them much less adapted either to mental discipline or to that philological culture which all admit to be one of the most important elements of education. The difficulties of Latin and Greek lie in their constructions; of the modern languages, in their idioms. In reading French, all that is necessary is to know the meanings of the words, which is purely a matter of memory; or, if any difficulty occurs, it is in most cases as to the particular meaning attached to a particular collocation of words, which again is purely a matter of memory. The same is true, although in a less degree, of German. In Latin and Greek, on the other hand (especially Latin, which is, except in its roots, much further removed from the modern languages than Greek), the idioms are of very subordinate importance; and translating a sentence is in the main an exercise of judg ment and skill, much less a matter of mere memory than in any of the other languages. This characteristic of modern languages renders them especially fitted for children, who learn by memory and catch idioms readily; and we would for this reason have French and German learned very young. Latin and Greek, appealing as they do mainly to the reason, are equally fitted for young people of sixteen and thereabouts, for whom the main object is the training of the reasoning powers.

Latin, therefore, being furthest removed from English,— English being the most idiomatic of all languages, and Latin the least, forms the best instrument for that important branch of philological instruction which consists in comparing the modes of expression in one's own language with those in another. Without this, as has been well remarked, no person can be said really to know his own language; and while we freely admit that even French, the language most similar to English in roots, constructions, arrangement, and idiomatic character, may be made very serviceable for this purpose, we maintain that no other of the languages usually studied, not even Greek, can at all compare with Latin for it.

Again, leaving out of sight these points of difficulty and contrast, Latin is, of all languages, that best suited to the abstract study of modes of expression; because it was the

first language in which these were treated logically and in accordance with rigid rules, and still remains the most logically constructed of languages. The constructions in Greek are loose and irregular compared with Latin. The Greeks had not fully developed the idea of law in language, any more than in politics; and, while their subtilty of thought led them to use the moods with great exactness and nicety, their syntax of government was quite inexact.* In these respects the modern languages owe much of their accuracy of structure to imitation often unskilful of Latin; and no one of them, not even German, approaches its model.

For these reasons, besides those which have been so well stated by Mr. Mill and others that we need not repeat them, we think that the classics are entitled to their place as the leading study in a liberal education, during a certain period of life. We would not be understood as defending the barbarous method usually pursued in the study of the classics, by which years are worse than wasted in acquiring useless knowledge, while a serviceable acquaintance with the language professedly studied is not acquired. Latin is generally begun much too young, and taught much too exclusively from grammars, which are, after all, not Latin, but somebody's account of Latin. Once the paradigms thoroughly learned, we believe that the principal work should be translating and analyzing; and that syntax can be much better learned from the author read, with the help of a teacher, than from any But this discussion is apart from our present grammar.

object.

The question is often asked, why, granting all that has been said in favor of the study of the classics, one classical language is not enough, why it should be necessary to learn both Greek and Latin. We answer frankly, that we do not think it necessary. We say, as we did of classical study in general, that those who have the time, means, and taste had bet

Expressions hanging so loosely in a sentence, so utterly independent of it in structure, as sibi quisque, in multis sibi quisque imperium petentibus (Sall. Jug., 18), are exceedingly rare in Latin, but common enough in Greek.

ter study Greek as well as Latin; but we believe that a large class of young men will be more benefited by substituting something else in the place of Greek. To those who have not special philological tastes, one classical language will give all the philological training desired; and, if we could have only one of the two, we should, with this end, choose Latin, -partly for the reasons already given, partly on account of the excessive difficulty of Greek, which special difficulty again is mainly either in the memory or in nice details. We think the true course is that recommended by Mr. Atkinson two years ago, which had, indeed, been adopted by Mr. Mann at Antioch College, some ten years before, to have two parallel courses: one, the regular college course, as usually pursued; the other, the same in all other respects, but substituting other studies say modern languages-for Greek. This is the plan adopted in Cornell University, where the "Second General Course," as it is called, has for its principal studies Latin and German. Great care is needed, however, and great difficulty experienced, in laying out a course that shall be any thing like an equivalent for Greek, whether in difficulty or as an exercise of the mental faculties.

