The most notable and encouraging feature of the discussion is its hearty and timely protest against the sordid materialism of our age and country. What training will best make men; how the next generation shall be made wiser and better than this, these are the problems which have most earnestly engaged men's minds: and so long as these are recognized as the vital questions of education, we may feel assured, that we are going forward, and not backward. It is this that gives its highest value to Mr. Mill's St. Andrew's address, that he, the most advanced and radical thinker of the day, the representative of utilitarianism, the successor of Bentham, has spoken so noble a word for culture, in the interests of the highest utility. Apart from the wisdom of the views themselves, the source from which they come-the man who probably exercises a more powerful influence upon American thought than any one now living-lends every word a peculiar emphasis.

The problem before us as a people is twofold, -the organization of the university itself, in the American acceptation of the term; and the best method of securing that higher education which we call distinctively "liberal," and which Mr. Mill well defines as "the culture which each 'generation purposely gives to those who are to be its successors, in order to qualify them for at least keeping up, and if possible for raising, the level of improvement which has been attained," and again as "what every generation owes to the next, as that on which its civilization and worth will principally depend." This is Mr. Mill's definition of what he calls "university education." A university, he adds, "is not a place of professional education." This last is an unessential point, which each community may fairly be allowed to settle for itself, organizing its "universities," or institutions of highest education, in accordance with its own special customs and needs, as indeed is done now; so that the definition of the university varies widely in different countries. In England, as Mr. Mill says, it is a place designed solely for "liberal education;" in Germany, on the other hand, it embraces, besides this, all branches of professional education.

It seems to us that we in America have a right to develop such an institution under this name as is best adapted to our national wants, even if, in so doing, we depart from the accepted English definition of the word. In this country we are accustomed to use the term in its broadest and radical sense, as embracing the whole scope of a higher education, as well professional as liberal. For that department of the university which is devoted to a general education, to make men,— not lawyers, physicians, or civil engineers, we have reserved the word "college," which word also we use in a quite different sense from the English, French, or German. That Yale College is a true university, while Brown University is nothing but a college; and that Waterville College, with less than fifty students, has chosen, for the sake of the lofty-sounding title, to dub itself Colby University, these facts prove only a looseness of practice in the application of the terms: few will question that they are in general distinguished as we have indicated.

The true American university is not, however, confined in its scope to the liberal course of study and the so-called "gentlemanly professions," which are all that are as yet combined with most of our Eastern institutions. It should embrace every branch of knowledge as science which a man may need, whether for culture or for earning his bread. We question the utility of attempting, in these institutions, to enter into the practical details, whether of agriculture or the mechanic arts, any further than is necessary for illustrating the scientific principles. Law schools and medical schools do not make lawyers and doctors, but adepts in their respective sciences: the application of their theories must be learned by means of office-work and sick-room visiting, before the student is competent to practise by himself. So the agricultural schools, we fancy, will not turn out farmers, but agriculturists; and we are afraid those will be disappointed who expect that in the East, at any rate, where tilling the ground is so hard work, and conducted on so small a scale common farmers will avail themselves of them to any

VOL. LXXXIII. -NEW SERIES, VOL. IV. NO. I.

5

great extent. But we may expect from these institutions a powerful influence in raising the standard of agriculture among us; and this science, as well as every other, should be included in a university course. Harvard is not therefore, as yet, a complete type of the American university, inasmuch as it does not aim at embracing all departments of human science.

The first point therefore in the organization of a university, is this broad distinction, generally recognized, between the college, whose object is pure culture, and the professional schools, which prepare a man for earning his living. The former of these entitles the graduate to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and is properly supplemented, as at the University of Michigan, by a post-graduate course, continuing the general culture of the college course, and entitling to the degree of Master of Arts. We think, therefore, on the ground of this general distinction, that Mr. White, in his admirable scheme for the organization of Cornell University, has made a mistake in putting the "Department of Jurisprudence, History, and Political Economy" among the professional schools, as a department of the "Division of Special Sciences and Arts." His remarks on the importance of this department, and the peculiar benefits our community is likely to derive from it, are eminently just. We are at this moment as a nation suffering more from an ignorance of the most fundamental principles of political science, than from any other cause; and we look with confidence to the new university, under the guidance of Mr. White, to aid in forming a better race of public men: but it seems to us, that this branch of study, not being one which students will follow with a view to a life-profession, but rather to special culture, would properly belong to a post-graduate course.

