least perplexed. Greece and Rome have both a certain lasting importance
attaching to their history and institutions; and these accordingly are a
useful study. Of course, the extant writings are the chief groundwork of
our knowledge of these, and must be read. But, at the present day, all
that can be extracted from the originals is presented to the student in
English books; and to these he is exclusively referred for this part of
his knowledge. In the small portion of original texts that a pupil at
school or college toils through, he necessarily gets a few of the
historical facts at first hand; but he could much more easily get these
few where he gets the rest--in the English compilations. Admitting,
then, that the history and institutions of Greece and Rome constitute a
valuable education, it is in our power to secure it independently of the
original tongues.
The other branch--Literature--is not so easily disposed of. In fact, the
separating of the literature from the language, you will say, is a
self-evident absurdity. That, however, only shows that you have not
looked carefully into examination papers. I am not concerned with what
the _à priori_ imagination may suppose to be Literature, but with the
actual questions put by examiners under that name. I find that such
questions are, generally speaking, very few, perhaps one or two in a
long paper, and nearly all pertain to the outworks of literature, so to
speak. Here is the Latin literature of one paper:--In what special
branch of literature were the Romans independent of the Greeks? Mention
the principal writers in it, with the peculiar characteristics of each.
Who was the first to employ the hexameter in Latin poetry, and in what
poem? To what language is Latin most nearly related; and what is the
cause of their great resemblance? The Greek literature of the same
examination involves these points:--The Aristophanic estimate of
Euripides, with criticisms on its taste and justice (for which, however,
a historical subject is given as an alternative); the Greek chorus, and
choric metres. Now such an examination is, in the first place, a most
meagre view of literature: it does not necessarily exercise the faculty
of critical discernment. In the next place, it is chiefly a matter of
compilation from English sources; the actual readings of the candidate
in Greek and Latin would be of little account in the matter. Of course,
the choric metres could not be described without some knowledge of
Greek, but the matter is of very trifling importance in an educational
point of view. Generally speaking, the questions in literature, which in
number bear no proportion to historical questions, are such as might be
included under history, as the department of the History of Literature.
[LANGUAGES EXAMINATION PAPERS REVIEWED.]
The distribution of the 750 marks allotted respectively to Latin and to
Greek, in the scheme of 1875, is this. There are three papers: two are
occupied exclusively with translation. The third is language,
literature, and history: the language means purely grammatical
questions; so that possibly 583 marks are for the language proper. The
remaining number, 167, should be allotted equally between literature and
history, but history has always the lion's share, and is in fact the
only part of the whole examination that has, to my mind, any real worth.
It is generally a very searching view of important institutions and
events, together with what may be called their philosophy. Now, the
reform that seems to me to be wanted is to strike out everything else
from the examination. At the same time, I should like to see the
experiment of a _real_ literary examination, such as did not necessarily
imply a knowledge of the originals.
It is interesting to turn to the examination in modern languages, where
the ancient scheme is copied, by appending literature and history. Here
the Literature is decidedly more prominent and thorough. There is also
a fair paper of History questions. What strikes us, however, in this,
is a slavish adherence to the form, without the reality, of the ancient
situation. We have independent histories of Greece and Rome, but
scarcely of Germany, France, and Italy. Instead of partitioning Modern
European history among the language-examiners for English, French,
German, Italian, it would be better to relieve them of history
altogether, and place the subject as a whole in the hands of a distinct
examiner. I would still allow merit for a literary examination in
French, German, and Italian, but would strike off the languages, and let
the candidate get up the literature as he chose. The basis of a
candidate's literary knowledge, and his first introduction to
literature, ought to be his own language: but he may extend his
discrimination and his power by other literatures, either in
translations or in originals, as he pleases; still the examination, as
before, should test the discrimination and the power, and not the
vocabulary of the languages themselves.
In order to do full justice to classical antiquity, I would allow
markings at the rate of 500 for Political Institutions and History, and
250 for Literature. Some day this will be thought too much; but
political philosophy or sociology may become more systematic than at
present, and history questions will then take a different form.
In like manner, I would abolish the language-examination in modern
languages, and give 250 marks for the literature of each of the three
modern languages--French, German, Italian. The history would be taken as
Modern History, with an adequate total value.
The objections to this proposal will mainly resolve themselves into its
revolutionary character. The remark will at once be made that the
classical languages would cease to be taught, and even the modern
languages discouraged. The meaning of this I take to be, that, if such
teaching is judged solely by its fruits, it must necessarily be
condemned.
The only way to fence this unpalatable conclusion, is to maintain that
the results could not be fully tested in an examination as suggested.
Some of these are so fine, impalpable, and spiritual in their texture,
that they cannot be seized by any questions that can be put; and would
be dropped out if the present system were changed. But results so
untraceable cannot be proved to exist at all.
