instructers in our public seminaries have not been ignorant of this evil; their fault has been silence. Doubtless the mischief cannot be corrected by any individual institution, so far even as itself is concerned. But it is a subject far too serious to be passed over in silence; it calls for mutual consultation, for co-operation, and even combination in the higher institutions. When the evil is made known; when it is generally understood that no preparatory school can, after abusing in the grossest manner their trust in respect to their pupils, force them off upon colleges ambitious of swelling their numbers or dreading desertion; when it is known that there will be no admission of such into any respectable institution, the thing must cease.

We feel confident that we are warranted in our assertion, that the time spent upon the Latin and Greek languages, as they are generally studied in this country, is absolutely thrown away; that about one half of the labor, time and expense spent upon those who are forming for the learned professions is absolutely squandered. But we feel that we are

warranted in going further: nothing is more sure to disgust the mind with all literary efforts than a superficial method of study. How deep and confirmed will be this dislike when it has been taking root and receiving growth through full one half (and that the decisive part) of the student's course! Where the pupil has commenced by committing his grammar to his memory, and engraves it there by constantly writing and parsing the language; where he does not hurry to a new lesson in reading till the last has been made his own by very numerous repetitions, his course is soon pleasant. By a manly facing of difficulties which must be met, they soon vanish, there is a pleasure in conquering them. It gives exercise and vigor to the memory and judgment. His course he finds every day more easy and rapid. He is conscious that he is advancing with accelerated velocity, and that all the obstacles to his progress will soon be removed. But the reverse is true on the modern fashionable labor-saving schemes of study. The student finds no mitigation of his labors. He is relieved indeed from the task, as it is considered, of employing his memory and judgment in applying the rules of grammar, but he can look forward only to the drudgery of turning over his dictionary without being conscious of any increased rapidity or ease in his advances. He has not the satisfaction of being enga

ged in any process which requires the exercise of judgment in the application of rules, definitions or exceptions; he is barely loading his memory with a useless burden of words. He can make out the signification of a single word, but must guess at the meaning of a sentence. He advances too slow to derive any pleasure from his author; indeed he cannot sufficiently understand him to be interested in his subject, much less to discover any of the beauties or excellencies of the composition. We have no hesitation in saying that the fashionable, and as we believe general method, of studying the learned languages, under pretence of saving the student from the labor of exercising his memory and judgment, condemns him to the most degrading and servile drudgery to which a human being can be subjected. It not only produces a thorough disgust towards the classics, but is almost sure, from its long continuance in the decisive portion of the student's life, to be extended to every other pursuit.

We regard the habit of listless and superficial study acquired and confirmed by four years' practice as almost unconquerable. One most important object of the student's training is to accustom him to the severe, systematic and manly exertion of his powers. It will generally be found that real fondness for literary labor is acquired in no other way. He who has been taught by long practice to encounter difficulties, to surmount obstacles, and to delight in high efforts, acquires a consciousness of power and a firmness and hardiness of literary character, which will ensure industry and success in all his future pursuits. The person who possesses these habits of industry, and this fondness for high mental effort, has a more valuable treasure than he who has large stores of knowledge without it. What then shall we say of the accomplishments of that young man who has spent his first four years, those which actually fix the character, and has acquired. only a dread of all high and systematic effort, together with habits of superficial and inacurate study? It is almost certain that these habits will follow him to his other pursuits. It will require efforts to which he is both unaccustomed and averse, to correct them, and as they have made one half of his literary course of little value, they are almost sure to have a pernicious influence over the remainder.

We are aware that the classics are more studied than formerly. But it is chiefly by those who have finished their collegiate course. There is a growing belief of their im

portance, and those who have completed their studies without much attention to that which is the most essential part of the course, are beginning very generally to become sensible of their mistake; and it may be said with much truth of most of those who in this country have enjoyed a public education, and arrived at any eminence, that they have found it necessary to lay again the foundations of their education, and may justly lay claim to the popular distinction of selfmade men.

We have time at present to trace the evil no further than it affects individuals. It would be an important task to point out the influence of our superficial system of education upon the community. Doubtless we suffer a great variety of evils from the fact, that we have scarce any persons who are highly qualified to direct the taste of the community in literature, and guide their opinions on the great subjects of public interest which are constantly agitating it. We have, indeed, individuals who may put in their claims to be considered learned, literary and scientific, but they are far from being numerous enough to be reckoned as a distinct class of the community. We produce scarce a tithe of our proportion of valuable works of taste and genius, and hardly any original works of science. A variety of causes have some agency in this, but the one which has incomparably the most influence, is the notorious fact, that our colleges do not give an education which can be compared with that bestowed by the universities of Europe; they do not give what would there be termed a liberal and polite education.

