go along with them. To carry on such speculations is, for Classical Scholars, the business of life: but in this, for the same reason as in other departments of knowledge, this business ought to be begun in the educational period of life. Our education is limited and incomplete, if it do not lead our students into the portal at least of this great edifice, on which thoughtful and learned men are constantly labouring. Classical learning, in order to be a worthy part of a Liberal Education, must include Progressive as well as Permanent Studies.

Having thus shown that Classical, as well as Mathematical Educational Studies are partly of a Permanent and partly of a Progressive kind, I may make some remarks on Classical, of a similar tendency to some of those which I have made respecting Mathematical, Studies.

89 In the first place, it is important to keep the two kinds, the Permanent and the Progressive Studies, distinct; and especially, not to allow the latter to supersede the former, or to impair the attention given to them. The Permanent Classical Studies, which give a thorough acquaintance with the Greek and Latin languages, and a familiarity with the best Classical writers, are indispensable, both as cardinal parts of a Liberal Education, and as necessary to any intelligent participation in the progress of speculations concerning the language, philosophy, or history of the Greeks and Romans. No second-hand knowledge of the philological criticism, philosophical doctrines, and political events of these nations, can at all compensate, as a branch of education, for the lack of a knowledge of the original authors in the original languages. If a person do not read and understand the Greek and Latin poets, historians, and philosophers, he cannot be deemed to have received a Liberal Education, though he may be ever so well acquainted with the discussions which have [PT. I.]

7

taken place in modern times respecting the antiquities and histories of those nations, or the peculiarities and merits of their writers. To be liberally educated, a man must have acquired knowledge of the languages so that it is a solid and permanent possession, as the actual knowledge of a language is: and he must have familiarized himself with the classical writings, so that they have imbued and moulded his mind, as the literature with which we are familiar in youth does. If he have not done this, it is to no purpose, as constituting a really good education, that he reads translations, and criticisms, and dissertations. By such kinds of study he may know as much about the Greek and Roman writers, as a man, by the study of Peerage Books, may know much about the aristocracy of his own country; but he cannot by such a study imbibe that spirit of classical literature which is, as we have said, the inheritance of the intellectual aristocracy of the world.

90 I remark, in the next place, that it is not enough for our purpose to study the literature of one of the two languages. I have already (73) given reasons why the cultivation of the Latin language and literature is not sufficient, except the study of Greek be added to it. Still less is the study of Greek sufficient for the classical part of a good education, if the Latin language and literature be neglected, or slightly attended to. For however admirable may be the Greek models, and however superior in many respects to the Latin writers, Latin literature has, after all, exercised a far larger sway over the civilized and literary world, than Greek. Greek may be the finer study, but Latin is the more necessary accomplishment. For many centuries, in modern times, Greek was comparatively little known; and during those centuries, the Latin writers operated powerfully in the literary and intellectual culture of men's minds. Nor has this tradition of the Roman influence ever ceased or been in

terrupted. Latin models, trains of thought as expressed by Latin writers, Latin as a language with which all educated persons are familiar, are far more generally and promptly operative among cultivated men, than Greek literature is. To neglect Latin, and to concentrate our classical study upon the Greek writers, would be to put ourselves out of sympathy with the literary world of all past ages, and, in a great degree, of our own also. And if this were done out of an ardent admiration for the Greek language and nation, as compared with the Latin, it would not the less be a mistake in Education; for Education has it for its business, not merely to find something which we can admire, and to dwell upon that; but to place before us objects which cultivated men in all ages have admired and dwelt upon, and thus to connect our minds with theirs. To turn from Latin and to confine our studies to Greek, on such grounds, would be to confound Progressive with Permanent Classical Study: it would be to let the assumed progress of literary taste in the present day break off the tradition of literary sympathy with past generations. It would be, in Classical Studies, the same kind of error as the substitution of Analytical for Geometrical Methods in Mathematics, of which we have already explained the ruinous effect upon edu

cation.

91 It may perhaps be said by some, that a knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages is not necessary in order that we may share in the influences which the thoughts and writings of the classical authors have exercised upon succeeding ages, since we may become acquainted with these authors by means of translations. So far as such authors are intelligible, it may be said, their meaning may be expressed in our own language; and in fact, all the principal classical authors have been translated into modern languages, and may thus be studied without the labour of mastering the original

tongues. This may be said: nor do I deny that a certain portion of classical culture may be thus received; but such culture must be very imperfect. For all translations must be very defective in conveying the impression of the original; as every one who has read an original work, and a translation of it, must be aware. In poetry, the defect is immense. We have, in our literature, nothing closely resembling or equivalent to the Greek and Roman forms of composition; and the finest beauties of poetry consist in expressions and touches which cannot be transferred from one language to another. Our possession of a foreign language, and that language one so different in its structure from our own, and from modern languages in general, as Greek and Latin are, gives a peculiar aspect and colour to all that we apprehend through such a medium. The criticism which is applicable to the original work must bear quite as much upon the language as upon the matter, and must necessarily lose its significance if we have before us only a translation. In short, knowledge acquired by translations can hardly be considered as education, in any proper sense of the word. It evokes none of those peculiar powers by which the mind deals with language. When, however, we possess the Greek and Latin languages, and are already familiar with the best classical authors, it is by no means clear that we may not usefully extend our acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature by means of translations; for most students will read English with more facility and rapidity than Greek or Latin; and he who possesses the languages, will constantly be led to compare the translation with the original, and thus will become acquainted with the spirit and form of the work, as well as with its substance and meaning. Translations of Greek and Latin authors have undoubtedly been very effective in extending a knowledge of Classical literature, even among classically educated men. The discussions and

comparisons to which the translations have given rise, have made the originals better known; and by means of such translations, the classical authors have promoted the culture of many persons who could not read the originals. Thus such translations have extended the range of the sympathies by which classical studies bind men together.

92 It might at first appear as if the existence of translations of Classical Authors would make it difficult to ascertain whether the student who is required, as a part of his education, to translate or construe, as it is called, such authors, does so from his knowledge of the language, or from his acquaintance with the translation. But all classical teachers are aware that this is, in reality, no difficulty at all. As we said before, with regard to examinations in Geometry (53), a question or two with reference to the grammatical construction of a passage is quite sufficient to enable the teacher to decide whether the learner performs his task by rote or with intelligence. Moreover the student may be required himself to write or speak in the language, and will then make it evident whether he possesses the language or not. With regard to the Latin language, such exercises have always been part of the usual classical discipline; and are a requisite part of the education which is to connect a man with the literary community of past and present times.

93 With regard to the fidelity and accuracy with which translations convey the meaning of the original, each translation will of course have the tinge of its own period in the national literature to which it belongs, but it is not likely that much progress will be made from age to age in better understanding the sense of the ancient authors. Scholars in all periods, at least since the revival of literature, have well understood the Greek and Latin languages, and what the best authors have written in those languages. It is not likely that