[LANGUAGE QUESTIONS TAKE THE PLACE OF THE SUBJECT.]
So far from the results being missed by disusing the exercises of
translation, one might contend that they would only begin to be
appreciated fairly when the whole stress of the examination is put upon
them. If an examiner sets a paper in Roman Law, containing long Latin
extracts to be translated, he is starving the examination in Law by
substituting for it an examination in Latin. Whatever knowledge of Latin
terminology is necessary to the knowledge of Law should be required, and
no more. So, it is not an examination in Aristotle to require long
translations from the Greek; only by dispensing with all this, does the
main subject receive proper attention.
If the properly literary part of the present examinations were much of
a reality, there would be a nice discussion as to the amount of literary
tact that could be imparted in connection with a foreign language, as
translated or translatable. But I have made an ample concession, when I
propose that the trial should be made of examining in literature in this
fashion; and I do not see any difficulty beyond the initial repugnance
of the professors of languages to be employed in this task, and the
fear, on the part of candidates, that, undue stress might be placed on
points that need a knowledge of originals.
* * * * *
I will conclude with a remark on the apparent tendency of the wide
options in the Commissioners' scheme. No one subject is obligatory; and
the choice is so wide that by a very narrow range of acquirements a man
may sometimes succeed. No doubt, as a rule, it requires a considerable
mixture of subjects: both sciences and literature have to be included.
But I find the case of a man entering the Indian Service by force of
Languages alone, which I cannot but think a miscarriage. Then the very
high marks assigned to Mathematics allow a man to win with no other
science, and no other culture, but a middling examination in English.
To those that think so highly of foreign languages, this must seem a much
greater anomaly than it does to me. I would prefer, however, that such a
candidate had traversed a wider field of science, instead of excelling
in high mathematics alone.
There are, I should say, _three_ great regions of study that should be
fairly represented by every successful candidate. The first is the
Sciences as a whole, in the form and order that I have suggested. The
second is English Composition, in which successful men in the Indian
competition sometimes show a cipher. The third is what I may call
loosely the Humanities, meaning the department of institutions and
history, with perhaps literature: to be computed in any or all of the
regions of ancient and modern history. In every one of these three
departments, I would fix a minimum, below which the candidate must not
fall.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 6: _The Civil Service Examination Scheme, considered with
reference (1) to Sciences, and (2) to Languages_. A paper read before
the Educational Section of the Social Science Association, at the
meeting in Aberdeen. 1877: with additions relevant to Lord Salisbury's
Scheme.]
* * * * *
IV.
THE CLASSICAL CONTROVERSY.
ITS PRESENT ASPECT.[7]
In the present state of the controversy on classical studies, the
publication of George Combe's contributions to Education is highly
opportune. Combe took the lead in the attack on these studies fifty
years ago, and Mr. Jolly, the editor of the volume, gives a connected
view of the struggle that followed. The results were, on the whole, not
very great. A small portion of natural science was introduced into the
secondary schools; but as the classical teaching was kept up as before,
the pupils were simply subjected to a greater crush of subjects; they
could derive very little benefit from science introduced on such terms.
The effect on the Universities was _nil_; they were true to Dugald
Stewart's celebrated deliverance on their conservatism.[8] The general
public, however, were not unmoved; during a number of years there was
a most material reduction in the numbers attending all the Scotch
Universities, and the anti-classical agitation was reputed to be the
cause.
The reasonings of Combe will still repay perusal. He puts with great
felicity and clearness the standing objections to the classical system;
while he is exceedingly liberal in his concessions, and moderate in his
demands. "I do not denounce the ancient languages and classical
literature on their own account, or desire to see them cast into utter
oblivion. I admit them to be refined studies, and think that there are
individuals who, having a natural turn for them, learn them easily and
enjoy them much. They ought, therefore, to be cultivated by all such
persons. My objection is solely to the practice of rendering them the
main substance of the education bestowed on young men who have no taste
or talent for them, and whose pursuits in life will not render them a
valuable acquisition."
Before alluding to the more recent utterances in defence of classical
teaching, I wish to lay out as distinctly as I can the various
alternatives that are apparently now before us as respects the higher
education--that is to say, the education begun in the secondary or
grammar schools, and completed and stamped in the Universities.
[THE EXISTING CLASSICAL TEACHING.]
1. The existing system of requiring proficiency in both classical
languages. Except in the University of London, this requirement is still
imperative. The other Universities agree in exacting Latin and Greek as
the condition of an Arts' Degree, and in very little else. The defenders
of classics say with some truth that these languages are the principal
basis of uniformity in our degrees; if they were struck out, the public
would not know what a degree meant.
