156 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



does little or nothing for the other ends, which, in argument, are 

 treated as the reason of his existence. Indeed, this is the kind of 

 teaching that is alone to be expected from the ordinary teacher ; all 

 the other ends are more difficult than simple word-teaching. Even 

 when English composition, logic, and taste, are taught in the most di- 

 rect way, they are more difficult than the simple teaching of a foreign 

 language for purposes of interpretation ; but when tacked on as ac- 

 cessories to instruction in a language, they are still more troublesome 

 to impart. A teacher of rare excellence may help his pupils in Eng- 

 lish style, in philology, in logic, and in taste ; but the mass of teachers 

 can do very little in any of those directions. They are never found 

 fault with merely because their teaching does not rise to the height 

 of the great arguments that justify their vocation; they would be 

 found fault with if their pupils were supposed to have made little way 

 in that first function of language which is never to be called into 

 exercise. 



I do not rest satisfied with quoting the palpable inconsistency be- 

 tween the practice of the teacher and the polemic of the defender of 

 languages. I believe, further, that it is not expedient to carry on so 

 many different acquisitions together. If you want to teach thorough 

 English you need to arrange a course of English, allot a definite time 

 to it, and follow it with undivided attention during that time. If you 

 wish to teach philology, provide a systematic scheme, or text-book 

 of philology, and bring together all the most select illustrations from 

 languages generally. So for logic and for taste : these subjects are 

 far too serious to be imparted in passing allusions while the pupil is 

 engaged in struggling with enigmatic difficulties. They need a place 

 in the programme to themselves; and, when so provided for, the 

 small dropping contributions of the language-teacher may easily be 

 dispensed with. 



The argument for languages may, no doubt, take a bolder flight, 

 and maintain that the teacher does not need to turn aside from his 

 plain path to secure these secondary ends now the only valuable 

 ends. The contention may be that in the close and rigorous atten- 

 tion to mere interpretation, just as if interpretation were still the liv- 

 ing use, these other purposes are inevitably secured good English, 

 universal grammar, logic, ta^te, etc. I think, however, that is too far 

 from the fact to be very confidently maintained. Of course, were it 

 correct, the teacher should never have departed from it, as the best 

 teachers continually do, and glory in doing. 



On the face of the thing, it must seem an unworkable position to 

 surrender the value of a language, as a language, and keep it up for 

 something else. The teaching must always be guided by the original, 

 although defunct, use. This is the natural, the easy course to follow; 

 for the mass of teachers at all times it is the broad way. Whatever 

 the necessities of argument may drive a man to say, yet in his teach- 



