ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

cal authors, unless they are either from writers contemporary with the one annotated, so that they throw light upon the use of words or upon the thought as it lay in the mind of men at that time, or from modern writers in whom no imitation of the classical model can be suspected. Most of those in this book belong to neither class. Finally, the poem itself is very poorly adapted for use in our schools or colleges. We should not suppose that any classical scholar could read it once without being convinced that it was a production of the Christian era. If there are any lines by Phocylides in it, they are buried under the additions by a later hand, as is admitted by scholars generally. A mere series of moral precepts like this would be the dullest possible reading to a beginner in Greek, and if he got any idea of Greek morality from it, it would be a false one. As for moral influence, it would be infinitely better for a boy to read Homer, Eschylus, Thucydides, or Demosthenes. We cannot but wonder what idea Mr. Feuling has of the scholarship or common sense of his adopted country, or what motive induced him to put forth this book, which would certainly meet with poor success in his native Germany. We hope no teacher here will be induced, by the pretentious show of scholarship about it, to adopt this as a text-book.

[ocr errors]

MATTHEW ARNOLD ON "CULTURE AND ANARCHY.' -Mr. Matthew Arnold has written a very interesting "Essay," entitled "Culture and Anarchy." Its object is "to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties." He defines culture as a study and pursuit of perfection. He defends it against the silly"cant of the day." He takes for its motto, not simply “to render an intelligent being yet more intelligent," but "to make reason and the will of God prevail." He evidently believes in knowing the best which has been thought and said in the world," in "turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits," in "sweetness and light," as well as "fire and strength"-in a perfection by which all sides of human nature, and all parts of human society may be harmoniously developed. He calls it the one thing needful" to "come to our best at all points." He is particularly severe on those who care only or chiefly "for walking staunchly by the best light they have"-who thick less of "knowing" than of" doing "—which he considers to be the fault of our "Puritans, ancient and modern."

[ocr errors]

* Culture and Anarchy: an Essay in Political and Social Criticism. By MATTHEW ARNOLD. London: Smith, Elder, & Co. 1869.

We are interested especially in the distinction which he makes between Hebraizing and Hellenizing, and which runs through the whole Essay. To Hebraize is "to sacrifice all other sides of our being to the religious side." This "leads to a narrow and twisted growth of our religious side itself, and to a failure in perfection." This is the tendency of "all America." Hellenism and Hebraism are rival forces and divide the empire of the world. Their final aim is the same, viz.: "man's perfection or salvation." But they pursue it in different ways. The uppermost idea of the one is "to see things as they really are:" of the other, is "conduct and obedience." The governing idea of the one is "spontaneity of consciousness;" of the other, "strictness of conscience." "The Hellenic half of our nature, bearing rule, makes a sort of provision for the Hebrew half, but it turns out to be an inadequate provision: and again the Hebrew half of our nature, bearing rule, makes a sort of provision for the Hellenic half; but this, too, turns out to be an inadequate provision. The true and smooth order of humanity's development is not reached in either way." Neither of them is "the law of human development." Both are but " tributions" to it. This is capital.

con

But we demur when he says that "Christianity occupied itself, like Hebraism, with the moral side of man exclusively." "What was this but an importation of Hellenism into Hebraism?” "Whereas St. Paul imported Hellenism within the limits of our moral part only, this part being still treated by him as all in all,” -"we ought to try and import it"-"into all the lines of our activity," &c. Is this a just and fair representation of Christianity? Is it not broader in its sphere than Hebraism? Does it not "import" into human nature and human society more than either Hebraism or Hellenism? indeed, all that can be needed or wanted for man's salvation and perfection. How can we import what Paul did not, since he is not satisfied "till we all come to a perfect man," and declares of Christ, "In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;" or Peter, since he distinctly speaks of "all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue; whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature?" It is doubtless true (as is here said) that "no man, who knows nothing else, knows even his Bible." But who that knows "Sophocles and Plato" can say that "their notion of what goes to make up holiness was larger than" that of Christ and his Apostles?

Perhaps the most practical part of the Essay is that in which he speaks of the "flexibility of culture," or its "independence of machinery." Faith in machinery may well be called "our besetting danger." "What is freedom but machinery? what is population but machinery? what is coal but machinery? what are railroads but machinery? what is wealth but machinery? what are religious organizations but machinery?" We are not to worship these as precious ends in themselves. But, after all, does he not generally undervalue them? E. g. "the blessedness of the franchise and the wonderfulness of (our) industrial performances." He seems to despise "freedom," while he almost worships "establishments."