The second of the two questions indicated above, the nature, scope, and method of liberal education,-is that which has been chiefly discussed, as is natural in a community which has its universities already in existence, and needs only to perfect them. This discussion was opened by Dr. Hedge, in his Alumni address last July; and the general plan

which he sketched has been admirably developed in detail in a recent paper in the "Atlantic Monthly."* The mind of the community has been steadily settling, under this discussion, upon four general principles, each of which was laid down more or less distinctly by Dr. Hedge. These are,- 1. That the classics should still form a necessary part of such a course; 2. That the natural sciences justly claim a larger share than they have generally received; 3. That more freedom of choice should be allowed in the studies pursued; 4. That college discipline should be materially modified, as befits institutions designed for men, not boys.

We do not propose to discuss at any length the claims of the classics to the position which has been assigned them, especially seeing that the turn taken by the discussion renders this on the whole unnecessary. We will, however, say a few words upon certain reasons for considering Latin, in combination with mathematics, the best mental training there is for boys of between fifteen and eighteen, which we do not remember to have seen sufficiently analyzed. Nobody denies that the natural sciences and the modern languages, set up as the peculiar rivals of the classics, must form a part of every gentleman's education; and, if a person has not time and opportunity for all of these, no doubt he should in most cases study French and German, rather than Latin and Greek. It is often forgotten in this discussion, that we are speaking only of those who are able to devote themselves to study for a long enough time to obtain that systematic and well-rounded education which we call distinctively liberal. For these we claim, that, at the age specified, Latin is superior to either of its rivals, and largely for the reason, which is often made an argument against it, that it is harder, and requires more careful and systematic use of the mental powers. The natural sciences are partly studied by observation and mere memory, and so far should come very early in the education of a child; partly mathematical, belonging strictly to the mathematical course; partly experimental and theoretical, calling for the

April, 1867.

exercise of the highest powers of the trained mind.* At sixteen, a boy has no ideas of his own, and this higher range of physical inquiry is beyond his grasp and appreciation. Natural history is too much a matter of mere memory to give his mind the exercise it requires at that stage. What he needs just then is work, not play, work hard enough to call his mind into full activity; and for boys there is very little danger of overworking mentally. We do not think it desirable that the work at this age should be made easy: attractive and interesting it can and should be made. There is the same sort of pleasure to a healthy mind in mastering a difficulty, and in dealing with intellectual problems adapted to its strength, that there is to a healthy body in catching a fly-ball or pulling a strong oar. We have never yet known an intelligent boy of suitable age, who could not be made to enjoy that greatest stumblingblock and mystery of Latin, the oratio obliqua.

The same consideration that gives Latin a preference over botany or zoology, its greater difficulty, gives it also a pref erence over French or German, though German, no doubt, comes nearest of all studies to the ancient languages in the quality of the training it secures, and is the very best substitute for them. The philological study of one's native language, for instance, belongs properly to a more advanced stage than that of any other language; for the reason, that to study it superficially is so very easy that in most persons it will train nothing but the memory, while to study it to any purpose calls for a mind thoroughly trained, and stored with all varieties of parallel knowledge. There is, however, besides the difference in difficulty, a distinction in the essential character and structure of the modern languages, which renders

* Dr. Whewell has made a very good statement of the limitations of the physical sciences for the purposes of discipline, although he entirely overlooks, and indeed denies, their value at a higher stage of education in training the powers of thought, of which Mr. Mill gives so admirable an analysis. "The effect of the clear insight of geometry or mechanics cannot be efficiently replaced by sciences which exhibit a mass of observed facts and consequent doubtful speculations, as geology; or even by other sciences, as chemistry and natural history, which, though they involve philosophical principles, can only be learnt by presenting numerous facts to the senses." -University Edition, p. 41.