for natural things, but only as 
 equivalents for the Latin expressions. It was quite to be 
 expected that Mr. Dasent would find good Latin scholars 
 "utterly incapable of expressing themselves in their own 
 language." The wonder would be if they found time to 
 learn how to lay out felicitously their own thoughts and 
 sentiments, while they acquired the art of felicitously trans- 
 lating the more or less skilful expression of the thoughts 
 and sentiments of others. 
 
 Does the Classical scholar acquire an abundance of 
 words or skill in selecting the right words ? In translating, 
 he must cast about over various words of cognate meaning 
 for the word that will suit the passage. Does he thereby 
 learn a wide command of synonyms, and a dexterity in 
 seizing the aptest word to convey his meaning ? 
 
 He learns a command of synonyms, undoubtedly. But 
 where does he get them ? Not in Latin ; but in his own 
 remembered store, and in the pages of the English lexico- 
 grapher, his starting point being some English equivalent 
 of a Latin word. As a learner of synonyms, he does no 
 more, and can make no more progress, than the non- 
 classical pupil that ransacks his memory and his dictionary 
 with a similar object. 
 
 He does not learn to seize the aptest words to convey 
 his meaning. What he learns is to seize the aptest words 
 to represent particular Latin words in particular contexts — 
 an entirely different thing. Mr. Dasent's evidence on this 
 matter is very pointed. It is his express complaint of good 
 
27 
 
 Latin scholars, that " they have no choice of words " in 
 English. 
 
 Does Classical composition train i/n English composi- 
 tion ? In translating English into Latin or Greek, the 
 pupil must acquire a certain familiarity with a certain 
 number af English words. If the English be good, so much 
 the better for the pupil. If he is taught to twist and turn 
 it about, so as to make idiomatic Latin out of idiomatic 
 English, so much the better for him. But the advantage 
 is no greater than he would have by keeping passages of 
 good English some time in his memory for any purpose 
 whatsoever. 
 
 ARGUMENT IX. 
 
 A Classical Education tbains the mental faculties. 
 
 Many admit that classical study does not impart much 
 useful knowledge. They would not have classical study 
 adapted to any such end. They maintain that the true 
 value of classical study lies in its superiority as an intel- 
 lectual exercise, as a training. 
 
 This idea of training upon a foreign language has 
 grown up in modern times. The Greeks did not train upon 
 Persian or Scythian ; they knew no language but their own. 
 The Romans read Greek, but not for training ; they read 
 with a design to imitate, and signally corrupted their own 
 idiom. The Medisevals studied Latin because they had to 
 make use of it. With them Greek was an afterthought, 
 and was resorted to for the information it contained. It is 
 only in these enlightened times that youth is wasted over 
 laborious acquisitions for the sake of the exercise. Why 
 have we never extended the principle beyond classics ? 
 Why do we not train oiu" soldiers on the bow and arrow and 
 the tomahawk, our deer-stalkers on a revived breed of the 
 boar, our masons on towers of Babel, our clergymen on 
 Druidical dances, chants, and whoops ? 
 
What faculty or faculties may classics be said to train ? 
 Whether the argument be of ancient or of modern device, let 
 us consider it seriously and in detail. 
 
 First, of the memory. I am not aware that any special 
 efficacy is claimed for classics in the training of memory. 
 Naturally some people have more retentive memories than 
 others, and retentiveness in a particular department is the 
 result of familiarity with that department and interest in it. 
 A Latin student of many years' standing easily remembers 
 the peculiarities of a new Latin word. The experienced 
 man of commerce easily remembers the peculiarities of new 
 goods or a new customer ; a woman of fashion, the peculiari- 
 ties of a new dress. Every professional man takes up with 
 ease what would be an utter puzzle to the uninitiated in hia 
 subject, simply because nearly all the novelty has occurred 
 to him before in other forms. It is a matter of grave doubt 
 whether such a familiarity with one subject is a help to the 
 acquisition of another, unless of a kindred character. Ex- 
 perience points the other way. The Latin scholar rarely 
 succeeds in commerce, beginning at mature age ; the man 
 whose youth has been spent in business rarely succeeds as a 
 student of Latin. The late learner in whatever field is at a 
 disadvantage, not so much because he is intellectually incap- 
 able of mastering the subject, as because he is pre-occupied 
 by other interests. 
 
