May 25, 1900.] 



SGIENGE. 



805 



recognize that the writings of scientific 

 men compare, at least, favorably with the 

 writings of those who have had the great 

 advantage of classical training, that is to 

 saj', of the average clergymen and lawyer, 

 those who plead so urgently for retention 

 of the system from which they have re- 

 ceived such abundant profit. Brilliant 

 rhetoricians cannot be taken as examples 

 of what the training can do — in the intel- 

 lectual as in the vegetable world, the aver- 

 age of the fruitage, not the choicest selec- 

 tions, must be taken as type of the product. 

 And one must not forget that the soil in 

 which seed is planted has much to do with 

 the crop. 



But the remedy for this defect in modern 

 training is very simple, and its application 

 involves no material change in plan. 



The advantages derived from education 

 according to the old system do not come 

 from the study of Latin and Greek any 

 more than they would come from the study 

 of French, Hebrew or any other language. 

 The results are due to the method, not in 

 any sense to the particular language em- 

 ployed. One may say, better, that the re- 

 sult is due rather to skill in applying the 

 method, for classical teaching is very dif- 

 ferent to-day from that of the older day, 

 when pupils were plunged in mediae res 

 at the outset. The Arnoldian method is 

 not so far removed from the Ollendorfian 

 as a casual observer might imagine. Why 

 then do we hear the constant claim for the 

 advantage of classical teaching? 



The reason is found in conditions still 

 existing in our secondary schools. There, 

 the ablest teachers have always been those 

 in classics, though increasing requirements 

 for college entrance have led in many 

 instances to the selection of strong men 

 for mathematics. Until very recently, the 

 study of English has been perfunctory, 

 while, for the most part, French and Ger- 

 man have been taught by ' natives ' be- 



cause they alone can give the ' proper 

 pronunciation.' But those excellent men, 

 though efiBcient teachers for pupils willing 

 to learn, too often fail as disciplinarians 

 and have to pay more attention to quieting 

 disorder than to imparting knowledge. 

 Here must be made the change needed to 

 remedy the defect in our modern system. 

 Men must be employed, who can teach the 

 modern languages as Latin and Greek were 

 taught seventy-five j'ears ago, when the 

 pupil acquired not merely a fairly accurate 

 knowledge of grammatical principles, but 

 also the language itself. Our colleges must 

 demand more thorough preparation in 

 modern languages — in other words, the 

 transformation which college courses have 

 undergone must reach into the secondary 

 schools. Able men occupy modern language 

 chairs in colleges ; able teachers must be 

 found to prepare students. 



But some may feel that while a modern 

 language course may be as useful mental 

 training as is a classical course, still there 

 may be room for doubt whether or not he 

 has gained equal preparation for his life's 

 work. 



If the end to be attained by classical 

 study, beyond mere discipline, is the ability 

 to read the works of those who wrote in 

 classical languages, surely the labor has 

 been that of supererogation, for practically 

 all that is good in the ancient languages, 

 whether theological or legal or literary, has 

 been done into English after a fashion many 

 times better than that of the amateur— and 

 the reading in English will be vastly more 

 profitable' than that in the original, for 

 one's contemplation of lofty sentiments or 

 useful matter is not likely to be interrupt- 

 ed by struggles with difiQcult construction. 

 This argument is treated with such con- 

 tempt by advocates of elaborate classical 

 study that one is inclined to regard it as 

 unanswerable. It is said, however, that 

 the true meaning of an author cannot be 