But nothing is wanting to put them on a footing at least similar, but that the majority of our preparatory schools should be compelled, by the united influence of the colleges, to imitate the example of a very respectable minority, that the languages be studied thoroughly, and the course be considerably extended. Then students might enter the higher seminaries, prepared and disposed fully to avail themselves of the treasures which the public munificence has amassed for their benefit.

But the present superficial mode of studying the classics will soon supply argument to a very numerous and influential class, who would gladly persuade the public that they are of no use. Should our utilitarians and radicals see fit to continue their attacks upon this part of a public education, we may fear that few will be prepared from conviction to

defend it: the community will perhaps be induced to throw off the shackles of custom, to declare its independence of the opinions of the learned, polite and refined, in all past ages; and our colleges, like the Goths and Vandals of Oberlin, will be ready to make a bonfire of the masterpieces of ancient genius.

But as we take for granted that the present system may yet be permitted to continue for some time at least, out of regard to the popular utilitarian principles of economy, the writer of the next article will attempt to prove that the only way of mastering the languages is by thorough and accurate study: and that the fashionable superficial course is the very worst possible economy, both of time and labor.

ART. VIII. THAT THE THOROUGH IS THE ONLY ECONOMICAL METHOD OF STUDYING THE CLASSICS.

No. II.

By TAYLER LEWIS, Prof. of Greek and Latin in the University of New York.

IN discussing the subject of the present article it is not intended to enter at all upon any argument to prove the great importance of classical literature, or to declaim against its gross neglect in most of our literary institutions. The first position we take for granted throughout. No proof is required for those who are capable of appreciating its claims; who have drank deep at this never-failing fountain of primitive thought, or who have truly, and without the affectation of pedantry, acquired a taste for that sublime power of words, which is nowhere so exhibited as in the Greek and Roman classics. All the clamors of a superficial and falsely styled utilitarian age could never drive such from the deep conviction, that in them are contained the purest and clearest forms of thought, the richest models of diction, the sweetest poetry, the most soulstirring eloquence, and the most deep and lofty philosophy; that their early study furnishes the mind's noblest exercise, and their constant perusal through life, the most refined and soul-satisfying delight. The gross neglect of classical literature among us, is also assumed as a fact, well known and admitted, although with cheering indications that the exertions of certain ardent and indefatigable scholars, have alVOL. V.

75

ready been instrumental in producing some change in the public sentiment, and a growing conviction, that a knowledge of the early history of our world with its primitive languages and institutions forms the best foundation for all accurate views in morals, theology, politics and philosophy.

Waiving these matters, or assuming them as true, we would direct our attention to an objection to the study of the ancient languages, the most formidable that is ever presented; an objection formidable in consequence of being derived, not from any deficiency in the intrinsic claims of the classics themselves, but from admitted and undeniable facts in relation to the mode in which they are studied. The objector with all honesty, and with a force which cannot well be parried, will tell us of the vast increase in the amount of physical science, which now necessarily forms a part of every course of liberal education, and of the diminution of the time which (as a necessary consequence) can now be devoted to classical studies. He will tell us of the number of years which are squandered in these apparently useless pursuits. He points to the results which are the miserable fruits of this wholesale waste of time. He appeals to the thousands who are yearly poured forth from our academies and colleges, of whom he can safely say, that not one in a hundred, after their graduation, ever open a classic author, or regard the poor acquisitions they may have made, as having any bearing upon their subsequent business or professional pursuits. He will point to the liberally educated lawyer or physician, to whom, in a very few years, Cicero, Quintillian and Hippocrates, are books as sealed and mysterious as the hieroglyphics sculptured on an Egyptian temple; or to the clergymen, whose Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament lie in dust upon their shelves, with a few pages slightly soiled of the first chapters in Genesis, or the beginning of the Gospel of John, the mere memorials of wasted time, and misspent opportunities, for the acquisition of more useful and practical knowledge. He brings to his aid admissions (as they are styled) of those who have received a classical education, testifying to its utter worthlessness. He challenges a contradiction of his facts, and clamorously demands reformHis argument is plausible. Without some change in the admitted state of things, it is unanswerable. Reform is imperiously required. Nine or ten years of the most valuable portion of life is too much to be thrown away on a course