 Next, of the reason. Let us examine the diifferent 
 operations in classical study, and see how far they may be 
 said to give a special training to the Reason. 
 
 That there is no discipline in Latin GraTumar unattain- 
 able through English Grammar we have already seen. In 
 both cases the pupil is exercised in classifications of particles 
 and usages, and applications of general rules to particular 
 cases. Once the materials are collected — and that is not a 
 grammatical process — construing English, as an intellectual 
 exercise, is not different from construing Latin. 
 
 Is there a special discipline of the Reason in translation 
 from Latin into English ? 
 
29 
 
 In translation there are three distinguishable stages. 
 
 The first is to look out the different English equivalents 
 for the Latin words. There is no discipline of the Reason 
 in that. The third stage (passing over the second for the 
 moment) is the arrangement of the selected equivalents more 
 or less in accordance V7ith English usage. That we have 
 seen to he an exercise in correcting bad English. 
 
 It remains, then, to consider the intermediate stage. 
 There being no peculiar exercise in the other two stages, 
 the peculiar exercise of translation must be found here, if 
 peculiar exercise there be. The exercise alleged is an 
 exercise of judgment. When the pupil has run over various 
 equivalents of a Latin word, he is called upon to select the 
 one appropriate to the context. Now, in the first place, 
 there is in the actual practice of this operation very little 
 exercise of judgment. Beginners are never asked to make 
 the effort. They are supplied with vocabularies, exhibiting 
 only one or two meanings. The exercise of judgment is 
 thus reduced to a minimum for the early lessons, and, by 
 the time the pupil is advanced to the Dictionary, he has 
 learnt, by rote, such a number of usages in particular situ- 
 ations, that he merely recollects them to suit, and exercises 
 very little more judgment than at the beginning. In the 
 second place, the exercise, of whatever extent or value, is 
 not peculiar : it may be obtained in English. Precisely 
 the same faculty is called into play for the choice of words 
 to suit the exigencies of metre, rhyme, or melody. 
 
 Finally, to call this process of selection a training in 
 probable reasoning, as is done by Mr. Clark, is an error 
 arising from a misconception of what probable reasoning is. 
 In choosing his word, the boy does not calculate the proba- 
 bilities for and against the chances of a translation being 
 right or wrong. Fancy the astonishment of a schoolmaster if 
 his pupil should say — Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. 
 The chances are 367 to 1 that it means. All Gaul is divided 
 into three parts, and not. All Gaul eats things divided'm.io three 
 parts, for est means is 367 times for once that it means eats." 
 
30 
 
 There is, then, no special training of the Eeason in 
 translation from Latin into English. This will be gene- 
 rally conceded. Our favourite gymnastic for the Reason is 
 not translation from Latin into English, but translation 
 from English into Latin — Latin composition. 
 
 Is there a special exercise of the Reason in Latin com- 
 position ? — Let us analyse composition as we have analysed 
 translation, with an eye to the alleged exercise of reason. 
 
 That there is little exercise of reason in looking out and 
 selecting appropriate Latin words, will he at once acknow- 
 ledged. Everybody knows that the suitable words are 
 chosen mainly, if not solely, on authority. Such exercise 
 as there may be, cannot be equal to English composition, 
 where there is greater latitude of choice. 
 
 Although little judgment is exercised in choosing the 
 words, there is, undeniably, some discrimination required in 
 combining them according to their several usages. 
 
 First, what is the amount of this discrimination ? — Who- 
 ever chooses to reflect on the process will see that it involves 
 more memory than judgment. For example, in construing 
 " utor" with the ablative, the pupil remembers that " utor" 
 takes the ablative, and what the ablative form is. There 
 the exercise of judgment is at a trbinimwrn. Construing 
 " in," signifying "motion," with the accusative, the pupil has 
 toremember the accusative form: he has to distinguish between 
 " motion " and " rest." There the exercise of judgment is at a 
 maxim/u/m. The first example is a type of the usual exercise. 
 
