Part 7 (1/2)
The founders of the University of London attempted to realise Mill's conception to the full. They retained Cla.s.sics; they added English and a modern language, and completed the course of the primary sciences by including both Chemistry and Physiology. This was a n.o.ble experiment, and we can now report on its success. The cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sical 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 pa.s.sable figure.
In the various new proposals for extending the sphere of scientific knowledge, a much smaller amount of cla.s.sics 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 cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sicism, 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 cla.s.sics.
Another objection to replacing cla.s.sics 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sics, if entered on at all, should be entered on thoroughly and entirely. The two languages and literatures form a coherent whole, a h.o.m.ogeneous discipline; and those that do not mean to follow this out should not begin it. Some of the upholders of cla.s.sics take this view.
4. More thorough-going still is the scheme of complete bifurcation of the cla.s.sical and the modern sides. In our great schools there has been inst.i.tuted 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 cla.s.sical 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 cla.s.sical side. This attempt to render school and college h.o.m.ogeneous 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 cla.s.sical system in its extreme exclusiveness are fond of adducing examples of very ill.u.s.trious men who at college showed an utter incapacity for science in its simplest elements. They say that, by cla.s.sics 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 a.s.sume it to be correct, on condition of being allowed to draw an inference. If some minds are so const.i.tuted for languages, and for cla.s.sics in particular, may not there be other minds equally const.i.tuted for science, and equally incapable of taking up two cla.s.sical languages? Should this be granted, the next question is--Ought these two cla.s.ses 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 a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sed through, it is not likely that this distinction will be long preserved.
[CLAIMS OF THE MODERN SIDE.]
The modern side, as at present const.i.tuted, 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 pa.s.s 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 quant.i.ty 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 cla.s.sics; 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 cla.s.sical party to a Greekless education was worthless, and was offered for that very reason.[11]
[SURRENDER OF CLAIMS FOR SOME.]
Among the adherents of cla.s.sics, Professor Blackie is distinguished for surrendering the study of them in the case of those that cannot profit by them. He believes that with a free alternative, such as the thorough bifurcation into two sides would give, they would still hold their ground, and bear all their present fruits. His cla.s.sical brethren, however, do not in general share this conviction. They seem to think that if they can no longer compel every University graduate to pa.s.s beneath the double yoke of Rome and Greece, these two ill.u.s.trious nationalities will be in danger of pa.s.sing out of the popular mind altogether. For my own part, I do not share their fears, nor do I think that, even on the voluntary footing, the study of the two languages will decline with any great rapidity. As I have said, the belief in Latin is wide and deep. Whatever may be urged as to the extraordinary stringency of the intellectual discipline now said to be given by means of Latin and Greek, I am satisfied that the feeling with both teachers and scholars is, that the process of acquisition is not toilsome to either party; less so perhaps than anything that would come in their place.
Of the hundreds of hours spent over them, a very large number are a.s.sociated with listless idleness. Carlyle describes Scott's novels as a ”beatific lubber land”; with the exception of the ”beatific,” we might say nearly the same of cla.s.sics. To all which must be added the immense endowments of cla.s.sical teaching; not only of old date but of recent acquisition. It will be a very long time before these endowments can be diverted, even although the study decline steadily in estimation.
The thing that stands to reason is to place the modern and the ancient studies on exactly the same footing; to accord a fair field and no favour. The public will decide for themselves in the long run. If the cla.s.sical advocates are afraid of this test, they have no faith in the merits of their own case.
The arguments _pro_ and _con_ on the question have been almost exhausted. Nothing is left except to vary the expression and ill.u.s.tration. Still, so long as the monopoly exists, it will be argued and counter-argued; and, if there are no new reasons, the old will have to be iterated.
[EXAMPLE FROM THE GREEKS THEMSELVES]
Perhaps the most hackneyed of all the answers to the case for the cla.s.sics is the one that has been most rarely replied to. I mean the fact that the Greeks were not acquainted with any language but their own. I have never known an attempt to parry this thrust. Yet, besides the fact itself, there are strong presumptions in favour of the position that to know a language well, you should devote your time and strength to it alone, and not attempt to learn three or four. Of course, the Greeks were in possession of the most perfect language, and were not likely to be gainers by studying the languages of their contemporaries.