Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

La Mécanique Céleste, or any other scientific work. It is obvious that the argument from the light thrown by modern languages on other subjects proves that they ought to be studied in conjunction with those subjects, and not by themselves.

The defect of the recent proposal for a school of modern languages was an over-zealous specialism; it was an attempt to take a young man out of the teaching, and away from the learning, of Greek, of history, of law, and of all the sciences except the philology of some particular tongue. I pointed out at the time that there was another, and a better, way-namely, to encourage modern languages in all the leading schools of Oxford. Speaking generally, an Oxford career in honours divides itself into a first public examination, which emphasizes language and literature, and second public examinations which, in various directions, emphasize the subjectmatter of history and the sciences. In the former, modern languages should be encouraged by allowing candidates to offer the philology or the literature, or both, of any modern language, English or foreign, among the alternatives for Greek and Latin composition, &c.; in the latter, by allowing them to offer foreign books on the subject of any school, whether it be modern history, law, mathematics, natural science, or the mental and moral sciences of Literae Humaniores.

Let me quote an example of Oxford as she is and as she might be. Oxford as she is says that, in Literae Humaniores, Kant may be offered in an English translation as well as in the German'. I would not disturb this regulation. But Oxford as she ought to be would add a second regulationthat a man who offers Kant in the original shall get an advantage if he translates the German in a scholarly and philosophical manner. Here is a clear case in which a modern language might both be

associated with the classics and throw light on philosophy in the same school.

Sir, I am addressing you on a matter of much moment. Oxford stands perplexed between real good and practical expediency. If nothing is done, she endangers ancient by neglecting modern literature. If she takes the false step of putting her existing studies in one corner and modern languages in another, the commercial value of the latter will tempt the majority from solid education. But if she lets the light of modern languages be shed on her existing studies, they will all be illuminated; the classics in especial will gain new life; and Oxford will have solved a hard problem by combining the practical expediency of modern languages with the real good of a universal education.

THE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND THE
OXFORD HEBDOMADAL COUNCIL

The six graduates were H. F. Pelham, Camden Professor /! Ancient History; H. Nettleship, Corpus Professor of Latin; I. Bywater, Reader in Greek (later Regius Professor of Greek); R. W. Macan, Fellow and Tutor of University College (later Master of University College); L. R. Farnell, Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College (later Rector of Exeter College); and A. Sidgwick, Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College.

The English School was established in the University; the first examination was held and the first Class List was issued in 1897.

FROM The Times, JANUARY 9, 1892.

Six distinguished graduates of the University of Oxford, in a joint letter to you, have accused the University in general and its Council in particular of omitting to encourage the study of English. But the accusation is unjust, because it is not accurate. It is true that some years ago the University refused to establish a final honour school of modern languages, and that, last term, the Council, in spite of a memorial signed by 108 resident masters in favour

of a final honour school of English, declined to bring the question of the new school before the University. But these facts only prove an opposition to the particular method of a special honour school in the final examination for a degree, and do not justify the charge that either the University or the Council refuses to encourage the study of English altogether. Moreover, they are not all the facts. Only last term, in answer to the memorial, the Council communicated to the Professor of English Language and Literature the following resolution:

'That the Council do not find it expedient at present to propose a new honour school in the final examination, but are willing to consider any proposal not involving the estab'lishment of a new school.'

Surely the friends of Oxford have a right to complain that while no reply has been received to this resolution, and nobody has either submitted any new proposal or even contended that there is no method of encouraging the study of English except a special honour school in the final examination, your six correspondents tell the public that the Council is blocking the way', without even mentioning the fact that it is willing to consider any proposal not involving the establishment of a new school'. Oxford, Jan. 6.

[ocr errors]

FROM The Times, FEBRUARY 4, 1892. The six distinguished graduates of the University of Oxford who addressed a joint letter to you on this subject (The Times, January 6) now assert that in my reply (January 9) I missed the point of their complaint. They say (February 1) that their contention was that, when 108 masters had petitioned for an Honour School of English, the Council ought not to have refused to bring the proposal before the University. If this had been all, I might have been

accused of missing the point. But they had also contended that the University is justly charged with making no provision for the study of English, that the way is blocked by the Council, and that the public should know where the responsibility lies for an omission in our course of study which is not creditable to the University. Further, they made this charge without mentioning the fact, which would have disposed of it, that in its answer to their petition the Council had expressed its willingness to consider any proposal not involving a new school. I did not miss these points. But what I do miss in their present letter is any admission or expression of regret that in their former letter they brought an untenable charge and omitted a fact of importance. How significant this omission was can be seen by supplying it. If they had written to you that the study of English is a burning question at Oxford, and that the Council had refused a school, but that it had invited other proposals, how could they have begun their letter with the charge that the University is neglecting, and ending it with the charge that the Council is obstructing, the study of English? To refuse a school is not to neglect a study: to invite proposals is to encourage that study.

I deeply regret that I have been driven into controversy with men whom I sincerely respect. But I must ask you to publish this letter in self-defence. Oxford, Feb. 2.

STATE AID FOR UNIVERSITY EXTENSION Sir Richard Jebb was Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge. He died in 1905.

FROM The Times, NOVEMBER 13, 1893. Professor Jebb says in his letter to you to-day that at Oxford the opinion has long been held that University Extension should be aided by the State.

Whatever may be the state of mind at Cambridge, where he is professor, I cannot imagine what evidence he can produce of the existence of this opinion, except among a few interested persons, at Oxford.

He further says that the Government might entrust each of four bodies-the Oxford University Extension Delegacy, the Cambridge Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate, the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching, and the Victoria University Extension Committee-with a few hundreds a year. What good could such a pittance do in comparison with the evil of giving the State a new right to interfere in the financial and other affairs of the University? He himself admits the condition that annual reports should be made to Government, and the possibility of Government inspectors. But Government, which nowadays has a tendency to become more and more Democratic, and even Socialistic, will not stop there. The few hundreds would be likely in the end to cost the University as many thousands.

Moreover, he says that by and by there will be young people who will wish for something higher, but will not be able to go to any English University. But he does not seem to see that Democratic Government, once having got its fingers in the pie, will force the University to lower the curriculum so as to receive these ambitious young persons. I admit that the poor, as heretofore, should have facilities to rise to a University education. But the present danger is a degradation of a University education to the level of the poor. Nothing is so likely to project this fall as the reception by the University of money from the State, justifying constant interference by the State.

There are three main arguments against State aid to University Extension. In the first place, it is contrary to the interest of the University, because

« VorigeDoorgaan »