[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—As a phil-Hellene and
a father I desire to thank you for " C.'s " essay on" The Future of the Classics" in your last issue. I do not want to go over the old ground, so I will not contest the point of "natural bent." Given a Hamilton, a J. S. Mill, or an Elman, or any other "infant prodigy," we are all agreed that they should "follow their bent." But most boys and girls have no bent. What, then, is to be the staple of their school work ? I say "Classics," as traditionally (and progressively) taught in this country, because on the whole they snake snore for happiness than any other discipline, for they give the best chance of good taste in, at once, religion, philosophy, and poetry. After all, a happy life is an utilitarian end. I should like to make two subsidiary points. Experience has convinced me that it is impossible to argue the question with the Greekless and Latinless. Secondly, I am struck by the want of enthusiasm for literature in many professional teachers of the classics. Finally, I think that a " smattering " of Latin and Greek is better than a " smattering " of anything else. Burnet says, "There is a fineness of thought and a nobleness of expression, indeed, in the Latin authors that will make them the entertainment of a man's whole life if he once understands and reads them with delight; but if this cannot be attained to, I would not have it reckoned that the education of an ill Latin scholar is to be given over." Am I wrong in thinking that Greek ought to be taught first ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
POROUS DE GREG.
Previous page