 Secondly, granting a much greater exercise of judgment 
 than is apparent, I would ask whether it is peculiar to Latin 
 composition ? — On the contrary, it is an exercise performed 
 daily and hourly by us all, in every case where we do not 
 act without thinking, — in deciding whether we shall buy a 
 new hat, whether we shall cross the street, what we shall 
 have for dinner, whether we shall blow our nose. There are 
 abundant exercises of judgment in the study of English 
 composition, as I shall endeavour to show in considering the 
 educational resources of our own language. 
 
31 
 
 Finally, and the remark applies to all alleged general 
 training of the Reason, delicacy of discrimination in one 
 material is very little help towards delicacy of discrimination 
 in another material of a different kind. This is a matter of 
 everyday observation. A good judge of cloth is not a better 
 judge of a speech or a poem^ than a bad judge of cloth, and 
 conversely. Instances might be multiplied without end. 
 In fact, so far from being trained in general judgment, a 
 good judge of one thing is presumably a bad judge of any 
 other thing, a good judge of Latin composition presumably 
 a bad judge of English composition. This is acknowledged 
 by Mr. Sidgwick, an advocate of classical training. He 
 says : — " when people talk of ' training the memory, judg- 
 ment, &c.,' they often ignore the difference between a general 
 and a special development of these faculties. There is great 
 danger lest, if trained to a pitch in one material only, they 
 will not work well in any other material." 
 
 The plain argument that memory and judgment are 
 exercised in Latin composition, is not enough for one class 
 of eulogists. Perhaps they see that memory and judgment 
 are exercised in a great many things quite as much as in 
 Latin composition. They defend composition as a training 
 in the manageTuent of principles. 
 
 It so happens that the amount of this training in Priu- 
 ciples can be measured by Arithmetic. There is a book 
 entitled " Principles of Latinity and Melviniana," compiled 
 by an Aberdeen Professor, who, with the metaphysical 
 acuteness of his Province, may be supposed to have evolved 
 all the principles applied to the art of composing in Latin.* 
 If, therefore, we count the number of principles in this book, 
 we shall know to a certainty how much training in principles 
 is given by Latin composition. 
 
 How many principles occur in this Book of Principles ? 
 — Twenty-two pages, about one-third, of the " Principles," 
 
 * The book was originally published as a " Hand-book of 
 Latin Composition." 
 
32 
 
 are devoted to the structural usages of verbs. Now if verbs 
 and phrases delighting in one construction fell under general 
 principles, the elaborate lists would be unnecessary. But 
 there they are, verbs " admitting the bare infinitive " in one 
 list; verbs taking " ut " in another, verbs taking "quin " in 
 another. Whence we infer either that Latin verbs are of 
 an arbitrary turn with their "followings," or that the learned 
 author of the Principles thought principles too hard for 
 youthful composers, and so gave them particular usages. 
 Again, ten pages are devoted to the diiferent Latin equiva- 
 lents of our participial clauses ; a considerable space to the 
 difierent ways of expressing in Latin " Whether — or ;" and 
 about one-half of the whole book to " Miscellaneous obser- 
 vations," " Cautions in declension," " Cautions in conjuga- 
 tion," " Melviniana," and " Synonyms treated Tnore MelviTv- 
 iano," — comical pabulum for a young Briton. All these are 
 regulations touching particular usage ; by them the pupil is 
 no more elevated to general principles than is the carter by 
 the nc/tice : — " Caution. When you hear a horn blow, Sc." 
 
 This Book of Principles, then, contains how many ? Just 
 TWO. I think I have detected two. The "Laws of the 
 Sequence of Tenses," and the " Laws of the Indirect," do 
 prescribe community of usage under difference of matter. 
 And these two are so spread out and clothed in examples, 
 that as principles they are almost wholly superseded by the 
 exhibition of details. 
 
 The classical pupil gets no special training in memory 
 or in judgment : does he get no mental training what- 
 soever ? 
 
 We have still to consider the strongest argument of the 
 disciplinarian — insisted upon by many that readily allow 
 other arguments to be fallacious. It is asserted that the 
 peculiarly trying character of classical study has an unique 
 efficacy in stimulating the intellectual powers, in teaching 
 habits of studious application, habits of concentrating the 
 attention upon mental work. 
 
 The confinement of the attention to the work in hand is 
 
33 
 
 of vast importance. If this habit caa be gained in no other 
 way than by the study of Latin and Greek, it would be a 
 serious offence to propose the discontinuance of that study. 
 
