On the Ufes of Claffical Education. 11s 
gualification for underftanding what all ought to 
underftand?—No, Sir, the ufes of claffical learning 
are not partial but general, and not confined to a 
particular profeffion, 
It muft be confeffed, that with refpect to the cu'ti- 
vation of the dead languages, fociety is at prefent in 
a very different ftate from what it was at the revival 
of Letters. At that period, all the fcience, all the 
hiftory, all the tafte which exifted, were locked up 
in the volumes of the Ancients; there was no‘accefs 
to any branch of knowledge but by this path; it 
was neceffary to be introduced to this enlightened 
{chool, -or to remain in barbarifm and ignorance. 
Inthe prefent ftate of literature it would bé difin- 
genuous to deny, that it is poffible for a perfon, not 
claffically educated, to make a proficiency in almoft 
any department of fcience or literature, 
In medicine and philofophy fome perfons might 
be named, of no inconfiderable eminence, with but 
a very flender portion of Greek or Latin.. In law 
and politics alfo fome inftances might be adduced, 
were nota falfe pride unfortunately predominant, 
which might conftrue mto an affront, what is really 
a compliment. ‘The ladies may be cited with lefs 
geremony on this occafion. In hiftory and philofo- 
phy we have a Macaulay ; in poetry a Seward and a 
Williams ; in morals a Burney ; in dramatic writing 
a Cowley and an Inchbald, all unacquainted with the 
languages and compofitions of the ancients. . It does 
not, however, follow, from thefe fplendid examples, 
2 that 
