propagate democracy, and with it trade unionism, over what once was the civilized world? If so, there was never a time in which Greek was so absolutely necessary as the present time to the Universities, which are the nurseries of statesmen, to politicians who aim at becoming statesmen themselves, and to the nation itself, in order to recall the true principles of reasoning, morality, and politics, with a view to the common good.

Corpus Christi College, Oxford, June 11, 1919.

III. LETTERS ON OTHER SUBJECTS CON

CERNING THE UNIVERSITIES

MATTHEW ARNOLD AND THE MODERN LANGUAGES AT OXFORD

John Churton Collins was a graduate of Balliol College and was a noted writer and lecturer on literary subjects. In 1904 he became Professor of Literature at Birmingham University. He died in 1908. The proposal to found a scholarship in memory of Matthew Arnold in the University of Oxford came to nothing, although in 1901 a prize in his memory was founded under the terms of the will of his widow, Mrs. Frances Lucy Arnold.

Sir John Lubbock (later Lord Avebury) was at this time Member of Parliament for London University.

A Final School of Modern Languages was not established in the University of Oxford until 1903; candidates are examined in one language only; a proposal, however, to hold the examination in two languages has now been revived, and has received strong support.

FROM The Times, MAY 25, 1888.

A few days ago you published a letter from Mr. Churton Collins on the subject of the Matthew Arnold memorial. He quoted from an interesting correspondence in which Matthew Arnold had expressed to him the opinion that the study of English should be associated with, and not separated from, the study of the classics at Oxford. He rightly concluded that, if the memorial is to take the form of a scholarship for English literature, it will not truly commemorate Matthew Arnold unless it combines ancient with modern times. In the University new appointments tend to generate new schools, and it would indeed be a sad irony of fate if the memorial of a man were to eventuate in a school opposed to his opinions. Meanwhile, these opinions suggest fresh food for reflection. If English ought not to be separated from the classics, Oxford was right in recently rejecting a proposal to found a school of

pure English, or rather Anglo-Saxon. If English ought to be associated with the classics, Oxford has long justified herself by encouraging English philosophy in Literae Humaniores; but she ought also to consider whether she might not effect a still closer alliance of English language and literature with Greek and Latin in all her classical examinations.

In the same correspondence Matthew Arnold expressed another opinion, which cannot be so readily accepted; he was not for adding other modern languages. The very contrary has quite recently been maintained by Sir John Lubbock in a speech on University studies. I cordially agree that it is necessary to develop the study of modern languages generally in the University of Oxford. The only question is the way. Now the way, I cannot help thinking, is best indicated by extending Matthew Arnold's principles from English to all modern languages; as English should be associated with the classics, so should other modern languages be associated with the existing studies of the University.

Professor Nettleship, in an able speech in Congregation supporting the proposal to establish a separate school of modern languages, called attention to the light thrown by such languages as French and German on all sorts of subjects. A student cannot nowadays be abreast with any serious subject unless he can read foreign books. But how would this good purpose be served by a separate school of modern languages, divorced from the very subjects on which they are to throw light? Suppose a young man devoting himself, for example, to French in the manner contemplated. He would be able to read ordinary French literature; but he could not, by a linguistic study alone, go beneath the surface into the sciences on which his French is to throw light, unless it be pretended that the mere learning of the language would enable him to understand

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

1

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 off Ancient History; H. Nettleship, Corpus Professor of Latin; Ï. 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