 What are the conditions of attention? — They are simple 
 enough : interesting work, and plenty, but not too much of 
 it. Work may be interesting in two ways : it may be 
 intrinsically attractive, or it may be made attractive by 
 the good old plan of penalties and rewards. 
 
 In confirmation of what I have given as the conditions 
 of attention, I may quote from Arthm- Helps : — " Give 
 children little to do, make much of its being accurately 
 done. This will give accuracy. Insist upon speed in 
 learning, with careful reference to the original powers of 
 the pupil. This speed gives the habit of concentrating 
 attention, one of the most valuable of mental habits." 
 
 Nobody will maintain that in classical study alone are 
 these conditions realized. Nothing could well be more un- 
 interesting. It needs to be largely stimulated by flogging 
 and prize-giving. There could be no difficulty in finding a 
 substitute for classical study in that respect. Its only good 
 point as an educational instrument is its quantity. Can 
 any other subject or subjects be conceived ample enough to 
 occupy the school-boy brain, and suited for the school-boy 
 capacity ? 
 
 But why, it may be asked, seek a substitute for classics'? 
 Show cause for change. 
 
 Some months ago, an Aberdonian drew a distinction 
 between training and cramming. To train a boy is to 
 " fit him for making a proper use of his faculties, and pre- 
 pare him for getting up and using those particular branches, 
 which are fitted specially for the profession he has to 
 follow." To cram, a boy is to " stuff his mind full of an 
 enormous mass of facts which, when his education is finished, 
 he does not know what in the world to do with." 
 
 Granting, then, that classics train the attention, what 
 if they cram ? That is suflBcient cause for change, if there 
 be any other subject that trains equally well without 
 cramming. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 A knowledge of classics is cram. It must be owned 
 that, gauged by the above definition of cramming, classical 
 education is one of the purest cases of cramming that could 
 be imagined. When school-boys were taught Latin in 
 mediaeval times, they found a use for it afterwards : they 
 read and wrote in Latin. Our boys, packed with some 
 thousand words of a strange and obsolete tongile, find no 
 use for their attainments : they read and write in English. 
 They are not even educated to the pitch of reading a Latin 
 or Greek author for amusement. They are educated to the 
 moderate pitch praised by Lord Stanley at Glasgow : a 
 suicidal moderation. Hear the confession of Dr. Smith, 
 for fourteen years Classical Examiner in the University of 
 London : — " Judging from the examinations in the Uni- 
 versity of London, and the examinations which I have 
 conducted elsewhere, I have rarely met with boys who can 
 translate the easiest piece of Latin or Greek ad aperturam 
 libri." And yet, in the schools and colleges preparatory 
 for such examinations, classics " occupy a very considerable 
 part of the education In point of time." The fact, there- 
 fore, Is Incontestable. Nearly all our classical pupils are" 
 crammed : " stuffed full of an enorTnous tnass of facts, 
 which, when their education is finished, they do not know 
 what in the world to do with." 
 
 Is there any study that would train without cramming 1 
 Is there any subject ample enough for training, and at the 
 same time generally useful — useful not to a few only, but 
 to all English school-boys ? 
 
 A knowledge of English would not be cram. All would 
 be better of knowing how to record and communicate their 
 thoughts clearly and eifectively. " There are," says 
 Locke, " so many advantages of speaking one's own lan- 
 guage well, and being a Tnaster of it, that let a mean's 
 calling he what it will, It cannot but be worth our taking 
 some pains in it." And Cicero says, "Ifot to be well 
 acquainted with one's native language is a great dis- 
 grace." 
 
35 
 
 The leaders of Education in the Reformation times 
 acted on a similar principle. In their day, all literature 
 judged worthy of scholarly study was written in Latin ; 
 and they arranged school studies to correspond. I quote 
 from Mr. Parker's Essay on the History of Classical Edu- 
 cation, the advice given by Melanchthon, and subsequently 
 acted upon by himself and other schoolmasters : — 
 
 " His (Melanchthon's) report on churches and schools 
 (1528) became the basis in Saxony of a reformed scholastic, 
 as well as ecclesiastical establishment, independent of Rome. 
 The example was followed in other German states. The 
 report recommends the following regulations for schools : — 
 
 " 1. The children to be taught Latin only, not German, 
 Greek, or Hebrew. Fhorality of tongues does them more 
 harm than good. 
 