How exclusive was the study of Latin and Greek in the schools in
England, until lately, is too well known to need any detailed statement.
A recent utterance of Mr. Gladstone, however, has felicitously supplied
the crowning illustration. At Eton, in his time, the engrossment with
classics was such as to keep out religious instruction!
As not many contend that Latin and Greek make an education in
themselves, we may not improperly call to mind what other things it has
been found possible to include with them in the scope of the Arts'
Degree. The Scotch Universities were always distinguished from the
English in the breadth of their requirements: they have comprised, for
many ages, three other subjects; mathematics, natural philosophy, and
mental philosophy (including logic and ethics). In exceptional
instances, another science is added; in one case, natural history, in
another, chemistry. According to the notions of scientific order and
completeness in the present day, a full course of the primary sciences
would comprise mathematics, natural philosophy, chemistry, physiology or
biology, and mental philosophy. The natural history branches are not
looked upon as primary sciences; they give no laws, but repeat the laws
of the primary sciences while classifying the kingdoms of Nature. (See
paragraph that begins with: In the classification of the sciences ...).
In John Stuart Mill's celebrated Address at St. Andrews, he stood up for
the continuance of the Classics in all their integrity, and suddenly
became a great authority with numbers of persons who probably had never
treated him as an authority before. But his advocacy of the classics was
coupled with an equally strenuous advocacy for the extension of the
scientific course to the full circle of the primary sciences; that is to
say, he urged the addition of chemistry and physiology to the received
sciences. Those that have so industriously brandished his authority for
retaining classics, are discreetly silent upon this other
recommendation. He was too little conversant with the working of
Universities to be aware that the addition of two sciences to the
existing course was impracticable; and he was never asked which
alternative he would prefer. I am inclined to believe that he would have
sacrificed the classics to scientific completeness; he would have been
satisfied with the quantum of these already gained at school. But while
we have no positive assurance on this point, I consider that his opinion
should be wholly discounted as not bearing on the actual case.
[UNIVERSITY OF LONDON CURRICULUM.]
The founders of the University of London attempted to realise Mill's
conception to the full. They retained Classics; they added English and
a modern language, and completed the course of the primary sciences by
including both Chemistry and Physiology. This was a noble experiment,
and we can now report on its success. The classical languages, English
and French or German, mathematics and natural philosophy, and (after a
time) logic and moral philosophy, were all kept at a good standard; thus
exceeding the requirements of the Scotch Universities at the time by
English and a modern language. The amount of attainment in chemistry was
very small, and was disposed of in the Matriculation examination.
Physiology was reserved for the final B.A. examination, and was the
least satisfactory of all. Having myself sat at the Examining Board
while Dr. Sharpey was Examiner in Physiology, I had occasion to know
that he considered it prudent to be content with a mere show of studying
the subject. Thus, though the experience of the University of London, as
well as of the Scotch Universities, proves that the classical languages
are compatible with a very tolerable scientific education, yet these
will need to be curtailed if every one of the fundamental sciences, as
Mill urged, is to be represented at a passable figure.
In the various new proposals for extending the sphere of scientific
knowledge, a much smaller amount of classics is to be required, but
neither of the two languages is wholly dispensed with. If not taught at
college, they must be taken up at school as a preparation for entering
on the Arts' curriculum in the University. This can hardly be a
permanent state of things, but it is likely to be in operation for some
time.
2. The remitting of Greek in favour of a modern language is the
alternative most prominently before the public at present. It accepts
the mixed form of the old curriculum, and replaces one of the dead
languages by one of the living. Resisted by nearly the whole might of
the classical party, this proposal finds favour with the lay professions
as giving one language that will actually be useful to the pupils as a
language. It is the very smallest change that would be a real relief.
That it will speedily be carried we do not doubt.
Except as a relaxation of the grip of classicism, this change is not
altogether satisfactory. That there must be two languages (besides
English) in order to an Arts' Degree is far from obvious. Moreover,
although it is very desirable that every pupil should have facilities at
school or at college for commencing modern languages, these do not rank
as indispensable and universal culture, like the knowledge of sciences
and of literature generally. They would have to be taught along with
their respective literatures to correspond to the classics.
Another objection to replacing classics by modern languages is the
necessity of importing foreigners as teachers. Now, although there are
plenty of Frenchmen and Germans that can teach as well as any
Englishman, it is a painful fact that foreigners do oftener miscarry,
both in teaching and in discipline, with English pupils, than our own
countrymen. Foreign masters are well enough for those that go to them
voluntarily with the desire of being taught; it is as teachers in a
compulsory curriculum that their inferiority becomes apparent.
