Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

would make it optional for all. Now this division is no accident, but represents a real difference between two views of education, both one-sided. The one class exaggerates the study of external nature, the other that of human language and literature. The former would sacrifice the Classics to Natural Science, the latter to modern languages. But, though they are united in the attack on Greek, they have not shown how either or both of their innovations would supply the advantages of the old-fashioned education, nor even come to any agreement among themselves.

We are proceeding at present in the wrong order. The revolution in education is destructive, not constructive. We are asked to curtail Greek without first considering the efficacy of any substitute. We are considering education in isolated points and not as a system. We are quarrelling about details; we are silent about the principles of education. We are not even distinguishing between various kinds of secondary education, which may mean anything from the lowest technical education to the highest general education of those who can pass from schools to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. What applies to the former is often inapplicable to the latter; by confusing them we are in danger of dragging down the highest to the lowest level of secondary education. For example, it is frequently asked why a boy should not learn Natural Science without Greek. The answer is that he constantly does, and can pass nowadays to numbers of Universities in large towns. But that is not the question about the highest education-which is this. Given that Greek has the advantages merely adumbrated at the beginning of this letter, ought or ought not the few boys who go to Oxford and Cambridge to learn Greek, whatever else they learn? There are two inevitable facts about Oxford and Cambridge—

[ocr errors][merged small]

they cannot absorb all the functions of new Universities of the Birmingham type; and they cannot, within the limits of their sites, their resources, and their disciplinary powers, extend the number of undergraduates indefinitely. Oxford could not manage much more than 3,000, and I imagine this is as true of Cambridge. This means 1,000 freshmen coming up a year to each University. Now, ought or ought not at least 2,000 young men a year out of the millions of our population to learn Greek as part of the highest education? That is the question, and it is part of a larger question-What is the future of the highest education, i.e. the education of those who proceed to Oxford and Cambridge?

I agree that there must be a reform of the highest education, but I plead that it must be preceded by a reconsideration of educational principles. Without at present going into the answers I submit that, before taking any action, we want some sort of agreement upon these four questions:

1. How far ought the highest education to be a study of external nature, how far of human nature, and why not of both at once? Is not the exaggeration of either study a fundamental error?

2. What are the best subjects of education in both these departments? What are the sciences and languages which are necessary to the highest education in external and in human nature?

3. How can the curriculum of schools be arranged in both departments so that it should be neither onesided nor superficial? Could not a system of highest education be devised by which the same boys would learn Greek and Latin classics, modern languages, mathematics, and mechanics, the mother of natural sciences?

4. How far are the difficulties of combining both departments of the highest education due to faulty

disposition of time and of age in passing from school to University? Ought not boys to work harder, go to Oxford and Cambridge at not later than eighteen, and then work harder still?

If the reconsideration of these questions were made the basis of reform, I imagine, Sir, we should find that the difficulties of the highest education flow from other causes than the necessity of requiring Greek from one thousand young men a year at Oxford and a thousand at Cambridge out of the whole population.

It is characteristic of this country never to have thought out a system of education founded on principles; and, indeed, in the ordinary course the friction of experience has been a sufficient means of gradual progress. But when we come to a revolution, such as the lessening of classical study, which has been expanding ever since the Renaissance, we want something more comprehensive and profound than academical proposals to make Greek voluntary in Responsions under certain conditions, and headmasters' requests that they may be consulted as to the compulsory subjects for entrance into the Universities. We must reconsider our whole position, and ask what in the future is to be the education of boys proceeding to Oxford and Cambridge. If not Greek, what then? Will Latin stand without Greek? Can the highest education consist with ignorance of the past? Are modern languages and modern science sufficient? How far is it to be modern science, how far modern languages? Is there not a danger of a material education in natural science, and of a commercial education in modern languages, each parading as the highest education of the future?

These and a host of similar questions, such as the four which I have asked above, crowd on the mind the moment one thinks of the present crisis. They are not being much considered at Oxford; nay, the

revolutionists take pains to make out that they are merely proposing a slight change in Responsions of little moment to the study of Greek. This blindness is unworthy of a great University; Oxford must answer all these questions, and in consultation with Cambridge as well as with the head-masters. She stands at the parting of her ways. The wrong way is to tolerate a negative attack on Greek, without a constructive programme, and without any serious attempt to discover what is to become of the highest education in language and culture, in knowledge of human as well as of external nature, and, above all, in wisdom. The right way is, before taking a single practical step, and, above all, before taking the revolutionary and irrevocable step in the dark of lessening the study of classical antiquity, to institute a careful and comprehensive inquiry into the nature of the highest education and its future, about which at present we know nothing. Remember the old counsel,' that we make a stand upon the ancient way, and then look about us, and discern what is the straight and right way, and so to walk in it'. Oxford.

GREEK AND NATURAL SCIENCE AT

OXFORD

The proposal to make Greek in Responsions optional for students who were going to read Natural Science at the University was assented to in Congregation, but did not go through the necessary subsequent stages of University legislation.

Lord Lister was the great physician; he died in 1912. Sir William Huggins was the eminent astronomer; he died in 1910. Mr. R. T. Gunther is Fellow and was Tutor in Natural Science at Magdalen College, Oxford; Mr. A. D. Godley was Fellow and Tutor in Classics at the same College.

FROM The Times, FEBRUARY 13, 1904.

Without imputing any blame, I think we in Oxford are justified in making just a little complaint. We

L

[ocr errors]

have been asked, as a measure of relief to excuse students of science' from Greek, on the ground that Greek is not an essential part of a general education. Congregation on the 9th inst. has assented, fortunately by the bare majority of 164 to 162, and still more fortunately not finally, as what has been passed is only a preliminary resolution. Immediately afterwards in the Oxford University Gazette, on the 16th inst., there appears a message from the President and Council of the Royal Society, dated January 21, as follows:

"That the Universities be respectfully urged to consider the ' desirability of taking such steps in respect of their regulations as will, as far as possible, ensure that a knowledge of 'science is recognized in schools and elsewhere as an essential 'part of general education.'

Surely, Sir, we ought to have known beforehand that the real contention is that while Greek is not, 'science' is, an essential part of general education; and that the full demand is, that while a student of science' need not, as heretofore, know enough Greek, everybody whatever must in future know enough' science' to enter the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. We did not know when we voted that science' is to be substituted for Greek as an essential part of all education. But we ought to have known it, and ought to have considered before hand-though we did not-what are the essentials of a general education.

Having made this little complaint that we were voting in the dark, nevertheless, so far as I can speak with some authority as secretary of the committee of opposition to the proposal to make Greek voluntary, I desire to say that our opposition to making Greek voluntary for students of science' was not animated by any opposition to the study of 'science' or by any thought of opposing the message from the Royal Society. For my own part, so

« VorigeDoorgaan »