 "2. They are to be kept to a few books." 
 
 On entering school, the boys were set to learn lists of Latin 
 words, or, as in Sturm's system, were taught the Latin names of 
 everything they saw about them. The end being the attain- 
 ment of the Latin language for practical purposes, speaking 
 Latin was strictly enforced in school and even in its neighbovir- 
 hood. The master,as far as might be,spoke nothing but Latin. 
 
 If we obey the principle on- which the Reformers acted, 
 and refuse to be led away by externals, how should we 
 organize our schools ? Latin was their literary language : 
 in their schools they made everything subordinate to the 
 teaching of Latin. English is our literary language : in 
 our schools, should not everything be subordinated to the 
 teaching of English 1 
 
 The only doubt that can arise is, whether the study of 
 English aifords material enough to train upon. It is beyond 
 dispute that English is a no less interesting study than 
 Latin or Greek. And we all agree that a knowledge of 
 English is valuable. But many are dubious whether English 
 can become a school-boy discipline ample enough to take the 
 place of Classics. Let us consider what can be made of 
 English as an instrument of Education. 
 
36 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL EESOUKCES OF ENGLISH. 
 
 Passages of English, more or less unsuited for children 
 and often selected without method, are part of existing 
 school drill. This might be supplemented by attention to 
 elocution, and practice in committing to memory, exercises 
 that children are peculiarly apt for. Such exercises have 
 the advantage of keeping the pupil occupied with the words 
 of his own language, and storing him with a fund of ex- 
 pression. 
 
 Looking out the meanings is also a valuable exercise in 
 greater or less present practice. In the hands of a skilful 
 teacher this might lead to a wide command of synonyms. 
 The highest form of this exercise would be the precise dis- 
 crimination of synonyms. The want of some such early 
 training is very marked in current literature. It is strange 
 that men should know, or at least have spent much of their 
 school time in learning, the conjectured shades of meaning 
 in Latin or Greek words, while they ride rough-shod over the 
 delicacies of their own vocabulary. 
 
 Again, if Philology is to be studied, apart from Com- 
 parative Philology, it might be expected that boys should 
 be taught the origin and changes in form and meaning of 
 words they use daily, rather than crammed with the history 
 of words they never use in after life, and never view with 
 anything but a pedantic interest at the best. 
 
 A beginning might be made in Philology at an early 
 stage. The sources of words are determined by simple rules : 
 it would be an easy task for beginners to apply these rules 
 in referring words to their source, to decide whether words 
 were taken from Latin, or Saxon, or Norman-French. A 
 good exercise would be to Saxonise a whole Latinised parar 
 graph, and inversely. 
 
 In discussing other studies in English, I shall make a 
 distinction between analytical processes and synthetical 
 processes. Both occur in dealing with what usage permits 
 •; — the province of Grammar — and also in dealing with what, 
 within the compass of permissible usage, is best suited for 
 
37 
 
 its purpose — the province of Rhetoric. Analysis is otherwise 
 known as construing, or parsing; synthesis, as constructing, or 
 composing. 
 
 In the meagre share of our school time now allotted to 
 the teaching of English, very little is done towards the 
 practice of these operations. This is all the more to be de- 
 plored, because the analysis of sentences and the principles 
 of composition are not taught in connection with Latin or 
 Greek. It is a great waste of energy to learn meanings and 
 shades of meaning of so many vocables destined to total 
 neglect as soon as they have been learned : the evil is aggra- 
 vated when so much lumber is acquired without reference 
 to principles applicable to all verbal compositions. 
 
 The grammatical analysis of sentences has lately been 
 introduced into our schools. But the complaint is made 
 that boys, though they soon learn to repeat glibly enough 
 the hard terms used in that process, often fail to understand 
 them. Now what is the cause of this ? It is due to two 
 causes, both arising from the consumption of so much time 
 on Latin and Greek. Too little time is left for this analysis : 
 none but teachers know the quantity of iteration and ex- 
 emplification necessary to get an abstract notion into a 
 boy's head. And there is no time at all for an exercise 
 without which analysis can never be vividly understood, the 
 opposite process of synthesis. Before a boy can be fully 
 awakened to the gist of the terms of analysis, he must have 
 applied them again and again to themes of his own composing, 
 and there will be no time for such an exercise until there 
 is an end of the classical supremacy. 
 
