OUTLINES FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION. 63 



their unfolding. Those who favor and those who oppose classical 

 study as a necessary part of education can justify their position by an 

 appeal to one or the other of the ideas, about to be stated. All ques- 

 tions as to disciplinary benefit, as to method of instruction, as to 

 amount of net result, are wholly out of date. The changes could be 

 rung forever on these matters, with no gain and much loss of temper. 

 Most of the claims put forth by those who advocate the superiority of 

 classical studies are either nonsense or beside the mark. Classical 

 studies have advantages — that is to say, excellences — peculiar to them- 

 selves. So have the sciences. These different advantages will appeal 

 to different minds, and no power can prevent the appeal. Let each 

 party so teach as to bring out the advantages best, in fullest manner. 

 If the history of education shows anything, it shows that the place for 

 all efficient reform in education is in the manner of teaching rather 

 than the matter. Devising something new to be learned will never 

 save the soul ; devising, or rather finding, the right way to impart 

 knowledge will save, and this with a growing salvation. 



If the professors of Latin and Greek recognize that they are not 

 solely or chiefly professors of philology — but rather that they are 

 appointed to acquaint the scholar with literatures transcendent in their 

 beauty of form, their wealth of imagery, and their depth of thought 

 — if the professors of Latin and Greek recognize the true method of 

 doing this great work, classical study will never be neglected. All 

 this is equally true of the instructors in physical science. The dis- 

 tinction between a fact seen in the dry light of its naked isolation and 

 the same fact as part of an organic and amazing whole is the distinc- 

 tion between life and death in the teaching of science. 



To employ a certain kind of teaching (which is in no sense teach- 

 ing), and to expect educational reform by confining a boy to physical 

 science or to classics, is a colossal mistake. To pay the lowest wages 

 in the primary grades of our schools, where the best teaching is im- 

 peratively needed, is an equally impressive blunder. To engage a 

 professor for what he knows, for the number of books he has written, 

 for the amount of original work he has done, is — to do a grand thing 

 for the professor, but by no means necessarily a grand thing for the 

 pupil. Most of the young men and women in American colleges need 

 to be taught. Is this to decry research or the establishment of all 

 means for discovery ? Rather is it to discriminate between the work 

 of teaching and the work of investigation. Is a man called to teach, 

 is he employed to teach, is he paid to teach — let him, then, teach, i. e., 

 let him spend himself in the work of education. Were every teacher, 

 nay, were the majority of teachers, to see in the pupil the pupil, there 

 would be a reforming of education such as has not yet been expe- 

 rienced. 



We close this paper by such a brief statement of the opposing 

 ideas previously mentioned as may best serve to show their reality. 



