bridge, actually to commit to memory the portions of Greek set, and to go through the examination successfully after two or three months' hard grinding, without obtaining the shadow of an idea of Greek grammar even, to say nothing of Greek literature or history! Of course, no sane man would maintain that in the case of men who actually did this any such advantage in the way of culture and mental discipline could accrue, as is claimed for the study of Greek in general.
It is very curious to compare the views of the adherents of compulsory Greek in Germany, England, and America. They all agree in maintaining that the course of required Greek in their respective countries accomplished wonders in the way of education. "When we compare, however, what is actually required for graduation in a German gymnasium, for example, in the A. B. course at Cambridge, and in an A. B. course in any American college of good standing, we "find that the course in Germany requires fully six years of earnest study; in America at least four or four and a half; and in England not over two or three at the very most. The German apologist for Greek would maintain, however, that the small amount required in America or England is not worth a rush (as indeed some of them have said in answer to a proposition to diminish the amount of Greek required to something like the American or English standard, and that they had better cut it out altogether rather than treat it in such a "step-motherly "way); the American claims that the small amount given in England is of little or no value, and insists that the present requirements in America shall not be cut down.
Outsiders can hardly be blamed for coming to the conclusion that the Germans are right, and that we should either require enough to make it worth the while, or else cut it out altogether from the list of required studies. As it is not at all likely that the amount required will ever be increased, the only thing to do is to get rid of that little which according to the most competent judges is worth nothing at all.
We would not be misunderstood, or have opinions ascribed to us which we do not hold. We do not desire to attack the study of Greek or the policy of offering the most ample facilities for its pursuit. On the contrary, we consider that from no branch of study can one whose tastes lie in that direction derive more benefit in the years before he takes up special lines of work than from Greek. But we can not disregard the fact that such pupils are usually only one or two among a large class who are looking forward to some higher course of instruction, who succeed in accomplishing more than merely to drag through the prescribed course."We believe that many students, who might be capable of showing marked talents in other directions have been deterred from advancing to higher courses of instruction by the fact that Greek lay in the way. In schools dominated by the classical spirit, every sort of talent is measured by its ability to make grade in the classics. All who can not come up to this standard are made to feel that they are considered inferior students. They are "specials," or "partials," or "generals," or something else, which implies that they are not so good as the regular classical students. We can not but think that this fact has lain at the bottom of the failure of many a one in the past, who under a different system would have been quickened to a new intellectual life and raised into a higher sphere of usefulness.
The notion that liberal views of life, wide intellectual sympathies, a broad humanity in a word, that all those qualities that should distinguish a gentleman and a scholar from his opposite—are the exclusive products of one line of studies, may be, we think, properly