 There are books of elementary exercise in the synthesis 
 of sentences. They are of a kind that any teacher might 
 make for himself to suit his particular boys ; and once the 
 ingenuity of teachers is set upon such exercises, they will 
 doubtless be multiplied abundantly. I refer the inquirer to 
 Mr. Dalgleish's Introductory Text-book of English Composi- 
 tion, to Mr. Armstrong's Practical Introduction to English 
 Composition, and other works of the same nature. 
 
38 
 
 The purification of the language from blunders is an 
 urgent necessity. A good way of habituating the pupil to 
 recognised usage would be to keep him working at collections 
 of grammatical blunders. Were English made the syste- 
 matic study that Latin has been, we should in this way effect 
 in the course of a generation or two a great purification of 
 our language. We have a good many collections of genuine 
 idioms with examples of their violation; but we want a 
 great many books of this kind — contributions from many 
 workers in the same field. Latin is well provided for in this 
 way. One cannot help regretting that so much time has 
 been thrown away upon settling pure Latin usage that 
 might have been spent so much more profitably in the puri- 
 fication of our own tongue. 
 
 So much for familiarizing the pupil with the parts of a 
 sentence and correct grammatical usage. Practical teachers 
 will recognise in what has been exhibited a wide field for 
 school study. Others will understand the amount of exercise 
 involved, when they reflect upon the time now spent upon 
 introductory exercises to Latin, of a much less extensive 
 range than those I have indicated. 
 
 A knowledge of admissible forms of expression is more 
 than Mr. Dasent seems to have found in several "good Latin 
 scholars." But a youth that is master of this accomplish- 
 ment is but indifferently equipped for recording and com- 
 municating his thoughts. Much imperfect expression passes 
 current. A thing may be put a hundred ways, all conformable 
 to grammar, yet one, and perhaps not many more than one, 
 accords with the laws of good composition. 
 
 Can the principles of good composition be taught ? Is 
 rhetoric — the knowledge of good and bad in expression, 
 viewed with reference to certain ends — a possible accomplish- 
 ment for the schoolboy ? According to De Quincey, the 
 end of rhetoric, as conceived by the ancients, was either 
 ornament or fraud, figurative decoration or sophistry — a 
 conception of rhetoric not so very rare in our day. The 
 one end was served by the branches of rhetoric conver- 
 
39 
 
 sant with Tropes, Figures, and Emotional Qualities of 
 Style ; the other by the various maxims of Persuasive Art, 
 consisting for the most part of shrewd devices for securing 
 plausibility. I believe something more might be made of 
 those branches of education than mere garnishing and 
 trickery ; still they are, perhaps, too advanced for the 
 school-room. Be that as it may, there are other parts of 
 rhetoric that have a prior claim, because of more general 
 value. De Quincey's account of ancient rhetoric is a fair 
 enough summary ; but of late years the canons of rhetoric 
 have taken a wider scope. In Professor Bain's Rhetoric or 
 English Composition, written with the scientific exhaustive- 
 ness and originality characteristic of the author, we have 
 a great advance upon Aristotle. In addition to the old 
 material completed and methodized, we have a body of 
 rules bearing upon the order of words, the principles of the 
 construction of sentences and of paragraphs, the principles of 
 description, narration, and exposition. Of these subjects 
 the four first are admirably suited for the school-boy, descrip- 
 tion more than narration or exposition — although these also 
 might be valuable — because it is regulated by a compact, 
 complete, and easily managed body of maxims. 
 
 What is there then to prevent this department of 
 English composition from being practised in our schools, 
 instead of composition in a dead language, where the sole 
 ambition is to be grammatical ? A variety of objections 
 might be urged, which I proceed to discuss one by one. 
 They will be found to disappear on consideration. 
 