The retort is sometimes made to this proposal--Why omit Greek rather
than Latin? Should you not retain the greater of the two languages? This
may be pronounced as mainly a piece of tactics; for every one must know
that the order of teaching Latin and Greek at the schools will never be
topsyturvied to suit the fancy of an individual here and there, even
although John Stuart Mill himself was educated in that order. On the
scheme of withdrawing all foreign languages from the imperative
curriculum, and providing for them as voluntary adjuncts, such freedom
of selection would be easy.[9]
[ALTERNATIVE OF MODERN LANGUAGES.]
3. Another alternative is to remit both Latin and Greek in favour of
French and German. Strange to say, this advance upon the previous
alternative was actually contained in Mr. Gladstone's ill-fated Irish
University Bill. Had that Bill succeeded, the Irish would have been
for fourteen years in the enjoyment of a full option for both the
languages.[10] From a careful perusal of the debates, I could not
discover that the opposition ever fastened upon this bold surrender of
the classical exclusiveness.
The proposal was facilitated by the existence of professors of French
and German in the Queen's Colleges, In the English and Scotch Colleges
endowments are not as yet provided for these languages; although it
would be easy enough to make provision for them in Oxford and Cambridge.
In favour of this alternative, it is urged that the classics, if entered
on at all, should be entered on thoroughly and entirely. The two
languages and literatures form a coherent whole, a homogeneous
discipline; and those that do not mean to follow this out should not
begin it. Some of the upholders of classics take this view.
4. More thorough-going still is the scheme of complete bifurcation of
the classical and the modern sides. In our great schools there has been
instituted what is called the _modern side_, made up of sciences and
modern languages, together with Latin. The understanding hitherto has
been, that the votaries of the ancient and classical side should alone
proceed to the Universities; the modern side being the introduction to
commercial life, and to professions that dispense with a University
degree. Here, as far as the schools are concerned, a fair scope is given
to modern studies.
As was to be expected, the modern side is now demanding admission to the
Universities on its own terms; that is, to continue the same line of
studies there, and to be crowned with the same distinctions as the
classical side. This attempt to render school and college homogeneous
throughout, to treat ancient studies and modern studies as of equal
value in the eye of the law, will of course be resisted to the utmost.
Yet it seems the only solution likely to bring about a settlement that
will last.
The defenders of the classical system in its extreme exclusiveness are
fond of adducing examples of very illustrious men who at college showed
an utter incapacity for science in its simplest elements. They say that,
by classics alone, these men are what they are, and if their way had
been stopped by serious scientific requirements, they would have never
come before the world at all. The allegation is somewhat strongly put;
yet we shall assume it to be correct, on condition of being allowed to
draw an inference. If some minds are so constituted for languages, and
for classics in particular, may not there be other minds equally
constituted for science, and equally incapable of taking up two
classical languages? Should this be granted, the next question is--Ought
these two classes of minds to be treated as equal in rights and
privileges? The upholders of the present system say, No. The Language
mind is the true aristocrat; the Science mind is an inferior creation.
Degrees and privileges are for the man that can score languages, with
never so little science; outer darkness is assigned to the man whose
_forte_ is science alone. But a war of caste in education is an unseemly
thing; and, after all the levelling operations that we have passed
through, it is not likely that this distinction will be long preserved.
[CLAIMS OF THE MODERN SIDE.]
The modern side, as at present constituted, still retains Latin. There
is a considerable strength of feeling in favour of that language for all
kinds of people; it is thought to be a proper appendage of the lay
professions; and there is a wide-spread opinion in favour of its utility
for English. So much is this the case, that the modern-siders are at
present quite willing to come under a pledge to keep up Latin, and to
pass in it with a view to the University. In fact, the schools find this
for the present the most convenient arrangement. It is easier to supply
teaching in Latin than in a modern language, or in most other things;
and while Latin continues to be held in respect, it will remain
untouched. Yet the quantity of time occupied by it, with so little
result, must ultimately force a departure from the present curriculum.
The real destination of the modern side is to be modern throughout. It
should not be rigorously tied down even to a certain number of modern
languages. English and one other language ought to be quite enough; and
the choice should be free. On this footing, the modern side ought to
have its place in the schools as the co-equal of classics; it would be
the natural precursor of the modernised alternatives in the
Universities; those where knowledge subjects predominate.
The proposal to give an _inferior degree_ to a curriculum that excludes
Greek should, in my judgment, be simply declined. It is, however, a
matter of opinion whether, in point of tactics, the modern party did not
do well to accept this as an instalment in the meantime. The Oxford
offer, as I understand it, was so far liberal, that the new degree was
to rank equal in privileges with the old, although inferior in
_prestige_. In Scotland, the decree conceded by the classical party to
a Greekless education was worthless, and was offered for that very
reason.[11]
[SURRENDER OF CLAIMS FOR SOME.]