THE CLASSICAL CONTROVERSY. 637 



ground, and bear all their present fruits. His classical brethren, how- 

 ever, do not in general share this conviction. They seem to think 

 that if they can no longer compel every university graduate to pass 

 beneath the double yoke of Rome and Greece, these two illustrious 

 nationalities will be in danger of passing out of the popular mind alto- 

 gether. For my own part, I do not share their fears, nor do I think 

 that, even on the voluntary footing, the study of the two languages 

 will decline with any great rapidity. As I have said, the belief in 

 Latin is wide and deep. Whatever may be urged as to the extraor- 

 dinary stringency of the intellectual discipline now said to be given by 

 means of Latin and Greek, I am satisfied that the feeling with both 

 teachers and scholars is that the process of acquisition is not toilsome 

 to either party ; less so perhaps than anything that would come in 

 their place. Of the hundreds of hours spent over them, a very large 

 number are associated with listless idleness. Carlyle describes Scott's 

 novels as a " beatific lubber-land " ; with the exception of the " bea- 

 tific," we might say nearly the same of classics. To all which must 

 be added the immense endowments of classical teaching ; not only 

 of old date but of recent acquisition. It will be a very long time 

 before these endowments can be diverted, even although the study 

 decline steadily in estimation. 



The thing that stands to reason is to place the modern and the 

 ancient studies on exactly the same footing ; to accord a fair field and 

 no favor. The public will decide for themselves in the long run. If 

 the classical advocates are afraid of this test, they have no faith in the 

 merits of their own case. 



The arguments pro and con on the question have been almost ex- 

 hausted. Nothing is left except to vary the expression and illustration. 

 Still, so long as the monopoly exists, it will be argued and counter- 

 argued ; and, if there are no new reasons, the old will have to be iter- 

 ated. 



Perhaps the most hackneyed of all the answers to the case for the 

 classics is the one that has been most rarely replied to. I mean the fact 

 that the Greeks were not acquainted with any language but their own. 

 I have never known an attempt to parry this thrust. Yet, besides the 

 fact itself, there are strong presumptions in favor of the position that, 

 to know a language well, you should devote your time and strength 

 to it alone, and not to attempt to learn three or four. Of course, the 

 Greeks were in possession of language A 1, and were not likely to be 

 gainers by studying the languages of their contemporaries. So we too 

 are in possession of a very admirable language, although put together in 

 a nondescript fashion ; and it is not impossible that, if Plato had his 

 " Dialogues " to compose among us, he would give his whole strength to 

 working up our own resources, and not trouble himself with Greek. 

 The popular dictum multum non multa, doing one thing well may 

 be plausibly adduced in behalf of parsimony in the study of languages. 