 ■ 1. It may be said that such studies are not ample enotugh 
 to keep our school-boys busy, and so fail in the most funda- 
 mental requisite of a school study. How to arrange words, 
 how to form sentences and paragraphs, how to make an easily 
 conceivable description — why should not that be learnt in a 
 few lessons ? If so, why are years spent in teaching our boys 
 to avoid a few stock pitfalls in Latin Composition ? The 
 reason is obvious. The rules or principles you may learn in 
 a few lessons : you may not be perfect in the practice of 
 
40 
 
 these rules after years of study. The same thing is seen in 
 every art. The pugilist or fencer soon learns the guards 
 theoretically : it is a long time before he can promptly parry 
 the hit or thrustof an adversary. The musician knows all the 
 notes and where he should place his fingers to bring them out, 
 long before he can play at sight. We can all of us remember 
 what we should have done : the opportunity is often past 
 before we remember what we should do. In English Com- 
 position, as in everything else, theory and practice are two 
 very different things. Take, for example, two points, how 
 to place qualifying clauses in the most advantageous light 
 for the words they qualify, and how to apportion the em- 
 phatic places of a sentence. These are embodied in Professor 
 Bain's work, and treated of in isolation, the one by Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer, the other by Mr. Matthew Arnold. The 
 principles are within the comprehension of any boy of ordi- 
 nary intelligence. And yet they may be practised for years 
 by a grown man without ensuring infallibility in rapid com- 
 position. Here is a wide field for educational exercises, a 
 field wide as the writings of the language, beginning with 
 easy examples and reaching on to the more difficult. No 
 expensive apparatus is required ; wherever you have sentences 
 written in English, you may fall to work. And the principles 
 I have mentioned are but samples. The difficulty is not to 
 get work to overtake, but to overtake much of the work that 
 waits for us. 
 
 2. It may be said thnt studies of this hind are mere 
 elegant trifling. Admitted that Classical studies are of no 
 practical value except for discipline : admitted that these 
 English studies contain all the elements of discipline ; the 
 one is as useless subsequently as the other ; there is no reason 
 for substituting the one for the other. I say that English 
 studies have at least the advantage of keeping the pupil 
 occupied with the words and correct usages of his own 
 language, and that this, were there nothing else, is sufficient 
 cause for change. But I say farther, that these studies can 
 be so directed as to cultivate clearness and force of expres- 
 
41 
 
 sion. Perhaps you deny this : you hold that clearness and 
 force are natural gifts. That clearness and force are natural 
 gifts, and that a teacher cannot communicate hrains, nohody 
 will care to dispute ; but that the devices and appliances for 
 giving clearness and force to what they say can be com- 
 municated to boys of natural aptitude by a skilled teacher, 
 I hold to be beyond question. All would not learn to compose 
 English well, any more than all learn to compose Latin well ; 
 but some would learn ; and no more can be said for any 
 system of instruction. 
 
 3. It may be said that, granting careful tuition a help 
 to acquiring clearness and force of expression, a good style 
 can he fortned only hy familiarity with the heat writers. I 
 answer that this is no objection to the scheme we have con- 
 sidered. We made provision for the analytical as well as the 
 synthetical study of English, rhetorical parsing as well as 
 rhetorical practice. What I insist upon is, that we must 
 have principles of good and bad in expression drilled into our 
 boys, principles to be borne in mind both in analysis and in 
 synthesis, in reading authors as well as in our own composi- 
 tion. Otherwise how are we to know what to adopt and 
 what to reject in an author, what to imitate and what to 
 avoid ; and how shall we escape the errors of Latinists that 
 worship the conceits of Cicero, and adore the Patavinities 
 of Livy 1 I quote from Dryden a striking confirmation : — 
 " Thus difficult it is to understand the purity of English, and 
 critically to discern, not only good writers from bad, and a 
 proper style from a corrupt, but also to distinguish that 
 ivhich is pure in a good author, from that which is vicious 
 and corrupt in him. And for want of all these requisites, 
 or the greatest part of them, most of our ingenious young 
 men take up some cried-up English poet for their model ; 
 adore him and imitate him, as they think, without knowing 
 wherein he is defective, where he is boyish and trifling, 
 wherein either his thoughts are improper to his subject, or 
 his expressions unworthy of his thoughts, or the turn of both 
 is inharmonious." 
 
42 
 
 4. It may be said that granting the necessity of reading 
 admired authors critically, that is, upon principles of good 
 and bad, there are no good authors in English, and that the 
 pupil should go with his principles to Classical Greek and 
 Latin. Supposing there were no good authors in our tongue 
 the amendment of the bad would be as valuable an exercise 
 as the recognition of the good. However, we should be glad 
 to think with Macaulay : — " It may safely be said that the 
 literature now extant in the English language is of far greater 
 value than all the literature which three hundred years ago 
 was extant in all the languages of the world put together." 
 
 5. It may be said that if composition were managed 
 according to rule, there would he no scope for variety. 
 That depends upon the nature of the body of rules. If the 
 rule is absurdly narrow, obedience to it will result in a 
 dead monotony. For example, on the unity of the sentence, 
 Irving lays down that " different thoughts ought to be 
 separated in the expression by being placed in different 
 periods " — a rule that would reduce all composition to the 
 movement of a jig. On the contrary, Professor Bain recog- 
 nises that the matter of a sentence is determined by the rest 
 of the composition, and gives the limitations of the absolute 
 rule of unity. A principle of this kind, so far from inducing 
 monotony, tends to assist variety : the writer is compelled 
 to think of the matter of his sentences, and, in all probability, 
 will thereby be prevented from the natural tendency to run 
 them all together on the same model. Even if the rule were 
 absolute, it would still be valuable, provided its reasons were 
 assigned. The dull pupil would be dull all the same : the 
 eager pupil, if he found the restrictions irksome, would either 
 overthrow the reasons, or cast about for all variety within 
 the letter of the law. Cut a root that intrudes into your 
 garden, and the stump sends out twenty suckers for the one. 
 You produce the same effect when you stop short an inquir- 
 ing boy with a rule : the dull boy, a dead root, is little affected 
 for good or for evil, but the clever boy is put upon his mettle, 
 and becomes twice as active as before. 
 
43 
 
 6. It may be said that writing by rule, like walhing on 
 stilts, must be a very cramped and constrained movement. 
 The awkwardness in both cases is removed by practice. 
 
 7. It might be said that we should have nobody to tecoch 
 the new subject. Such an evil would rapidly disappear. 
 Many teachers are already competent, and all could without 
 difficulty keep ahead of their first batch of pupils. 
 
 8. It may be said that no material for school exercises 
 has been accumulated, and that taking up an author at 
 random would be unprofitable. It is not so ; a good deal of 
 such material has been accumulated. The reason why so 
 little, comparatively, has been done, is plain enough. Our 
 school-rooms have been occupied by a foreign invader, and 
 the makers of school books have been retained in alien ser- 
 vice. For generations our boys have been condemned to 
 anomalies in Greek and Latin Gender, Declension, and 
 Conjugation, Greek Accents, Latin Quantities, stiflf con- 
 structions in Virgil, obscure allusions in Juvenal, various 
 readings in ^schylus, years of study at things of no human 
 use or interest ; and generation after generation of school- 
 masters and book compilers have been tortured to supply the 
 means of torture. If the same amount of ingenuity had been 
 expended upon English, our young writers might have been 
 saved many a throe of composition, and our language many 
 an ugly blemish. No one can tell how much the language 
 might have been improved, and its superior modes and 
 characteristics rendered habitual to the mass of our country- 
 men. 
 
 Should the study of Classics be wholly discontinued? 
 What I proposed to examine was whether Classical -studies 
 should cease to be the staple of a liberal education, should 
 in public institutions for general instruction form the basis 
 of all scholarly acquirements. We seem to have reached 
 the conclusion that Latin and Greek in that capacity should 
 be replaced by English. There is no reason why such a 
 change should involve the entire cessation of Latin and 
 Greek studies. It would simply make Latin and Greek as 
 
44 
 
 other foreigil languages are. It would make them optional, 
 as Hebrew, Sanscrit, German, French. It would prevent 
 the distorted view that we take of their importance, from 
 their anomalous place in our education. It would enable 
 us to survey them in their true light, as two — perhaps an 
 important two, but still only two — of the great family of 
 languages. Our conclusion is not that the study of Latin 
 and Greek should be discontinued, but that, whatever ac- 
 quisitions be intended for the school-boy, the foundation of 
 thein all should be, not a knowledge of Latin and Greek, 
 but a competent knowledge of his own language. 
 
PAMPHLET BINDER 
 ^^Z Syracuse, N. Y, 
 ^^^ Slockton, Colif. 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 - — 
 
 
 iil^- ■'■ "4 
 
 -i:. u - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYUCRD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.