-

Another argument for this will, perhaps, be new to many. A cry is raised by the academies and preparatory schools, that they are overworked; that "the few young men who are fitting for college receive undue attention, to the exclusion and great detriment of that much larger number who do not intend to enter any college." It is urged in many quarters that Greek should be removed from the list of preparatory studies, and made a college study. We do not think well of this proposition. If Greek is to be learned at all, it should be learned well, and needs all the time that is now bestowed upon it: the time required to learn Greek thoroughly in college could be ill spared from other branches. Mr. Atkinson's proposition seems to us to give all the relief needed. If there were two courses in college, one with Greek and the

See a striking paper by George W. Jones, Principal of Delaware Literary Institute, in the Proceedings of the New-York University Convocation, 1866.

other without, the small academies might confine themselves to fitting for the non-Greek course: those who wished to study Greek would go to the large schools and academies.

As to the claims of the natural sciences, only one remark need be made. Few will question that they already receive their due proportion of time in the college course: the mistake is in requiring no preparation upon these branches. So much of natural history as should form a part of the information of young men of this age, and so much of physics and chemistry as is purely descriptive, and preparatory to the severer mathematical course of the college years, should be added to the present requirements for entrance. This would elevate the character of the college course, not only by making it possible to give more physical instruction than at present, in the same space of time, but also by bringing students to college with better trained and better balanced minds.*

The two points which we have already considered have hardly needed discussion, because they are points upon which the community has its mind already pretty well made up. The third point, however, the need of a greater liberty of choice to the students, although quite as generally accepted as a principle,—is open to great variety of opinion in detail. It is a good many years since Harvard College first recognized the general principle, by setting apart a certain number of studies in the higher classes as required, and allowing the students to elect, every year, one or two from the remaining branches. So far has this principle been carried out, that the catalogue of the present year contains, for the first term, Senior, ten elective studies, and four required. It has, however, we believe, always been felt that this system was attended with the disadvantage of rendering the mental training of the individual students too irregular, too dependent upon caprice; and we are far from considering this the best way of deciding the problem.

For an admirable statement of the arguments upon this point, see a paper by Dr. Barnard, President of Columbia College, read at the New-York University Convocation for 1866.

We believe that no other prominent college has the elective system in this form, except to a very limited extent, in the Senior year. Cornell University proposes to secure the desired liberty of selection, by laying out four independent courses, one for Greek and Latin, the second for Latin and German, the third for German and French, the fourth scientific; besides a fifth, which is called the "Optional Course," which is to consist of selections made by the student from the various regular courses, and which will not, we suppose, entitle to a degree. This method we consider much superior to the "elective," as combining freedom of choice with systematic arrangement of studies. We are not informed whether all these courses entitle to the same degree. If we might be allowed to express an opinion, we should say that the accepted usage of the title Artium Baccalaureus presupposes classic training, not perhaps necessarily Greek, but certainly Latin; and that, while we should readily give this degree to the "second course," we should demur at bestowing it upon the "third.”

The Cornell plan, however, as well as every other one, requires another element in order to make it meet all the highest wants of our American community, an element hinted at by Dr. Hedge, and a plan for which has been presented with considerable detail in the recent article in the Atlantic. It was, we believe, in these pages that attention was first drawn to the characteristic and distinctive excellence of the English and American university systems; that ours is democratic, giving the whole body of students a respectable education, far better than is received by the average in the English universities, which, in accordance with their aristocratic character, expend their energy in turning out, every year, a very few men of acquirements such as in this country are reached by none. The English, we know, are reforming their schools and universities in the direction of greater liberality and general usefulness: we, on our part, need to move towards them in some way, to make it possible

* See "Christian Examiner" for November, 1865.