The Essay is very suggestive, for it abounds in felicitous hits, as when he distinguishes between "provinciality" and "totality" -when he distributes society in England into " Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace," and adds, "America is just ourselves, with the Barbarians quite left out, and the populace nearly;" when he calls the non-conformists "hole and corner churches;" when he avers that "the whole attitude of horror and holy superiority assumed by Puritanism towards the Church of Rome," merits Sir Henry Wotton's rebuke, “take heed of thinking that the further you go from the church of Rome, the nearer you are to God;" when he distinguishes between "creative" and "instrumental statesmen; when he quotes Epictetus as saying "It is a sign of a nature not finely tempered to give yourselves up to things which relate to the body; to make, e. g., a great fuss about eating, drinking, walking, riding. All these things ought to be done merely by the way; the formation of the spirit and character must be our real concern:" when he insists that "culture does not set itself against games and sports. It congratulates the future, and hopes it will make a good use of its improved physical basis; but it points out that our passing generation of boys and young men is meantime sacrificed;" that "culture is always assigning to system-makers and systems a share in the bent of human destiny than their friends like” -"will not let us rivet our faith upon any one man and his doings"-labors to "humanize knowledge" by divesting it of all that is "harsh, uncouth, difficult, abstract, professional, exclusive," is eminently practical, because "even when it does not lend a hand to rough and coarse movements," it "qualifies it to act less at random," &c. How strange that only once does he make direct allusion to that "something which thwarts and spoils all our

efforts, viz., sin! With a stronger sense of human sinfulness, he might not have been so confident that "now and for us it is a time to Hellenize." It fact, he seems to feel that it is worse for those who have such a religion as ours, than for those who are utterly "without religion."

CLASSICAL STUDY.*-The aim of this book is to present, in a compact form, an antidote to the judgments, adverse to the study of the classics, which are enforced with earnestness by many educators at the present time. The views of twenty-one able men are here given with more or less fullness, extracted from papers which have been published within the last thirty-five years. These papers are of varying excellence; the ablest, without question, heing an extract from Mr. Mill's Inaugural before the University of St. Andrews, but no one of them is without merit.

The first, that of Rev. Mr. Jones, Principal of King William's College in the Isle of Man, is a thorough analysis of the advantages of the study of the classics in itself considered, and as compared with the pursuit of any other branch which may be made central in a college course. One might, after reading this paper and the Discourse of Mr. Mill, regard them as covering the entire ground involved in the discussion. But so numberless are the considerations developed by a fair consideration of the question, that the reading of each successive essay seems to add something forceful, and often something beautiful to the thoughts, that have been previously unfolded. Indeed, the book, apart from its arguments, is one of the noblest pleas that could be made for classical culture. In the plain and lucid exposition of the first paper, in the terse and pointed sentences of Mr. Mill, embracing the widest scope of knowledge, in the exact and discriminating statements of Prof. Conington, in the glow of Prof. Edwards's scholarly enthusiasm, and in the rhetoric of Mr. Thompson, one finds the precious leaven of classical training.

We think more may be made, than is made in the papers written by Americans, of the worth of preparation by classical study for the special needs of our own country; that it might be shown that classical scholarship is not in our times necessarily “devitatized," but that the exercise of the judgment in deciding between

* Classical Study: Its Value Illustrated by Extracts from the Writings of Eminent Scholars. Edited with an Introduction by SAMUEL H. TAYLOR, LL.D., Principal of Phillips Academy. Andover: Warren F. Draper. 1870.

different readings and emendations, in calculating probabilities, is a training well adapted to prepare men for business life. But the value of this training for professional men, and as ennobling the entire nature, could hardly be more clearly shown by abstract arguments than in the collective writings of these scholars.

Should any one think that two or three of these papers might have been omitted, we will venture to doubt whether any two friends of classical study would agree upon the extracts to be rejected. If this be true, there could be no higher evidence of the skill with which the editor has done his work.

No one can read this book and fail to see that the classics have been made responsible for a great deal that has resulted from bad teaching. Teachers will find here valuable suggestions and will receive from these pages stimulus to constant labor, that they may bring their work up to the fine art, which it must become in order to be successful. When one reflects how few teachers in our country inspire any love for the classics in their pupils (it adds not a little to the enjoyment of reading the book to know that its compiler is eminent among the few), one does not wonder at the outcry against classical study. It may be, that as the number and importance of other branches increase, less time must be given to the classics in the future. Hence there must be wise methods and more self-sacrificing teaching, that more work and more loving work may be expended by students in their pursuit, than has been ever in the past. If the majority of our students learn to enjoy the classics before entering college, and the stand ard of admission be everywhere raised, the elective system may produce less harmful results than its opponents anticipate.

This book might become a powerful auxiliary to the cause of classical learning. Teachers might read extracts from it to their advanced classes and enforce the opinions of the writers by unfolding the precious value of the legacies in scholarship and eloquence left by such men as Legaré, Edwards, Felton, and Conington, and dwelling upon the noble contributions to literature and metaphysical discussion of Mill, Porter, and McCosh. Too little effort has been made to show to our students in this way the worth of classical study. We wish that Dr. Taylor (who might so easily and so ably do it) would supplement this volume by an other, which should exhibit in this concrete way the truth of the opinions asserted in this book. Such a volume might contain, for

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »