T HOI 1 G H T S 
ON THE 
STUDY OF TIIE GREEK AND LATIN LANGUAGES 
[Reprinted from tlie New-England Magazine.] 
The remarks in this and two succeeding essays were suggested on 
reading a pamphlet, entitled “ Reports on the Course of Instruction in 
Yale College, by a Committee of the Corporation and the Academical 
Faculty.” It is a pamphlet, calculated, for sundry reasons, to make no 
common impression, wherever it is read. It is from the pen of schol- 
ars, is written with ability, and, from having been long engaged in the 
business of “ Instruction,” most of those concerned in the authorship 
of it have a fair claim to be deemed qualified judges of the subject of 
which it treats. Hence, on most points embraced in their “ Reports,” 
we consider the sentiments of the Committee correct, their illustrations 
satisfactory, and their reasonings conclusive. And such we presume 
is the general opinion. 
On one point, however, we are not satisfied ; and it is that on which 
the Committee appear to have bestowed most attention, and for the 
decision of which, in conformity to their own views, they were proba- 
bly most solicitous. We allude to the necessity of a knowledge of 
Greek and Latin, as an clement of a liberal education. Is it true, that 
that element is indispensable ; and that no form or degree of education 
is liberal without it ? May not an individual, without being versed in 
the dead languages, be so educated, as to be competent to the highest 
and most perfect achievements in science, literature, and the arts, as 
well as in professional life '\ 
These are questions of deep concern to the interests of society, ed- 
ucation being the only means of fully developing the human faculties, 
and conferring on man the entire perfection, of which he is suscep- 
tible. The Committee have answered the first of them affirmatively, 
and the last, of course, in the negative. They have pronounced an 
acquaintance with Greek and Roman literature essential in the con- 
stitution of a liberal education. 
Before offering any strictures on this decision, we shall simply 
remark, that we are friendly to the cultivation of ancient literature, 
under proper restrictions. We disclaim all connection and sympathy 
with that class of innovators, that would “ drive the ploughshare of 
destruction” through all our academies and colleges, and uproot in Thoughts on the Study of the 
them every remnant of the learned languages. Though advocates of 
a temperate and judicious reform on this subject, we deprecate revolu- 
tion. Indeed, such are the evils inseparable from revolution, during 
its progress, that it should never be attempted in any thing of moment, 
except as the result of necessity, or under a prospect deemed infallible 
of great improvement. We shall only add, that we have never wit- 
nessed what we considered an unbiassed discussion of the topic before 
us. Notwithstanding our belief, that the learned Committee, whose 
“ Reports” we are about to examine, endeavored to divest themselves 
of prepossession and prejudice, and to discover and communicate 
truth, on the subject of their deliberation, we are compelled to question 
their ability to do so. In saying this, we intend neither an impeach- 
ment of their integrity, nor a disparagement of their understanding. 
In the former, we repose entire confidence, and have already acknowl- 
edged the latter to be of a respectable order. We simply mean, that 
men educated, employed, and habituated from their youth, to think, 
as they have been, must have had, from the well-known laws of the 
human mind, a bias and friendliness of feeling, apart from their 
judgement, in favor of the study of Greek and Latin. To have felt 
otherwise—we mean, to have felt impartially, would have been unnat- 
ural, and, perhaps we might add, unamiablc—a susceptibility of attach- 
ment to familiar objects and customary pursuits, being one of the at- 
tractive features of the human character. Besides; not to have de- 
cided as they did, would have been a censure on themselves and their 
profession ; some of them, we believe, being concerned in teaching the 
classics, and all of them sanctioning that course of instruction. And 
self-condemnation, always an unwelcome task, is much increased in its 
difficulty and repulsiveness, by having to grapple with pride of opinion, 
personal interest, and confirmed habit. 
One more preliminary, and we shall commence our discussion. 
What are we to understand by a liberal education ? Unless this ques- 
tion be previously solved, reasoning on the subject can be of no avail. 
It is fortunate, therefore, that the committee have given their solution 
of it in the following sentence :— 
“ By a liberal education, it is believed, has been generally under- 
stood, such a course of discipline in the arts and sciences, as is best 
calculated, at the same time, both to strengthen and enlarge the facul- 
ties of the mind, and to familiarize it with the leading principles of 
the great objects of human investigation and knowledge.” 
To this solution we offer no other objection, than that it is not suffi- 
ciently full. The word all should have been inserted before “ facul- 
ties.” A liberal education, then, we would define, that course of in- 
struction, which is best calculated to prepare the mind, by expanding 
and invigorating all its faculties, for the highest achievements, of 
which it is capable, in science and letters, as well as in the learned 
professions and the arts. For, although it is true, as the committee 
allege, that a liberal is distinct from a professional education, it is 
equally so, that the latter should always include the former, and is de- 
fective without it. 
It being conceded, then, that a liberal education consists in a compe- 
tent cultivation of all the faculties of the mind, it must be also con- 
ceded, that whatever form of education thus cultivates them is liberal. Greek and Latin Languages. 
The question may therefore be put, and the committee have an interest 
in answering it, What faculty, or what number of faculties are disci- 
plined and strengthened by the study of Greek and Latin, which can- 
not be as highly disciplined and strengthened without it ? Greek and 
Latin are but languages. The study of them alone, therefore, is far 
from invigorating every faculty of the mind. When pursued as it usu- 
ally is, it invigorates only the faculty of language. It in no degree 
strengthens, or in any way improves either the reflecting faculties, or 
the general powers of perception and judgement. It adds nothing to 
the capacity of the mind to form ideas of number, quantity, weight, 
figure, size, duration, color, place, tune, or beauty. Nor has it any 
bearing on comparison, reasoning, wit, or imitation. Yet these are all 
ideas and operations, conceived and performed by distinct primitive 
faculties, which education is intended to train and strengthen. We 
repeat, that the study of language, cultivates alone the faculty of lan- 
guage ; and that can be cultivated as certainly, and we believe as well, 
by the study,—we mean the thorough study,—of modern as of ancient 
languages. This will be made to appear more fully hereafter. But 
we are running ahead of our inquiry ; we are advancing some of our 
own views, before examining those contained in the pamphlet. 
The Committee have assigned their reasons for deciding, that the 
study of the ancient classics is an indispensable constituent of a liberal 
education. If those reasons are conclusive, the controversy is settled, 
and any further agitation of it would be worse than nugatory ; it 
would be a waste of time. If, on the contrary, the reasons are invalid, 
the question is still open, and invites to a stricter examination of the 
subject of it. Nor ought the invitation to be declined, relating, as it 
does, to matters of deep and general concern. Our first business, 
therefore, is to endeavor to test the soundness and sufficiency of some 
of the positions, which the “ Reports” maintain. 
The Committee first attempt to draw a parallel between the objec- 
tions made by some persons to the study of mathematics, and those 
made to the study of Greek and Latin ; and, having shown satisfacto- 
rily the invalidity of the former objections, they content themselves 
with the inference that the latter are equally invalid. In this effort, 
however, to maintain themselves, they have failed. Arguments found- 
ed on analogy should be advanced with caution. They are not philo- 
sophical. To illustrate is all they can do. Proof is beyond their 
sphere. In most instances, they do more harm than good, unless they 
are sustained by something solid, and direct to the point. In the 
present case, moreover, we deem the analogy defective. The attempt 
to show that there is an equal necessity for studying the ancient classics 
and mathematics, we consider a failure. A knowledge of mathematics, 
if not essential, is highly useful, in almost every department of life.* 
The power of man is greatly augmented by it, and his general effi- 
* We do not mean to contend that every candidate for a liberal education ought to he compelled 
to study mathematics, to any great extent. Some knowledge of the principles of the science, and 
their application, he ought to acquire ; and to this attainment every one is competent. But those 
alone who have the faculty of Number in sufficient strength, can attain a thorough knowledge of 
mathematics. Nor should the attainment be exacted of any others. A practice the contrary of 
this is unjustifiable, because it leads to an unprofitable consumption of time. Of every other 
study, the same is true. No one should be constrained to pursue it, unless he possesses a faculty 
for it. A strict observance of this rule would be an important improvement in the education of 
youth. Thoughts on the Study of the 
cicncy in the same degree improved. It is an important element of 
practical science, and is not only indispensable in public and weighty 
projects, but facilitates and renders more complete the transaction of 
many private and domestic affairs. Its influence, like that of the sun 
and the atmosphere, is felt every where, without being always referred 
to its proper source. Were it necessary to illustrate or prove this, 
facts suited to either purpose could be collected abundantly from every 
quarter. Indeed, an extinction of the knowledge of mathematics, 
would not only arrest the progress of improvement, and render useless 
most improvements already made; it would reduce society to an in- 
fantile condition. Every man actively engaged in agriculture, com- 
merce, or the arts, does many things on mathematical principles, 
whether he be educated in the science or not. Several other sciences, 
moreover, as well as most of the arts, are dependent on mathematics, 
if not for their existence, at least for the degrees of perfection they 
have attained. 
As respects a knowledge of Greek and Latin, the case is different. 
To say the least, its usefulness in the common affairs of life, whether 
public or private, on a large scale or a small one, is very limited. 
Were we to deny it altogether, it is doubtful whether we could be con- 
victed of error. Classical knowledge belongs to literature, and appears 
to us to have no necessary connexion with practical science. As a 
mere attainment in language, it deals in words and names, not in sub- 
stantial ideas and things. True, it facilitates the making of addi 
tions, when required, to scientific nomenclature. Such additions, 
however, might be made without it, though not, perhaps, so conven- 
iently—certainly not so learnedly. But no one will contend, that it 
contributes, in the slightest degree, to widen the boundaries of science, 
by leading either to further discoveries in the laws of nature, or to new 
and useful applications of those already made. Some of the most dis- 
tinguished discoverers, inventers, and improvers, the world has pro- 
duced, have been strangers to Grecian and Roman literature. In 
proof of this, many well-known names might be cited.* Of a knowl- 
edge of mathematics, it need scarcely be said, that the reverse of this 
is true. Science and the arts, we repeat, are immeasurably indebted 
to it, on the score of both discovery and improvement. We reiterate, 
therefore, our inability to perceive any analogy, at all available in the 
present case, between the necessity of it, and a knowledge of the an- 
cient classics, constituting an element of a liberal education. Every 
enlightened people is, and always has been, indebted to mathematics 
for many of their means of prosperity and power. But nations and 
empires have been prosperous and powerful, without any aid from 
* It. would not, we believe, be difficult to show, that of the most illustrious discoverers, invent- 
ors, and improvers in science and the arts, a large majority have been ignorant of Greek and Latin. 
For this, there seems to be a good reason. Self-taught men are untrainmeled by authority. They 
think for themselves, and take nature for their guide ; whereas, the educated, being much under 
the influence of what they have learned in colleges, and other seats of learning, think ns they have, 
been taught., and are guided by example. Under these circumstances, the former can scarcely fail 
to take a lead, in the work of general innovation anil improvement. The remedy for this evil in 
our colleges and universities is obvious and easy. Young men should be instructed reasonably, not 
dogmatically, or authoritatively. They should be taught independence of mind, to study nature as 
well as books, and, on every subject, to examine strictly, believe cautiously, and think for them- 
selves. The following are a few, out of many that might be named, of eminent discoverers, in- 
venters, and improvers, who had no knowledge of Greek or Latin : Franklin, llittenhouse, Watt, 
Arkwright, Hutton, Ilubbart, Brindley, Bramah, I.eslie, Stevenson, Perkins, and Fulton. To 
these, dozens of others might be added—among them, Bufl'on, Davy, and Cuvier. Greek and Latin Languages. 
Greek or Latin. From reasoning by analogy, the Committee proceed 
to another ground of argument, which we think no better—that of 
authority and fashion. 
“In the British islands, (say they) in France, Germany, Italy, and, 
indeed, in every country of Europe in which literature has acquired 
distinction and importance, the Greek and Roman classics constitute 
an essential part of a liberal education.” 
This is begging the question ; or rather, assuming positively the right 
to decide it, by the weight of opinion. The allegation made is true, 
only by construction—true, on the ground of human authority, but not, 
therefore, necessarily so, under the sanction of reason. In the coun- 
tries mentioned in the extract, custom of long standing has established 
the belief, that “ the Greek and Roman classics constitute an essential 
part of a liberal education.” This belief, however, does not form a 
fact. No mere belief does so. If it did, fact and absurdity would be 
often identical. 
That at the time of the Revival of Letters, and for centuries after- 
wards, an acquaintance with the “Greek and Roman classics consti- 
tuted an essential part of a liberal education,” is not denied. The 
reason is obvious. At that period, those works were, in Europe and 
most parts of Asia, the depositories of almost all recorded knowledge. 
But they are not so now. The amount of knowledge, which they lock 
up, at present, from the mere reader of modern languages, is extremely 
small ; and, we may safely add, of little use. All the important in- 
formation they contain, has been, long since, translated into other 
tongues. Hence they are no longer consulted as oracles of science. 
Had the Committee, therefore, pronounced a knowledge of them a 
fashionable or conventional, instead of an “ essential,” part of a liberal 
education, the term would have been more appropriate. If mere au- 
thority be waved, the propriety of the epithet, in the present condition 
of the world, is more than doubtful. But that authority is, in many 
cases, not only a fallacious, but a dangerous, basis of education, may 
be easily shown. Has not a belief in the infallibility of the Pope, in 
the performance of miracles by the relics of saints, and in the divine 
right of kings to trample on their subjects, been inculcated by author- 
ity, as an element of education ? And, in some parts of Europe, is it 
not so inculcated still ? Has there not been a period, when, had 
teachers refused to implant these notions in the minds of their pupils, 
they would have been deemed heretical, and deprived of their offices, 
if not of their lives ? The reply to these questions must be affirma- 
tive. Were we inclined to press this matter further, we might add, 
that the time was, when no person but a clergyman was deemed suffi- 
ciently pure and holy to be at the head of a college or a university, 
because no other could procure for it the favor of Heaven ; and the 
time also was, when no young man’s education was esteemed liberal 
and complete, though he might be intended for holy orders, unless it 
included the art of defence. In fact, there is scarcely an error or an 
absurdity in discipline, so gross and striking, as not to have found its 
advocacy in the same source. It is not perceived, then, in what way 
the Committee have strengthened their cause, by a reference to fashion, 
or human authority. We shall appeal, hereafter, to a higher tribunal, 
that of Nature. The Committee employ another argument, the sound- Thoughts on the Study of the 
ness of which wc think equally doubtful. We shall give it in their 
own words:— 
“ The literature of every country of Europe is founded, more or less, 
on classical literature, and receives from this source its most important 
illustrations.” 
Admitting this to be true of the literature of France, Italy, Spain, 
and Portugal, and also of modern Greece as far as she has a literature, 
is it so of that of any other European country ? Is it true of Great- 
Britain, Holland, Germany, Prussia, Russia, or any other northern 
nation ? or, is it true of the United States ? Is the literature of these 
latter countries founded on that of ancient Greece, or Rome ? and is it 
dependent on “ that source for its most important illustrations?” The 
Committee would hazard much, in replying affirmatively to this ques- 
tion. In plain terms, if we comprehend their meaning in the para- 
graph quoted, the reply could not be sustained. The constitution of 
the English language, and every thing fundamental that belongs to it, 
rest much more on the Saxon, than on either the Greek or Latin, or 
on both united. And the Russian, and the German in all its dialects, 
are original tongues ; no more dependent on Greek or Latin, than the 
latter are on them. That many English writers have modeled their 
style and manner after those of the writers of Greece and Rome, is 
true. But, that the most pure and classical writers of the English lan- 
guage have done so, is not true. English literature has a character of 
its own, very distinct from that of either Greek or Roman literature. 
It cannot conform to both of them, they being widely different from 
each other. The truth is, that, when pure, it conforms to neither. 
This is proved by the prose works of Dryden, Bolingbroke, Swift, 
Addison, Taylor, Goldsmith, Scott, and other great masters of English 
style. Those compositions, and many others that might be referred to, 
derive nothing in manner or illustration from ancient literature, and 
but little in words. They are written chiefly in Saxon-English. We 
allude especially to the structure and spirit of the composition. Some 
of the most tasteless works in our language are modeled after the an- 
cients. How can it be otherwise ? An effort is made in them to 
assimilate incongruous things. Attempts, moreover, to imitate bespeak 
inferiority, and contribute to perpetuate it. On that ground, ancient 
authors have injured many modern ones. No writer will ever be 
great, unless he aspire to originality, both in manner and matter. He 
must act according to the constitution of his own mind, not in imi- 
tation of the mind of another ; for his intellectual stores, he must 
draw on nature; and, to acquire mental vigor and dexterity, he must 
exercise regularly, and on suitable subjects, the powers he possesses. 
But the adorers of the ancients will be the last to do this. Like the 
adherents to royalty, they will continue to recognize, in the Greeks 
and Romans, a divine right to instruct the moderns. 
English literature will never attain the perfection of which it is sus- 
ceptible, until it shall be cultivated, more than it ever has been, on the 
ground of the true constitution of the English tongue. Never until 
then will it be free from trammels ; and freedom is essential to perfec- 
tion in every thing. Wc deem it fortunate that this sentiment has 
begun to prevail; and that it has so begun, cannot be doubted. En- 
glish and American writers, generally, are less servile copyists of the Greek and Latin Languages. 
ancients, than they were fifty years ago. And, as nations, their writ- 
ings have improved. Both in Great-Britain and the United States, 
more especially in the latter, there are twenty good writers now, where 
there was one, at the commencement of our revolutionary war. Yet, 
in neither country has the devotion to the ancient classics increased in 
the same ratio. It would be difficult to prove, that, in proportion to 
numbers, it has increased at all. Nor shall we ever have a truly 
classical literature of our own, until it shall have been formed out of 
our own materials, and on the constitution and construction of our own 
tongue. We might safely add, that when one writer copies or imitates 
the style and manner of another, he is apt to imitate his sentiments and 
mode of thinking, also, and to become a copyist and an underling 
throughout; and such a degree of dependence operates as a blight on 
the human faculties. That it may be able to act with its entire force, 
and achieve every thing, of which it is capable, the mind must be free, 
and must, therefore, do homage to nothing that is human. Aristotle 
and Plato among the ancients, and Newton and Locke among the 
moderns, checked originality of thought, and thus did mischief, through 
the excessive deference paid to them, by their contemporaries and 
those of after ages. Imitation and the restraint of authority chill the 
fires and deaden the elasticity of genius, and are fatal to all that is 
great or new. We do not hesitate to say, then, that, instead of being 
benefited by the homage once paid by them to ancient compositions, 
modern writers have improved, both in matter and style, almost in pro- 
portion as that homage has abated. As far as our acquaintance with 
German literature fits us to judge of it, we cannot perceive that it is 
any more “ founded on classical literature,” than the English. It 
appears to us to be very independent, and to have a distinct constitu- 
tion and character of its own. To crowd a composition with what are 
called classical illustrations and allusions, is now deemed a mark of 
pedantry, rather than of good taste ; to which might be added, that it 
is also a mark of a barren mind. The rich are not compelled to 
borrow; nor is the scholar, who is sufficiently versed in the book of 
nature, obliged to rely for his illustrations on the literature of the an- 
cients. 
The Committee make a further effort to establish, by analogy, the 
high claim of an acquaintance with Greek and Latin to enter as an 
element into a liberal education. The subjects of their analogy are 
architecture and sculpture. Those arts are stated to have been carried 
to such perfection in Greece, that their products are still unrivaled, 
and constitute the best models for modern imitation. True; as relates 
to sculpture, the Committee disclaim being advocates of imitation. 
To us, however, they seem to disclaim it only in words, while in prin- 
ciple they recommend it. When a modern statuary places an ancient 
bust or statue before him, and works by it or after it, to improve him- 
self as an artist, we know of no other name, which suits him so well, 
as that of imitator. His object is not to avoid faidts in the statue ; 
because he always selects the most perfect specimen. If, then, he 
does not intend to imitate—to assimilate his work in some way to the 
model in his presence, why does he look on it as an exemplar? Why 
does he not copy directly from nature, the true inspirer of genius, and 
the finished pattern of all elegance and all excellence ? By doing so, Thoughts on the Study of the 
and depending alone on her, in conforming to her works, he would 
take the rank of an original. But as long as he relies for his improve- 
ment on human productions, he is a copyist. Every great artist has a 
beau ideal in his mind, the creation of his own genius ; but all the 
elements of it are derived from nature. He only unites and fashions 
them to his taste ; and, in his attempts to attain perfection, he works 
after the image he has thus created. His effort is to equal that, not to 
equal or surpass a pattern set by any other artist, either ancient or 
modern. After whose models did Phidias or Praxiteles work ; or by 
what artist’s productions did they improve themselves ? The answer 
is plain. They worked after no models but those of nature, and 
deigned to imitate no productions but hers—and hence their works 
bestowed immortality on them. It is believed that the ancient artists, 
painters, as well as sculptors, owed their excellence chiefly to their 
being originals. Nor could they be otherwise ; because they had no 
highly finished works of preceding artists to imitate. Were the moderns 
to follow their examples of originality, instead of copying their works, 
they might equal them in the perfection of the art; but they will 
never do it on any other ground. It appears to us, that the chief, if 
not the only advantage, which the works of ancient artists can bestow 
on modern ones, is on the ground of competition and rivalry. They 
may excite in them a higher ambition to excel, than they would other- 
wise feel; and there, we apprehend, the true benefit ends. Our allu- 
sion is to artists of a high order. That inferior ones may improve their 
humble performances by imitation, is not denied. They are intended 
and fit only to follow in the wake of superior men. They are not, 
therefore, embraced in the present discussion. We are treating of 
artists qualified to be originals; and they are necessarily injured by 
imitation. 
Be these things, however, as they may, we say of this analogy, as 
we did of the last, that it proves nothing, because it is an analogy— 
and not, we think, a very close one. In the reasoning founded on it 
by the Committee, the premises and the conclusion do not appear to us, 
to belong of right to the same syllogism. Modern architecture, say 
the Committee, has been improved by ancient architecture, and modern 
sculpture by ancient sculpture. But the Greeks and Romans were 
the great masters in these arts. Therefore, modern literature is im- 
proved by ancient literature, in which the same people were also mas- 
ters. We confess our inability to perceive either the force or fairness 
of the inference. 
There is yet another ground, on which the analogy of the Committee 
appears to us to have failed. Sculpture is a direct imitation of some- 
thing in nature. The product, therefore, of the ancient and of the 
modern sculptor, when imitating the same object,—say, the human fig- 
ure,—must be so much alike, that the latter, when possessed of but 
moderate abilities, may, perhaps, improve his style, by working after 
the model left by the former. He is still indirectly imitating nature, 
when he is imitating a well-executed image of her. But language, 
though founded in nature, resembles none of her immediate works. 
It is a creation entirely artificial; and, as products of art, the English, 
Latin, and Greek languages are, in their present condition, so dissimi- 
lar to each other, that it is difficult to conceive, how the former can be, Greek and Latin Languages~ 
in any way, improved, by an attempt to model it after either of the lat- 
ter. That it must be injured by it, seems, on principle, the more 
probable result; and experience, we think, sustains the opinion. 
“ But, (say the Committee) the study of the classics is useful, not 
only as it lays the foundation of a correct taste, and furnishes the 
student with those elementary ideas, which are found in the literature of 
modern times, and which he no where so well acquires as in their orig- 
inal sources—but also as the study itself forms the most effectual disci- 
pline of the mental faculties* * * * “ Every faculty of the 
mind is employed; not only the memory, judgement, and reasoning 
powers, but the taste and fancy are occupied and improved.” 
The matter of this extract brings us into a more serious conflict 
with the Committee, than that of either of the preceding ones. We 
are compelled to call in question the soundness of the whole of it. 
We cannot admit that “the study of the classics lays the foundation of 
a correct taste.” Wherever that “foundation” exists, it is not the 
creation of any course of discipline. It is the gift of nature—laid in 
the original constitution of the mind. Education improves it, but 
does not and cannot produce it. There are many minds, some of 
whose powers are active and vigorous, in which no system of training 
can form a correct taste. Whatever they do is disjointed and out of 
shape. Yet they may be thoroughly imbued with Greek and Latin. 
Instances in proof of this are so numerous, that they must be familiar 
to every accurate observer. The elements of correct taste are as lite- 
rally bestowed by nature, as the elements of beauty of countenance, or 
symmetry of figure. They consist in that form of mind, where all the 
faculties are active, and well-balanced, none of them preponderating 
much in strength over the others. Where these elements are wanting, 
no course of discipline can impart them. Nor are we convinced, that, 
when possessed, they may not be as well cultivated, without Greek 
and Latin, as with them. Females excel in all sorts of taste, without 
any knowledge of ancient literature. This point will be more fully 
considered hereafter. 
Notwithstanding an attentive examination of the subject, we find it 
difficult to discover what the Committee mean by “ those elementary 
ideas, which are found in the literature of modern times, and which 
the student no where so well acquires, as in their original sources.” 
Nature,* not classical literature, we regard as the “ original source” 
of all ideas, whether elementary, or of any other kind. We believe, 
moreover, that all mental philosophers concur with us in opinion. 
Other sources are but secondary, and derive all the value they possess 
from their conformity to the original source. But nature is as acces- 
sible to the moderns, as she was to the ancients. Had we said that 
she is much more so, the position could be maintained. For each 
well-informed student of nature possessed by Greece and Rome, mod- 
ern nations furnish hundreds, in the same amount of population. 
Wherefore, then, must the latter depend on the former for “ element- 
ary ideas,” or any ideas at all, to enrich their literature? Why can 
* We mean that impressions matle, directly or indirectly, by the works of nature, on the human 
mind, produce in it all the ideas it possesses.. To the production of the ee impressions, the learned 
languages contribute but little. Thoughts on the Study of the 
they not draw them from the same fountain, which is so much more 
liberally opened to the modern than it was to the ancient world ? We 
ought rather to ask, Do they not thus draw them 1 Are not modern 
productions generally much richer in the truths of nature, and freer 
from fiction, than most ancient ones? This question must be answer- 
ed affirmatively; else all the discoverers and philosophers, who have 
flourished and written since the Revival of Letters, have lived in vain. 
We feel justified, then, in calling on the Committee to specify those 
“ elementary ideas,” and show them to be of any value, which writers 
of the present day most readily derive from Greek and Latin. Nor 
will they find it an easy task to comply with the summons. 
We cannot concur in the opinion, that the study of the dead lan- 
guages “ forms the most effectual discipline of the mental faculties”— 
especially of “ judgement and the reasoning powers.” On the con- 
trary, we are convinced that it does not. We do not perceive how it 
disciplines either “ reason” or “judgement” at all. Nor do we think 
it does so. Some of the most thorough-bred Hellenists and Latinists 
we have seen were eminently defective in reason and judgement. Nor 
is this an uncommon occurrence. Observation has taught us to be- 
lieve the reverse. We think it rare to find, in our colleges and else- 
where, that those young men, who judge most correctly, reason most 
conclusively, compose most elegantly, and debate most eloquently and 
powerfully, are most perfectly versed in the ancient languages. And 
if the study of Greek and Latin invigorates the “ memory,” it is a 
memory for words, not for ideas of qualities, objects, events, or their 
relations. And the cultivation of a modern tongue will have the same 
effect. The reason of all this is obvious. The cultivation of Greek 
and Latin is but the study of words in one language, and their syn- 
onyms or representatives in another. It does not, therefore, and can- 
not strengthen the memory for any thing but language ; and, we repeat, 
that that form of memory can be strengthened as well by the study of 
English and French, as of Greek and Latin. 
The chief source of error on this topic, is the belief, that memory is 
faculty of the mind; and that we have but one kind of memory; 
whereas it is but a function or mode of operation of a faculty. We 
have, therefore, as many sorts of memory, as the mind possesses of 
intellectual faculties; each faculty having its own. And as no one 
primitive faculty can form the ideas, which are the product of another, 
neither can it remember them—because it never had them. Memory 
is the power of recalling ideas which were once possessed. The culti- 
vation of the memory belonging to one faculty of the mind, then, does 
not strengthen the memory belonging to another, any more than the 
cultivation of hearing strengthens vision, or of smelling, touch. To 
illustrate this by examples. 
The mind possesses one faculty for number, which can perceive and 
remember nothing but number ; another for form or figure, which per- 
ceives and remembers nothing but figure; another for size; another 
for place; another for color ; another for time ; and another for tune ; 
and each perceives and remembers only the class of ideas proper to 
itself. In cultivating any one of these faculties, therefore, by exercis- 
ing it on the objects which especially suit it, its own memory is Greek and Latin Languages. 
strengthened; but no strength is added to the memory of any other 
faculty.* 
The mind possesses also a faculty for language, by the cultivation of 
which its memory is in like manner strengthened ; but, as already 
mentioned, that is only memory for words. No new strength is added 
to the memory for any other class of ideas. Hence the well-known 
fact, that different individuals excel in different forms of memory. 
One remembers numbers with great tenacity, but forgets a tune, the 
moment the notes of it have escaped from his ear. Another never 
forgets a tune, after once hearing it, but cannot remember numbers. 
A third forgets both the tune and the number of times he has heard 
it, but remembers the form of the instrument on which it was played. 
A fourth forgets the tune, the number, and the figure of the instru- 
ment, but has an accurate recollection of the place, where he heard the 
tune, and of the person who performed it. A fifth, forgetting all these 
things, remembers the names of the tunes, the instrument, and the 
musician. The latter is well endowed with the faculty of language, 
by the cultivation of which, its own memory alone is improved—not, 
we repeat, the memory for any other class of ideas. As soon, there- 
fore, shall a youth perfect himself in the dead languages, by studying 
arithmetic or mathematics, as strengthen his memory for numbers or 
* We might thus enumerate all the intellectual faculties, and show that they are acted on and 
exercised only, each by objects or agents proper to itself; that each forms and remembers only its 
own class of ideas; and that, therefore, the cultivation of one of them does not improve directly the 
functions of another. That it may receive strength and become dexterous in action, each one must 
be exercised in its own line. The faculties of Individuality and Eventuality must be exercised 
on single objects and events, Comparison chiefly on the relations of analogy, and Causality on 
those of cause and effect. 
Respecting the animal and mitral faculties, the same is true. Each one of them is exercised and 
strengthened only by its own objects, and in its own way. The proper education of each, there- 
fore, is specific, and contributes nothing directly to the education of another. 
It is in the education of the moral faculties, that the teachers of youth are most deficient. They 
seem'to'think that they are improving their pupils in morality, when they are merely restraining 
them from vice. Nothing, however, can be more erroneous. The teaching of morality is as much 
a positive process, as teaching to read and write. The moral faculties, we mean, must be actively 
exercised, each on its proper object. The faculty of benevolence is strengthened only by the work 
of benevolence, and the contemplation of kind actions. The faculty of conscientiousness is 
strengthened by contemplating and doing what is just and right. The faculty of veneration de- 
lights in doing homage to superior beings, and derives from the practice Its chief improvement. 
Ideality is exercised and strengthened by beauty and sublimity, and Firmness gains power from 
scenes of difficulty. 
Of the animal faculties the same may be affirmed. Combativeness is strengthened by a famil- 
iarity with danger, Acquisitiveness by the pursuit of wealth, and Destructiveness by cruelty and 
the shedding of blood. 
We shall only add, that, so perfectly do the faculties of the mind harmonize with the works of 
creation, that each finds, abundantly, suitable objects for its own exercise, enjoyment, and increase 
id strength. Nor will instructers ever be competent to their duty, until they realize this truth,and 
act in conformity to it. 
As relates to the cultivation of the moral faculties, no one will contend that that is highly pro- 
moted by the study of Greek and Latin. It may, at least, be questioned, whether it is promoted 
at all. Many have believed the reverse to be true. That some striking examples of morality, es- 
pecially as respects certain virtues, are exhibited in the ancient classics, is not denied. But the 
scale of immorality greatly preponderates. The entire scheme of the Greek and Roman mythology 
is a revolting picture of licentiousness and crime. Jupiter,‘at once the chief of gods and adulter- 
ers. Apollo, the gallant, gay Lothario of heaven and earth. Mars, a blood-thirsty, swaggering 
bully. Neptune, a blustering boaster, and a flagrant ravisher. Vulcan, a low-bred, deformed, ill- 
tongued ruffian. Bacchus, a sot. Juno, a fierce, vindictive termagant. Minerva, a prude j and 
most of the other female divinities no better than they ought to be. 
Of the demi-gods and heroes, not one exhibits an example to be followed. Even the “ pious 
/Eneas, the goddess-born,” was an. ungrateful seducer, a lawless usurper, and an inexorable mur- 
derer. 
Nor did the characters of the philosophers of either Greece or Rome approach immaculacy. 
Pericles waging a bloody war, on account of his mistress, Socrates at the feet of Aspasia, and Cato 
accommodating a friend with his wife, are hut sorry samples of morality for modern youth to 
imitate. 
Nor is this all. In Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Catullus, Anacreon, and other classical writers, are 
many odes, epistles, satires, and letters, too obscene for young men to read. In fine, if we would 
strengthen the moral faculties, and preserve their purity, we must exercise them in some other 
and better way than by the study of Greek and Latin. Thoughts on the Study of the 
quantity, by contracting an acquaintance with the ancient classics. 
Nor is it perceived in what way taste and fancy are more effectually 
exercised and improved by the study of ancient than of modern litera- 
ture. We are even compelled to believe, that they are not so. Many 
modern works might be mentioned, which surpass any ancient ones 
now extant, in imagination and fancy. We know of no Greek or 
Roman authors equal, in these respects, to Shakspeare, Spencer, or 
Dante. Certainly none are superior. To come down to our own 
times, and compare moderns and ancients individually with each other, 
we think Byron superior in brilliancy to Pindar, and Moore to Anac- 
reon. That they at least equal them, no one, we think, will deny. 
And, that the moderns referred to are richer in sentiment and thought, 
than the ancients, will not, we apprehend, be held doubtful. Nor are 
they inferior in taste, when they choose to exercise it. Yet their 
works are original—no more founded on or modeled after the works of 
any of the ancients, than the latter are after them. They are the pro- 
ductions of the peculiar geniuses of their authors, and resemble noth- 
ing but themselves. 
That it may be further illustrated and confirmed, we repeat a remark 
already made, that no faculty of the mind, but that of language, is 
especially disciplined by the study of Greek and Latin. Hence per- 
sons, who are deficient in that faculty, make but little progress in this 
study, however industrious they may be, and though their other facul- 
ties may be unusually strong and active. Many striking instances of 
this are on record; and most persons must have seen some such them- 
selves. Great as were their powers, in other respects, neither Newton 
nor Swift could acquire any standing in classical scholarship. The 
reason is plain. They were comparatively defective in the faculty of 
language. Mere boys, on the contrary, who are high// endowed with 
it, but whose reason and judgement are immature and weak, make 
rapid progress in the classics. As relates to that branch of attain- 
ment, the maturity of the higher faculties of the mind is of little avail. 
We once knew a child but six years old, who spoke four different lan- 
guages ; and lads of ten frequently surpass youths of eighteen or twenty, 
in the ease and speed with which they become acquainted with Greek 
and Latin. Many persons, who acquire distinction as classical scholars, 
can never attain a name in science. 
Shall we be told, that it is not by learning to construe, parse, and 
scan the ancient languages, that the faculties of pupils are exercised 
and strengthened, but by studying their structure and philosophy ? 
We reply, that the number of persons, who study Greek and Latin 
thus thoroughly, is very small; and, were it otherwise, an equal degree 
of improvement might be derived from a suitable attention to the 
structure and philosophy of modern languages. There are reasons, 
why the case cannot be otherwise. The philosophy, by which we 
mean the reason and fundamental principles, of all languages is the 
same. A brief analysis of the subject will prove this. 
From their social character and love of information, mankind have 
an irrepressible desire to communicate to their fellows something re- 
specting themselves, and to learn something respecting others ; and 
words are the chief means, by which these ends are obtained. Lan- 
guage, then, might be defined an invention for expressing, by articulate Greek and Latin Languages. 
sounds, the feelings, operations, and states of the mind, the influences 
iproduced on it by the objects and events of the external world, and the 
relations of those objects and events to each other, as they appear to 
the mental eye. 
In all nations, the faculties of the mind are the same, differing only 
in degree; and the external world, with its leading objects and occur- 
rences, and their relations, both to the mind and to each other, are 
also the same. Hence the feelings, operations, and states of the mind 
are, in kind, likewise identical. It follows, therefore, of necessity, 
that the fundamental principles of the means of expressing these things 
are in like manner identical. A brief detail will illustrate this, as far 
as is requisite to our present purpose. 
The external world consists of substances or objects, with their 
qualities and relations, and the movements or changes, by which those 
qualities and relations are altered. The changes are called events. 
Out of this state of things arise the three principal parts of speech, 
which are necessarily the same in every language ; the noun substan- 
tive, being the name of objects or events ; the adjective, denoting their 
qualities; and the verb, which expresses the chief relations and their 
changes. The latter part of speech expresses also simple existence. 
In every change of quality or relation produced, some object must act, 
and others be acted on. Hence arise two forms of the verb, the active 
and passive; and two cases or conditions of the noun, the nominative 
and objective. When action is represented as passing from one sub- 
stance or thing to another, that which performs the action is in the 
nominative case, and that which sustains it is in. the objective. By 
the passive form of the verb, action is expressed, as falling on some 
object or thing, without any necessary reference to the source from 
which it comes. The recipient of the action is then in the nominative 
or objective case, according to the mode of expression used. Nouns 
have also other cases or conditions, which are represented in some 
•languages, by changes or inflections in the terminations of the nouns 
themselves, and, in others, by certain words accompanying them. 
Actions or events occur at different times, and under different 
circumstances and relations. These also the verb must express. 
Hence the different tenses, referring to periods past, present, and to 
come, and the different moods, denoting the manner and circum- 
stances of the action. Both moods and tenses are formed, in some 
instances, by changes in the terminations of the verb, and, in others, 
by means of auxiliary verbs. Languages differ considerably in the 
precision, with which they mark the relative dates of past and future 
events ; and no little of the perfection of the language depends on this. 
Another variety in forms of expression is rendered necessary by the 
different numbers of the things that act, and of those that are acted 
on. This end is attained by the singular, dual, and plural numbers of 
nouns and verbs. Concord and government between words are also 
essential attributes of language. 
The frequent repetition of nouns or the names of things, in discourse 
or writing, would be not only ungraceful, but inconvenient. Hence 
the formation of pronouns, or words serving as substitutes for nouns. 
Actions have qualities, as well as objects ; and it is necessary that they 
also be expressed in speech. This end is attained by the formation of Thoughts on the Study of the 
adverbs. Between both objects and actions, there are certain minute 
relations and connexions, which cannot be represented by verbs. This 
want is supplied by prepositions and conjunctions. There are instinct- 
ive exclamations, expressive of certain internal feelings ; as those of 
joy, sorrow, surprise, affright, and others. From this source have 
arisen the vocables called interjections. The last part of speech 
to be mentioned is the participle; so called, because, in form and 
meaning, it partakes of both the verb and the noun, especially the 
noun adjective. By contributing to accuracy and completeness of ex- 
pression, it is highly useful in speech. The qualities of objects and 
actions often differ in degree. To meet this want, the different de- 
grees of comparison are instituted. Objects also differ in sex. Cor- 
responding to this, nouns have different genders, which, in different 
languages, are marked in different ways. 
The impressions made directly and primitively on the mind, by the 
objects and events of the external world, excite ideas of simple per- 
ception. These are expressed by their appropriate nouns, as color, 
sound, form, size, resistance, place, storm, battle. So are the objects 
which produce them ; as grass, tree, horse, man, mountain, trumpet, 
army, air, cloud. These simple ideas, formed by the perceptive facul- 
ties, constitute the elements of knowledge. By working on them, 
through its reflecting faculties, which are of a higher order, and which 
operate, each according to its nature, the mind forms from them other 
ideas of a more complex, subtle, and abstract character. To represent 
these, corresponding nouns or names are invented, and make a part of 
language. Some of these are as follows : like, unlike, likeness, un- 
likeness, difference, identity, whiteness, blackness, virtue, vice, right, 
wrong, cause, effect, and many others. The formation of abstract 
ideas being one of the highest operations of the mind, the existence of 
the abstract terms, by which they are expressed, gives evidence of a 
corresponding degree of perfection in speech. Hence rude and igno- 
rant nations have but few abstractions. 
Inasmuch then as language not only presents a picture of the ex- 
ternal world, as it appears to the mind, but gives also a representation 
of the various faculties of the mind, of their present condition, and of 
the degree of their general discipline, and the extent of their opera- 
tions, it follows, that its copiousness and perfection must correspond 
to the mental cultivation of the people who speak it. In plainer terms, 
the richer a people are in knowledge, the more numerous and abstract 
are their ideas, and the more copious, refined, and perfect is their 
language. While this influence is deducible from first principles, its 
truth is established by observation. Nor will it be denied, that the 
more perfect and copious a language is, the more invigorating and 
improving is the exercise, which the study of its structure and philoso- 
phy affords to the mind. Much of the mental discipline imparted by 
this exercise arises from the investigation of concord, government, and 
structure; and they are common to every language. 
The correctness of the foregoing principles, generally, will not be 
controverted. Suppose, then, a comparison, in conformity to them, be 
instituted between the Greek or the Latin, and the English languages; 
which of them will preponderate, as a philosophical study ? Will the 
English be found inferior to the others? No color of reason is per- Greek and Latin Languages. 
ceived for thinking so ; but rather the reverse. Its fundamental prin- 
ciples are the same, its structure is as good, and its superior copious- 
ness is striking. Nor is it inferior in force, correctness, variety, pre- 
cision, or elegance of expression. If the faculties of pupils are at any 
time more severely exercised, in studying Greek or Latin, than in 
studying English or French, it is because they are more puzzled to de- 
tect the meaning of the former than of the latter. But such puzzling 
is neither pleasant nor instructive. On the contrary, it fatigues the 
mind, without improving it, and often produces an aversion from learn- 
ing. All things considered, we feel convinced, that no mental faculty 
is disciplined and strengthened, by studying Greek and Latin, which 
may not be as profitably trained, and as highly invigorated, by the 
study of English and French, provided it be pursued in a judicious 
manner, and to the requisite extent. The misfortune is, and we might 
add, the fault is, that in most colleges in the United States, where 
days are devoted to the cultivation of a knowledge of the ancient lan- 
guages, hours are not given to the real study of our mother tongue. 
To read a few books, at times very loosely, and scarcely ever critically, 
and write a few formal exercises in English, is not the way to become 
versed, as every educated American ought to be, in the English lan- 
guage. It is not the way to study it, and gain a philosophical knowl- 
edge and a full command of it in writing and speaking. Yet, in most 
of our seats of learning, but little more is done to ripen English schol- 
ars. We are acquainted with no institution, whether academy, col- 
lege, or university, where the pupils are thoroughly disciplined in 
English,—none where they are called on to master it completely as a 
branch of philosophy, and reduce their knowledge of it to practice, by 
sufficient training in composition and rhetoric. We know that no such 
institution exists in the United States ; and we believe that none such 
exists in Great-Britain. The result is often manifested by literary 
wants, peculiarly discreditable to our systems of instruction. We have 
seen many college graduates, who could translate Greek and Latin 
with considerable fluency, and even write and converse in them, whose 
knowledge of English literature was so radically defective, that they 
could not compose a decent letter. Their deficiency was striking even 
in the spelling of common words. We could name an individual, who 
has been a Professor in one college, and a President elect of three 
others, if not four, of whom this is true! He is ignorant alike of the 
construction and orthography of his mother tongue! And yet he is a 
Greek and Latin scholar ! On the contrary, many a boarding-school 
girl, who is a stranger to ancient literature, speaks and writes the 
English language with fluency and correctness. Why ? because she 
has been exercised in it; the only way, in which a true knowledge 
and practical command of it can ever be acquired; and it can be thus 
acquired, without a knowledge of any other language.* 
* It cannot be denied, that, in one respect at least, the study of Greek and Latin has been injuri- 
ous. It has prevented the actual and thorough study of English. The ground on which it has (lone 
this is obvious. Latin and Greek are the ancient and classical, and, therefore, reputedly the su- 
perior languages. A knowledge of them, therefore, is comparatively an object of high ambition. 
Hence they are studied. Not so with English. It is a modern, every-day language, a knowledge 
of which is neither an object of ambition, nor a point of honor or pride. Hence, instead of being 
studied, it is simply read. And, while the ancient languages are taught by men of talents and 
cultivation, in handsome and even magnificent edifices, it is pretended to be taught in log cabins, 
by men who are ignorant of it, and of every thing else. We repeat, without fear of being put in 
the wrong, that this neglect of English, and the low estimation, in which the study of it is held by Thoughts on the Study of the 
The writings of the ancients have long ceased to be a source of 
science. All their most valuable historical matter is also translated 
into some of the living languages, especially into English. It has been 
shown, moreover, that the study of them does not give to the faculties 
of the pupil a degree of exercise more improving than the thorough 
study of a modern tongue. Whatever advantages, then, may result 
from a knowledge of the ancient classics, belong to literature alone. 
Science, we say, disclaims them. Shall we be told, that an acquaint- 
ance with them prepares the mind better for the reception of science* 
general and professional, than any other sort of attainment? The 
friends of this notion, long as it has prevailed, and almost universal as 
it is, ought not to be surprised, if, on being placed in the balance,, it 
should be found wanting. But, before weighing it, we must examine 
one or two other arguments, urged by the Committee, in favor of the 
study of Greek and Latin. When speaking of the study of modern 
languages, they say :— 
“ If the languages and literature of Italy, France, and Spain, be- 
yond what is merely superficial, is an object with the student, they 
should be acquired through the Latin; nor is there reason to doubt, 
so far as experience affords the means of judging, that it is’the most 
expeditious mode of acquiring a familiarity with the languages- in 
question.” 
In the sentiment here advanced, we cannot concur. Reason,, ob- 
servation, experience, and every other consideration bearing on it, 
unite in persuading us that it is unfounded. We acknowledge the 
close family alliance between Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish, the 
former being the parent tongue. But we know that, by the adoption 
and steady pursuit of the proper course, a “ familiarity”' with the three 
last can be acquired, not only without the aid of the first, but in a 
period not longer, if so long, as that requisite to the attainment of a 
similar “ familiarity” with the first alone. Latin, as usually studied, 
cannot be mastered in less than three years. Few students can be- 
come really “ familiar” with it even in that time. Yet, in the same 
period, a youth of common capacity may become so well versed in 
Italian, French, and Spanish, as to speak and write them with fluency 
and correctness. We say this can be done, because we know it has 
been done. Might we speak of our personal experience, we would 
say, that we knew something of Latin, when we studied the modern 
tongues; yet we were insensible of any facilities derived from the at- 
tainment; except as related to our knowledge of language in the ab- 
stract, and some experience and tact we had gained in learning it; 
and that might have been acquired from the study of any language— 
we mean the study of it philosophically. Some of our fellow-students, 
the public, is to be attributed chiefly to the attachment of too much importance to an acquaintance 
with Greek and Latin. 
True, this state of things is passing away ; and may it pass speedily ! The change, within the 
present century, is great, and all for the better. In most, we believe in all the respectable seats of 
learning of our country, the cultivation of the English language is improving. Still, however, it 
is every where much below what it ought to be, and what we trust it will be, by the middle of the 
century. We shall only add, that those, whose native tongue is English, should make it a point 
of national pride and ambition, not only to understand it thoroughly, but to give to it the high 
standing, in the estimation of the world, to which it is entitled. And this can be done only by 
making it a subject of serious study. That being effected, English will be no longer a step-child in 
our academies, colleges, and universities. The ancient languages will be no longer permitted to. 
overshadow it, and triumph in its degradation. Greelc and Latin Languages. 
who had no knowledge of Latin, and who were not accounted more 
apt than ourselves in learning languages, formed an acquaintance with 
French, Italian, and Spanish, very near as readily as we did, and 
seemed, in a short time, to understand them as thoroughly. We be- 
lieve some of the best French and Italian teachers in the United 
States, prefer that their pupils should not have learned Latin. The 
female academies in our country furnish a strong argument in support 
of our views on this subject. Their pupils are strangers to Latin ; yet 
they learn French and Italian with more facility, and as much accu- 
racy, as most of our youths at college. 
When about to advance the sentiment we are now considering, the 
Committee would have done well to have remembered the Law maxim, 
Quod probat nimis, probat nihil. They certainly attempted to prove 
too much in favor of classical learning, when they asserted, that the 
attainment of a knowledge of it is “ the most expeditious mode of ac- 
quiring a familiarity with Italian, French, and Spanish”—thus alleging, 
it we understand their meaning, that a youth can attain a knowledge of 
Latin and French, Latin and Italian, or Latin and Spanish, in a shorter 
time than he can learn either of the three modern languages alone! 
We shall only add, that scores of individuals might be named, who, 
without having ever looked into a Latin author, have acquired a knowl- 
edge of “ the languages and literature of Italy, France, and Spain,” 
far “ beyond what is merely superficial.” Can a foreigner,—say a 
Frenchman or a German,—attain, through a familiarity with Greek and 
Latin, a more thorough and commanding knowledge of English, than 
an American or an Englishman can, without Greek and Latin, but 
completely disciplined in his native tongue ? An affirmative answer 
to this question would be alike inconsistent with reason and experi- 
ence. Nor can an American acquire, by the aid of Latin, as perfect 
an acquaintance with French, as a Parisian can without it. One ex- 
tract more, and we shall have done with the pamphlet. 
“ We are the people, (say the Committee) the genius of whose gov- 
ernment and institutions, more especially and imperiously than any 
other, demands that the field of classical learning be industriously and 
thoroughly explored and cultivated, and its rich productions gathered. 
The models of ancient literature, which are put into the hands of the 
young student, can hardly fail to imbue his mind with the principles of 
liberty ; to inspire the liveliest patriotism, and to excite to noble and 
generous action, and are therefore peculiarly adapted to the American 
youth. To appreciate justly the character of the ancients, the thor- 
ough study and accurate knowledge of their classics, in the language 
of the originals, is indispensable; as the simplicity, energy, and strik- 
ing peculiarities of these pristine exemplars of freedom, which *are 
forcibly and beautifully displayed in their models of classical literature, 
are scarcely more discoverable in ordinary or even the most faithful 
translations, than are the warmth, animation, and intellectual illumi- 
nation of the living, active, and intelligent being, in the sculptured 
imitation of the statuary.” 
This is the most exceptionable paragraph we have quoted. It has 
much more of rant than reason in it. Some people will call it elo- 
quent ; and its author perhaps intended to make it so. We call it de- 
clamatory, frothy, and erroneous; while plainness, solidity, and truth Thoughts on the Study of the 
are essential to eloquence. It is a tissue of assertion, unsupported by 
a tittle of proof. It is equally extravagant in language and sentiment. 
Whoever dreamed before of deriving from the writings of the ancients, 
either sparks to kindle, or breath to fan, the fires of freedom and patri- 
otism in modern bosoms? As well might the fancy have been indulg- 
ed of brightening and swelling the blaze of Moscow, by a farthing 
rush-light, when the conflagration was at its height. We venture to 
say, that for every single paragraph breathing a spirit of rational 
freedom, that can be found in tbe literature of Greece and Rome, one 
thousand are contained in the works of British, American, and other 
modern writers. Nor, on this subject, did the moderns borrow from 
the ancients. The reason is plain. The latter had little or nothing 
to lend. The former, therefore, looked into themselves, and into the 
reason and nature of things, and found there the treasures they sought. 
And, as to patriotism, the uncultured Caledonians of old, and the Swiss 
peasants, at a later period, displayed as much of it, as ever the Greeks 
or Romans did. And so would the uncultured Irish now, were they 
in a condition to do so. Was it ancient literature that taught and em- 
boldened the barons of England to extort from their monarch their 
Magna Charta ? No : such was their want of scholarship that they 
could scarcely read the instrument, when prepared. Some of them 
could not read at all. Yet that single charter contains more of the 
genuine principles of freedom and of human rights, than all that the 
Greeks and Romans could boast. Were the American patriots better 
versed in ancient literature than any other people, when they asserted 
and achieved their independence ? Many who had never opened a 
Latin dictionary, and who were strangers to the Greek alphabet, acted 
distinguished parts on that occasion. Be the cause what it may, the 
Anglo-Saxons and their descendants have long understood, and under- 
stand at present, what salutary freedom is, much better than any other 
people. The Greeks and Romans might have derived useful lessons 
from them, on that subject. Nor is it true that a spirit of freedom and 
patriotism has prevailed in European countries, in proportion to the 
prevalence of classical knowledge. We do not say that the reverse of 
this is true,—though facts somewhat favorable to such a position might 
be adduced ; but we do say, that it is a knowledge of nature, not of 
Greek and Latin, which teaches man his rights.* We shall only add, 
that, in the Mississippi Valley, where classical literature has not yet 
taken root, the spirit of patriotism is as pure and pervasive, and the 
love and knowledge of freedom as fervid and correct, as in any other 
portion of the globe—much more so than they ever were in Greece or 
Rome. 
Nor can we subscribe to the belief, however general, and however 
often and dogmatically asserted, that it is impossible to infuse into 
an English translation the spirit, force, and fire of an ancient Greek 
* There is a much greater amount of classical learning in Germany, than in any other equal 
portion of the globe. Why then have not the Germans taken a lead in the overthrow of despotism, 
the assertion of human right, and the establishment of freedom? Why, on the contrary, do they 
calmly tolerate the sway of one of the most despotic governments of Europe ? The reason is 
plain. The spirit of freedom is awakened and nourished, not by the classical tomes of the an- 
cients, but by the books of the moderns—more especially, however, by the book of nature. That 
chapter of the latter, which gives the true history and philosophy of man, his rights, privileges, 
and all his relations, contains a hundred fold more of the spirit of freedom, than all the Greeks 
and ltomans ever wrote. Let the Germans study that, with but half the attention they bestow on 
ancient literature, and the Austrian and Prussian sceptres will soon be shorn of much of their 
power, or shattered to pieces. Greek and Latin Languages. 
or Roman composition. Or, if an impossibility of the kind exist, it is 
because the original production is not fully comprehended and felt. 
And if the disciplined translator cannot become thoroughly master of 
the original, is it probable that the common reader of Greek and Latin 
can ? If the better scholar fail, will the worse succeed? These ques- 
tions answer themselves. 
The English is as powerful and expressive a language, as the Latin 
or Greek ; and, as heretofore mentioned, it is more copious than either. 
It is in vain to tell us, then, that when an Englishman or an American 
fully comprehends the meaning, and enters perfectly into the spirit of 
a piece of ancient literature, whether it be prose or verse, and is, at 
the sanje time, equal as a writer to the author of it—and practice will 
render him so—it is in vain, we say, to contend, that, under these cir- 
cumstances, a translation may not be rendered equal to the original. 
If, owing to the peculiarities of different languages, some transient 
beauties be lost, others may be added, and neither the meaning nor the 
spirit of the ancient composition be marred. In proof of this, we 
offer Murphy’s translation of Tacitus, in which we venture to say 
there are but few, if any passages, where the Roman historian and biog- 
rapher has suffered in the version. In some, we have thought him im- 
proved. Nor do we hesitate to add, that there is not one Greek scholar 
in a thousand, who, did pride permit him to acknowledge the truth, 
does not read to more advantage, and with a higher relish, Pope’s 
translation, than Homer’s original. The same is true of the transla- 
tion, by the same English author, of Ovid’s celebrated letter of Sappho 
to Phaon. In spirit, feeling, and force, the translator has surpassed 
his original. True ; he does not equal him in brevity of expression ; 
nor, for reasons connected with the two languages, is it possible to 
render an English translation as brief as a Latin original. But this 
is the only quality, in which it need be inferior, and it is of but little 
moment. We shall only add, that the more purely and elegantly one 
language is written, the more easily and literally can it be translated 
into another. Hence the great facility of turning the writings of Vol- 
taire into English. 
We are aware of the prejudice arrayed against us, on this subject. 
But we are unmoved by it, and fearlessly state what we believe, in de- 
fiance of it. We therefore repeat, that an English scholar, who is an 
able and accomplished writer, can, provided he thoroughly compre- 
hends it, and feels it, translate a Greek or Latin composition, matter 
and spirit, into his mother tongue. And, unless the scholar, who reads 
it in the original, thus comprehends and feels it, he does not enjoy it, 
and is not benefited by it, as the Committee allege he is. What ad- 
vantage does he derive from visions of beauty floating in his mind, 
which he is unable to express in his own tongue ? They neither en- 
rich, strengthen, nor refine him, as a writer or a speaker. They are 
mere mental lumber, and therefore unavailable, if not prejudicial. 
But the truth is, that the whole matter is but a fancy. Whatever a 
scholar clearly understands, no matter from what source it is derived— 
the study of Greek and Latin, or the study of nature—he can commu- 
nicate clearly and forcibly, provided he is a forcible thinker, and has 
made himself master of his native language. In contending, then, 
that an individual can be delighted and benefited, by the beauties of 
works written in the dead languages, while he is unable to transfer Thoughts on the Study of the 
those beauties, and use them in a living language, the Committee 
appear to us to have contradicted themselves. In such a case, there 
is no delight or improvement, without actual possession of what de- 
lights and improves; and, if possessed, the beauty can be translated, 
to delight and improve others.* 
To us, the opinion of the Committee seems equally unfounded 
when they assert, that, “ to appreciate justly the character of the an- 
cients, the thorough study and accurate knowledge of their classics, 
in the language of the originals, are indispensable. The mere knowl- 
edge of a language, and of the number, form, and powers of the let- 
ters in which it is written, give but a very limited acquaintance with 
those who speak it. It is the literature and the history of a people 
that disclose their character. And, as respects the ancients, access 
can now be had to these two sources of information, without a knowl- 
edge of their language. We know of no Greek or Roman work, val- 
uable on account of the matter it contains, which has not been trans- 
lated. And, indeed, not a few have been translated, that have no 
intrinsic value. To call them curious, is to give them their full meed 
of praise. There is enough written in English, or translated into it, 
to communicate to those, who will study it correctly, as intimate an 
acquaintance with the ancients, in every matter and relation worth 
knowing, as the most accomplished Hellenists and Latinists of the day 
have. To contend, then, that to gain a knowledge of the Greeks or 
Romans, in their manners, persons, customs, civil and household econ- 
omy. or any thing else of moment, we must study their languages, is a 
mistake. As well may it be said, that to attain a knowdedge of the 
Russians or Laplanders, we must study their languages, instead of 
reading well-written histories of them. Some of the best-informed 
Grecian and Roman antiquarians we have seen, knew nothing of the 
dead languages. They had derived all their knowledge of antiquity 
from English publications, original or translated. Shakspeare, though 
* ft would be well for those, who believe in the incommunicable beauties and delights inherent 
in Greek and Latin composition, to endeavor to ascertain how much of those qualities are in the 
sentiment, and how much in the sound. The sonorousness and euphony of Greek and Latin are 
much superior to those of English. Of this, every classical scholar must be sensible. Hence 
much of the delight derived from reading them, is the delight of harmonious musical 
sound—especially when the sound is an “ echo to the sense.” We say “ harmonious sound for 
such is generally the exquisite order and arrangement of the words, that, if they be altered, much 
of the beauty of the passage is marred, and an equal amount of the pleasure of reading it dissi- 
pated. This may be illustrated and proved by the following quotations :— 
“ Exoritur clamor quo virum dangorque tubaruni‘'>—an exquisitely beautiful line, the sound fairly 
echoing the sense. Let the words be transposed into their natural order, “ Clamorquc viriim 
dangorque tubarum eroritur,” and more than half the beauty is gone. 
“ Stat sonipes, ac frtena feroz spumantia inemdit.,'> 
“ Feroz sonipes stat, ac mandit spumantia fr<cna.''> 
“ Intonuere, poll et crebris micat ignibus tstker.” 
“ Poll intoneurc et aether micat crebris ignibus.,'‘ 
Every one must perceive that the beauty of the two latter lines is equally destroyed, by changing 
the artificial to the natural arrangement of their words. Of Greek and Latin composition gener- 
ally the same is true. The only object of transposition in it, is euphony and harmony, or the im- 
provement of sound. In English composition, much is already done, and more may l*e done, in 
the same way. 
There is also a reason, why we fancy more beauty in Greek and Latin composition, than we 
really perceive. We do not in general perfectly understand it. A sort of shadowy dimness hangs 
over its meaning. And every one knows that a little obscurity heightens materially the feeling of 
beauty and sublimity. This it does, by giving more play and wider scope to the imagination. 
The beauty of a moonlight scene is much improved, by the fleecy rack, which flits across the 
heavens. 
Once more. Classical scholars are proud of their attainments. They, therefore, feel a selfish 
enjoyment in persuading themselves that they have access to rich fountains of pleasure, in their 
knowledge of Greek and Latin, from which the uninitiated are excluded. And it is a law’ of 
human nature, that men can so far realize their wishes, as to believe ultimately what they are 
anxious to believe. Such are some of the chief reasons, why it is contended, that the beauty and 
spirit of Greek and Latin composition are necessarily lost in a translation. Greek and Latin Languages. 
unversed in the languages of the Greeks and Romans, had an intimate 
acquaintance with their characters, customs, manners, and literature. 
Yet, since his time, translations have been greatly multiplied and ex- 
tended, and original works on those points written ; and hence the 
same amount of knowledge, which he had, may now be much more 
easily acquired. 
The ancient languages, then, being no longer a source of either 
science or history, and the study of them having no more influence in 
training and strengthening the higher faculties of the mind, than the 
study of modern languages, were the question put, “ In what respect 
are scholars benefited by a knowledge of them V’ the answer must 
be, “ In polite literature alone.”* How far they are benefited even 
there, shall be our next inquiry. This brings us, to consider a question 
proposed, in substance, in an early part of this article. 
Can an Englishman or an American, versed in modern languages 
only—say English, French, and Italian—but thoroughly disciplined 
in science, become as able and accomplished a writer and speaker, as 
if he had a knowledge of Greek and Latin ? 
This is an important problem, in the present state of the world, 
more especially, perhaps, in our own country. And we repeat, that it 
can be solved, conclusively, only by an experiment, which has never 
yet been made. The effect of a true modern education has never been 
tried—certainly never on a broad scale. No one, we mean, as far as 
we are informed, has been thoroughly imbued with modern languages 
and modern science,! and extensively practised in writing and speak- 
ing, without having some acquaintance also with Greek and Latin. 
Hence a vast majority of great authors and orators have been neces- 
sarily more or less of classical scholars. It would be strange were it 
otherwise. The tide of opinion, united to the influence of fashion, 
has compelled every one educated for professional, public, or literary 
life, to pay some attention to ancient literature. But has this study 
aided them essentially in the attainment of distinction ? or has it been 
only an accompaniment of it—tending, perhaps, to decorate the mind, 
but neither to enrich nor strengthen it ? To reply, that it has been an 
indispensable element of the greatness and lustre acquired, would be 
hazardous, we think, for various reasons. 
Some of the most distinguished orators of modern times, have had 
but a slight acquaintance with Greek and Latin, and others none at 
all. Among the former may be mentioned Chatham, Erskine, and 
Hamilton ; and among the latter, Henry, Whitefield, and two or three 
Americans now living, whom it might be indelicate to name. Re- 
specting authors the same is true. 
* It is urged, by the Committee, as another argument in favor of a knowledge of Greek and 
Latin, that it qualifies its possessor better than he could be without it, to travel, for information or 
pleasure, through Europe. To this we shall only reply, that we have never found it necessary to 
converse in either Greek or Latin, in Europe, any more than in the United States. We have 
mingled somewhat there in literary and scientific society, as well as in social and fashionable 
circles; and English, French, or Italian, never failed to serve us, as a medium of conversation. 
Through one or another of these languages, we could communicate intelligibly all we had to 
impart” and receive, in return, all we wished to know. And we believe the same is true of every 
other traveler, who mixes only in enlightened society. True ; we met, by accident, a few bevies of 
scholastics, who manifested at once their learning and pedantry—not to say their ill-breeding—by 
speaking Latin, garnished occasionally with a scrap or two of Greek. But for such coteries we 
had no predilection, inasmuch as we usually found their knowledge of ancient affairs, fully coun- 
terbalanced by their ignorance of modern ones—the latter being, in our opinion, the more important. 
t Under the phrase “ modern science,” it will be understood that we include mathematics, and 
such other branches of science as were known to the ancients, with their modern improvements. Thoughts on the Study of the 
Shakspeare, the first writer, in some respects, the world has pro- 
duced, was a stranger to the ancient languages; and Moliere, Field- 
ing, and Cuvier were in the same condition. So was Franklin, whose 
style is a model of simplicity, perspicuity, and chasteness ; and so was 
Washington, who wrote with uncommon elegance and power. Sir 
Humphrey Davy, an excellent writer, an eloquent speaker, President 
of the Royal Society, and the ablest chemist of his day, had no classic- 
al learning. We believe the same is true of Mr. Bowditch, one of 
the most accomplished mathematicians and astronomers of the age, 
and an able writer ; and we know the same was true of the late Mr. 
Rittenhouse. Yet so deeply versed in Astronomy was the latter, that, 
in the accuracy and importance of his observations on the transit of 
Venus over the Sun, many years ago, he surpassed all the astrono- 
mers of Europe. And, in a mere literary point of view, some of his 
writings are highly creditable. Yet none of these studied English as 
thoroughly, or obtained as perfect a command of it, as he might have 
done. Each of them, therefore, might have greatly improved his style 
and manner, as a writer, by a steady and continued effort to that 
effect. 
That the style of English authors is far from being perfect, in pro- 
portion to their knowledge of the dead languages, appears from nume- 
rous instances. Sir Walter Scott and Sir James Mackintosh were 
greatly inferior, in classical scholarship, to many we could name, who 
can scarcely write grammatical English. Of Jeffrey, Bulwer, Cooper, 
and Irwin, the same is true. Few men write better English, or 
express themselves more vigorously, than William Cobbett, who is 
totally unversed in Greek and Latin. The same was true of Thomas 
Paine. And some of the most correct and fascinating writers of the 
day are females, who are also strangers to the ancient classics.* 
Shall we be told, that our references here are only to individuals, 
possessed of native talents sufficiently powerful to raise them to dis- 
tinction, without the aid of classical attainments ; but that with such 
aid, they would have been much more distinguished ? We reply that 
this argument, so constantly used on occasions like the present, and 
deemed so satisfactory, is much more specious than solid. Indeed, it 
appears to us to be wanting in solidity altogether. To say that the 
individuals referred to, would, by the aid of Greek and Latin, have 
had greater power, and would, therefore, have attained more celebrity, 
is to assert, not to prove. It is to hazard a conjecture - on a point, 
which reason and experiment alone can decide. We should be justi- 
fied, therefore, in resorting to a counter assertion, and saying, in reply 
to it, that they would not. But we must not deal in empty contradic- 
tion, although we are contending with empty supposition. Our busi- 
ness is to reason, not barely to deny. 
The question is not, Whether Shakspeare, Moliere, Franklin, 
Washington, and others, would have been benefited by such an early 
and general education, as would have disciplined and strengthened all 
* In one respect, we have an infinite advantage over onr opponents. Ours is the positive, theirs 
the negative side of the question. A single proof from us, therefore, is paramount to all the nega- 
tions they can offer. But we have furnished sundry proofs, in mentioning the names of several 
Individuals, who have become accomplished writers and speakers, without a knowledge of Greek 
or Latin. We consider our opinion, therefore, fully established. The maxim, that the whole is 
greater than a part, is not more so. Greek and Latin Languages. 
the faculties of their minds ? We believe they would. The point to 
be settled is, Whether the study of the dead languages would have be- 
stowed that education ? and we believe it would not. Or the question 
may be, Could not the requisite instruction and training have been ac- 
quired, without those languages ? We think it could. 
We repeat, that an acquaintance with Greek and Latin does not 
teach its possessor to observe, think, or analyze. Some of the most 
accurate and successful observers, and most vigorous thinkers, are des- 
titute of it, while many, who have it, are very feeble in these respects. 
Nor does it teach him to read; because he can read the modern lan- 
guages without it. So can he, without it, listen to lectures, conversa- 
tion, and other forms of oral communication. But these are the chief 
channels, through which information is acquired. It neither aids him, 
then, in collecting knowledge, nor in reflecting on it, preparing it for 
practical purposes, and then applying it. If it improves power in any 
thing, it is in expressing his ideas, when formed, in suitable language. 
As already stated, it disciplines his faculty of language alone. But 
that is comparatively a humble faculty, and constituted but little of the 
mental greatness and power of such men as Shakspeare, Franklin, 
and Washington. It only aided in manifesting that power. Their 
superiority arose chiefly from the great strength and activity of their 
faculties of observation, reflection, combination, and judgement. It 
consisted in the general vigor and compass of their genius; and 
neither Greek nor Latin could have enlarged or strengthened that.* 
To have attempted the invigoration of such minds, by such means, 
would have been like an effort to add to the might of the eagle, by 
improving a single pinion of his wing. To write or speak powerfully 
is the result of powerful conception and thought, of which words are 
but the drapery ; while the use of graceful, accurate, and classical 
language is compatible with feeble thinking. Hence many books, ex- 
ceedingly limited in matter, are written in a pure and pleasing style. 
The mere cultivation of language, therefore, by the study of Greek 
and Latin, makes but a humble element of a complete modern educa- 
tion, and adds but little to mental development. It could not have 
increased, in any useful or even perceptible degree, the power or 
renown of either the philosopher, who disarmed the thunder-cloud, the 
hero, who achieved the freedom of a continent, or the chief magis- 
trate, who governed a nation with consummate wisdom. Nor can it 
ever strengthen the feeble-minded. It can never confer distinction, in 
* Innumerable instances might be adduced to show, that much ancient learning may be pos- 
sessed to very little purpose. I ndeed, of mere book-learning, whether ancient or modern, the same 
is true. It is altogether insufficient to make a great man—especially a practical one. It has been 
already observed, that some of the greatest practical men that have appeared—improvers, invent- 
ors, and discoverers, both in science and the arts, have had but little learning of any kind, and 
none at all in Greek and Latin. But they have all been devoted readers of the book of nature, by 
observation and reflection. Their knowledge was, therefore, strictly their own; and most of their 
intellectual faculties were competently exercised and strengthened in acquiring and using it. In 
the acquisition of knowledge by reading, the faculties are exercised comparatively in a very moder- 
ate degree, and therefore but slightly strengthened and improved. Learning fills the mind, but 
docs not invigorate it. Unless, therefore, the knowledge attained by reading, be seriously reflected 
on, and severely tested, by bringing it to the standard of nature, the mental faculties are but little 
benefited by it. Hence, one who reads much, and thinks but little, is called, in form of disre- 
spect, a book-worm. It is often said that reading makes a full man, conversation a ready man, and 
writing an accurate one. To this may be safely added, that, without observation and reflection, 
neither books, conversation, nor writing, nor the three united, can ever make a man great or 
efficient. That they may be invigorated, and rendered available for high purposes, the faculties 
must be suitably exercised. And it can scarcely be too often repeated, that the proper exercise of 
them can be derived only from the study of nature. Thoughts on the Study of the 
things of moment, on those who might not have been distinguished 
without it. if it serves as an occasional ornament, it can do nothing 
more. And to do even that, consistently with taste, it must be used 
but seldom. A brief analysis will show how limited an element of a 
modern education, a knowledge of Greek and Latin constitutes. Let 
it be given. 
To be liberal and complete, the education of an American, or an 
Englishman, must include the following branches of knowledge. The 
pupil must be taught to read and speak his native tongue, and to 
write. On his attainment in these branches, it will not be contended 
that Greek and Latin have any influence. He must, also, be instruct- 
ed in arithmetic, book-keeping, algebra, mathematics in its several 
subdivisions, experimental philosophy, and astronomy. With the 
knowledge of these, again, the ancient languages have no connexion. 
But our pupil’s course of instruction is yet far from being complete. 
He must be versed in logic, general history, chronology, geography, 
chemistry, mineralogy, botany, natural history, political economy, 
mental philosophy,—including the science of morals, and belles-let- 
tres; including philosophical grammar, composition, rhetoric, taste, 
and criticism,—and he ought to have an acquaintance with natural 
religion. Nor is it less important that he should know something of 
the structure, functions, dependencies, and relations of the human 
body. The entire neglect of this branch of science, in our seats of 
learning, is a fault, not to call it a serious evil. The study of it would 
not only further enlighten and liberalize the mind, by exhibiting to it 
one of the most beautiful specimens of the wisdom of creation; the 
knowledge thus acquired might be turned to an invaluable account, in 
the management of education, and the preservation of health. 
So numerous are the elements of a complete modern education, to 
which a few others might be added ; and in the attainment of only one 
of them does a knowledge of Greek and Latin afford any facility. We 
allude to belles-lettres. Will any one contend that it aids, also, in 
historical researches 1 We reply, In a very limited degree ; and only 
in those departments of history, which are least useful. Nor do we 
hesitate to express our belief, that, as far as philosophical grammar, 
composition, rhetoric, and taste are concerned, belles-lettres, also, 
may be as successfully cultivated, without its aid, as with it. In other 
words, scholars, who have never studied the ancient languages, may 
speak and write the English tongue, as correctly, gracefully, and 
classically, and with as much eloquence and power as those who have. 
That an acquaintance with Greek and Latin aids in mere biblical 
criticism, especially as relates to ancient works, is not denied. But 
that attainment is comparatively of little value. It renders the scholar 
somewhat more learned ; but it does not increase his practical power, 
except on a few points, which are more curious than useful. 
The English language is a compound of three others; the Saxon, 
which is its root, and the Greek and Latin, which, besides adding to 
its copiousness, variety, and force, have improved it in elegance, and 
some other qualities. When it was in its infancy, its amount of words 
being incomplete, its construction and spelling not matured, and con- 
siderable changes constantly occurring in it, a knowledge of the 
tongues, out of which it is formed, was necessary to the scholar—of Greek and Latin Languages. 
the Saxon,* as well as of the others. It was then a dependent and 
imperfect language, unequal to the wants of science and letters, and 
needed, therefore, further cultivation. But, at present, the case is dif- 
ferent. It is now as mature as Greek or Latin, and has as much of 
an independent existence. It is in its minority no longer. Its struc- 
ture and principles are established, its meaning is defined, and its 
origin pointed out, in well-prepared dictionaries, and its literature, the 
most extensive in the world, is as highly finished, as any other. Nor, 
except as may relate to a few technical terms, does it seem likely to 
receive any further increase directly from Greek or Latin. It has 
already drained those languages of all it wants for common use, and it 
will be itself the source of the chief additions and improvements, it 
may hereafter receive. It might be easily shown that it contains 
already words enough, to serve as the source of any verbal additions, 
that may be necessary hereafter, for the expression of new modifica- 
tions of thought. And the process of forming new words, from its 
present stock, is easy and familiar.f A thorough knowledge of it, 
therefore, may be acquired, by a sufficient cultivation of itself alone, 
without the least aid from the study of any other tongue. Dictiona- 
ries will give the true meaning and derivation of words ; well-prepared 
grammars will teach the structure and philosophy of it; the study of 
the best English authors, under competent instructors, will form a cor- 
rect taste in it, and diligent and persevering practice in speaking and 
composition, will confer excellence in both. In fine; the philosophi- 
cal and practical study of the English tongue, by itself, carried to the 
extent, and executed with the thoroughness it deserves, may be made 
to produce more highly accomplished English writers, than have yet 
appeared. We have said the study of English “ by itself;” because 
the cultivation of one language cannot improve a scholar in the knowl- 
edge of another. The study of French gives no aid in forming an 
acquaintance with German, nor the study of the latter, in acquiring 
a knowledge of Spanish. Nor can the mere cultivation of Greek and 
Latin contribute to the formation of a finished English scholar.| He 
* An acquaintance with Saxon, even now, is as necessary to a thorough knowledge of English, 
as an acquaintance with Greek and Latin. Yet nobody dreams of studying Saxon. The reason 
is obvious. Custom has not rendered it fashionable. Thus is the parent-stream of our knowledge 
neglected, as useless, while two mere feeders are pronounced essential, and years spent in acquir- 
ing a knowledge of them. 
f For ample instruction on this point, see Webster’s Quarto Dictionary, article, Grammar, head, 
Derivation. The occasional formation of new English words may be a matter of convenience, and 
perhaps of elegance ; but it can never be necessary. Certainly no ground is discoverable, from which 
the necessity can arise. It might be readily demonstrated, that, newly discovered objects excepted, no 
idea or form of thought can present itself to the mind, which may not be clearly expressed, in our 
language, with its present stock of words, in perhaps a hundred different ways. In proof of this, it 
rarely, if ever, happens that the same thought is clothed in the same words, by any two original 
writers or speakers. Such is the copiousness of our mother-tongue. The number of different 
combinations, that may be formed out of its seventy or eighty thousand words, is beyond the 
power of man to compute, or even fancy. If it be not infinite, it approaches so near it, that the 
line of separation cannot be imagined ; much les3, shown. 
t We wish to be clearly understood on this point. We do not deny that an acquaintance with 
Greek and Latin may make the possessor of it a more erudite English scholar, than he could be 
without it. On the contrary, we acknowledge that it may. It will give him a more accurate 
knowledge of the etymology and roots of the language. That sort of knowledge, however, is 
greatly overrated. Even to the writer and the orator it is much more curious than useful; and, 
in the transaction of affairs, whether public or private, its value is still less. It does not necessa- 
rily and certainly teach either the meaning, spelling, or pronunciation of words. They are greatly 
influenced by custom and fashion, and are, therefore, far from being stable and uniform. The his- 
tory of the English language, for the last two or three centuries, proves this. In fine; a mere 
knowledge of its derivation does not, in one case in ten thousand, create a greater fitness to use 
the English tongue, to the highest and best effect, than can be attained without it. Besides ; our 
best dictionaries teach the etymology of our principal words, to an extent sufficient for all useful 
purposes. The Greek, the most perfect of languages, had no mother-tongue, to which it could be 
J Thoughts on the Study of the 
who would understand thoroughly cither a language or any thing else, 
must especially study it. 
Let two youths, equal in capacity, be educated, one of them perfect- 
ly in English, and the several branches of science heretofore indicated, 
without Greek or Latin, and the other after the mode usually pursued 
in the seats of learning in England and the United States;—let this ex- 
periment be fairly made, and we hazard nothing in saying, that, at 
the age of twenty, the student of English will be far the more accom- 
plished, both in science and polite literature. He will surpass the 
other, as a writer and speaker, in every point of excellence. The rea- 
son is plain. All his faculties have been invigorated, and taught to 
work; his mind has been well stored with knowledge, by cultivating 
the sciences ; his thorough study of English, united to his familiarity 
with the best authors in it, has formed his taste; and long and steady 
practice in composition and speaking, has given him a ready and 
entire command of his resources. In the mean time, the faculties of 
the other have been but partially exercised. Too much time has been 
consumed in the study of language; but not of the English language. 
That has been neglected, for the sake of ancient literature; or ail 
attempt has been made to learn it through the medium of that litera- 
ture, and has failed—as it always must. The consequence of all this 
is, that the mind of the pupil is neither well supplied with knowledge, 
nor are his powers of expressing what he possesses, either in writing 
or speaking, matured. 
But what is true of one, on this subject, is true of many. The two 
scholars here referred to, therefore, may be considered the representa- 
tives of indefinite numbers. Nor do we hesitate to believe, that, of 
two rival colleges, one bestowing the complete English education here 
designated, and the other adhering to the system of instruction usually 
pursued in our country, the former would have a striking superiority 
in the distinction and practical usefulness of its pupils. We regret to 
add our belief, that, as Greek and Latin are now taught in the United 
States, the time devoted to the study of them, is, in a great majority of 
cases, thrown away. The atfainment made in them is too superficial 
to be creditable, or in any way useful. 
Are we asked, Whether we would abandon the study of the dead 
languages altogether? We answer, No; but we would reduce greatly 
the number of those, who should engage in the study of them; and 
those, who might thus engage, should become thoroughly versed in 
them. We would have no smatterers—no linguists in name—but ac- 
complished Greek and Latin scholars. They should be scholars by 
profession. And one such could do more good, in applying the an- 
cient languages to the only useful purposes they are calculated to sub- 
serve, than the entire phalanx of those shallow Hellenists and Latinists, 
who swarm so thickly in Europe and America. We say “ Europe 
for, in a majority of cases, classical attainment there, is not much 
better than with ourselves. But few critical Greek and Latin scholars 
traced. Hence it was studied as an original. And so may the English, in its present condition, and 
be made as rich, elegant, and powerful a medium for the expression of feeling, and the utterance 
of thought, as was ever possessed by Greece or Rome. The well-known fact, that many erudite 
Hellenists and Latinists are very defective in their knowledge of English, and that many others 
are accurately versed in it, speaking and writing it with elegance and force, without an acquaint- 
ance with Greek and Latin, proves conclusively the point we are contending for—that a knowledge 
of the dead languages is not essential to the thorough cultivation of all the faculties of the mind. Greek and Latin Languages. 
can be found any where. They are probably most numerous in Ger- 
many. We shall only add, on this point, that no one should be made 
to toil, for years, in the study of classical learning, unless his faculty 
of language is of a high order. If it be not so, his toils will be irksome 
to himself, and useless to others. This distinction, between a fitness 
and an unfitness to learn languages, though highly important, is rarely 
made, because the constitution of the mind, creating an aptitude for 
some studies, and an inaptitude for others, is understood by but few of 
the teachers of youth. The general notion is, that a pupil, who mas- 
ters one branch of study with facility, can, with equal facility, master 
all others; and that if he fails to do so, it is because he is inattentive 
to them. Yet facts of hourly occurrence prove its fallacy. It is owing 
to this preposterous practice of attempting to train, in the same way, 
minds, which nature has cast in different moulds, and marked with 
striking diversities, that many young men, possessing fine talents for 
other branches of knowledge, but a weak faculty of language, have 
become disgusted with the drudgery of classical study, and abandoned 
their education. Nor is this abandonment the only evil connected 
with the case. A youth, under these circumstances, leaves college 
with a loss of reputation. Because he does not learn Latin and Greek, 
he is accounted either idle and dissipated, or so dull as to be unfit for 
any useful exertion of mind. Thus is he discouraged, underrated, and 
perhaps ruined. These things should be looked to, and remedied ; 
and we are confident that the period is approaching, when they will 
be. A correct understanding of the constitution and powers of the 
human mind, generally diffused, especially among the directors of 
seats of instruction, will be the commencement of a new and brilliant 
era in the work of education. 
The belief is general, that to all young men destined to the profes- 
sions of Divinity, Law, and Medicine, the study of Greek and Latin is 
indispensable—at least, that it is peculiarly useful. We decline offer- 
ing any remarks on the preparations deemed necessary for the former 
of these callings; but, as relates to the two latter, we are compelled to 
say, that we consider the opinion referred to erroneous. In no respect 
does a knowledge of the ancient classics facilitate the study of law or 
medicine, except on the score of technical language ; and that can 
be learned from professional Lexicons, in less than a tenth part of the 
time usually devoted to classical studies. An acquaintance with the 
professional phraseology of law* and medicine might be acquired in a 
short time, as a distinct exercise ; but the better way would be, for the 
student to attain it gradually from his Lexicon, during the progress of 
his professional studies. The portion of time consumed by this would 
be inconsiderable ; and the meaning of terms would be fixed in the 
* Shall we be told, in form of an objection, that certain law-books contain many scraps of Latin, 
which the members of the Bench and Bar should be able to understand ? We reply, that this con- 
stitutes no objection to the principle we are contending for. Let the Latin quotations be translat- 
ed, as they ought to be, that the pedantry and mysticism of the profession may have an end. It 
is neither creditable nor fair, to conceal, under cover of a dead tongue, any thing essential to the 
administration of justice. Besides ; proof can be given, that the objection here stated has no 
weight—at least, that the obstacle said to be created by' scraps of Latin, in law-books, can be easily 
surmounted. Chief Justice Marshall, one of the ablest jurists of the age—we might add, of any 
age—never received what can be correctly called a classical education, and is not therefore indebted 
to the ancient languages for his knowledge of Law. If he ever acquired any knowledge of Greek 
or Latin, it was a mere smattering, in a common grammar-school, which was of no service to him. 
Most of his brothers received what is called a “ classical education.” Yet, without this advan- 
tage, he has towered above them all. lie is, moreover, an able writer of his mother tongue, and 
has been an orator of high standing. Thoughts on the Study of the 
mind more firmly, than in any other way. The pupil’s Lexicon must 
be his oracle, whether he learn technical language, as a study collateral 
to that of his profession, or previously, through the medium of Greek 
and Latin. To no other interpreter can he have recourse. There is, 
however, a wide difference between the two methods. The oracle 
must be consulted a hundred times, in the latter, for each single time 
it will need to be consulted in the former. We may safely add, that 
of those who have read Greek and Latin, preparatory to the study of 
law or medicine, nineteen out of twenty are still obliged to consult 
their Lexicons for the precise meaning of technical terms. In truth, 
every one is. 
Shall we be charged with a disposition to abridge the course of 
education preparatory to the study of law and medicine, and render it 
more defective than it is already 1 The charge would be unfounded. 
We would greatly enlarge and improve the course] but not by saddling 
it with a devotion of years to the learning of words, which will be 
afterwards but rarely used. Instead of this, substantial things should 
be studied, which would give exercise and strength to every faculty of 
the mind, and store them with valuable matter. The candidates for 
both professions should have a perfect knowledge of English, and be 
well versed in history, and in the elements of all the modern sciences. 
They should have an intimate and comprehensive acquaintance with 
nature; and those educated for medicine should be instructed in 
French, Italian, and German. Why in these languages ? Because 
they abound in medical works, some of them very valuable, which have 
not been translated into English, and many of which never will be. 
Besides, numerous discoveries and improvements in medicine are first 
recorded in those languages, and ought to be immediately known to 
British and American physicians. Respecting the necessity of an 
acquaintance with the modern languages of continental Europe to 
lawyers, we arc not prepared to speak. All statesmen, at least, who 
may go abroad, on diplomatic missions, or in other public capacities, 
should be prepared to speak and write in French, if not in other 
foreign tongues. In fine ; every youth destined to public life, or to the 
profession of medicine, should receive a well-finished liberal education, 
embracing a knowledge of two or three modern languages, and of the 
elements of all the sciences. Above all, he should be taught to exer- 
cise his own talents on the knowledge he may possess. Without this, 
attainment is but lumber. 
To complete this course of instruction and training will occupy the 
time of the most highly-gifted youth, from his sixth, until his eighteenth 
or twentieth year. Nor do we hesitate to believe, that the adoption of 
such a plan of education would usher in an era of professional, literary, 
and scientific splendor, such as the world has never witnessed. The 
study of the sciences would furnish the matter of knowledge, and give 
strength and activity to the whole mind, while the due cultivation of 
modern language would improve the power and all other qualities of 
expression, both in writing and speaking. 
It has been often said, that the chief reason, why British surpass 
American writers, in style and manner, is that they are better versed 
in classical literature. This is a mistake. The superiority of the 
British writers arises from their being better versed in English litcra- Greek and Latin Languages. 
ture. In other words, they cultivate with more care, and to a greater 
extent, the art of composition—for it is as real an art, as the making 
of razors or penknives. And it must be brought to perfection in the 
same way—by constant practice, and a determination to excel. So 
must every other pursuit. Many Englishmen have long been writers, 
by profession, and have spent their lives, in improving themselves in 
the knowledge and use of their mother tongue. Hence their attain- 
ment of a fine style—not because they had learned Greek and Latin at 
school—nor because they had in their eye, when writing, a Greek or 
Latin model. He who dwells, in recollection, on ancient literature, 
when composing in English, will never excel in style. It is but recently 
that any Americans have begun to practise authorship, as a profession ; 
and, as far as the experiment has been carried, they have no cause to 
be disheartened. Without being any better versed in Greek and 
Latin, than formerly, they write English much better, because they 
pursue the art with more care and constancy; and, should they 
persevere in it, to the proper extent, as many of them no doubt will, 
they will equal, in time, the best British writers. Nor will they owe 
their success to a closer familiarity with the ancient languages; but 
to a more intimate acquaintance with their native tongue, and a more 
perfect command of their own powers. It has been already stated, 
that nothing can be thoroughly understood, without being attentively 
studied, as a special subject. To this may be added, that there are 
few things which may not be mastered in that way. It is therefore 
that we earnestly desire to see the English language more strictly culti- 
vated. By that means alone can it ever be written and spoken, in the 
full perfection, of which it is susceptible ; and that course will complete 
the work. To insure the completion, however, the language must be 
studied as a simple tongue, having a form and genius especially its own ; 
not as a mixture of three other tongues, assimilated to each, yet identi- 
fied with neither. While cultivated in the latter mode, it will be 
hybridous and defective. The Greek is accounted the most perfect of 
languages ; and for this, it is no doubt much indebted to its self- 
dependent character. It is not a mixture of several tongues. In their 
attempts to improve it, therefore, and use it in the most perfect man- 
ner, its cultivators had not their attention distracted by collateral and 
interfering claims. They studied and practised Greek alone, without 
looking to any higher source. Hence the success of their long-con- 
tinued effort. 
As relates to English, the same would be true. If studied and 
improved, in a distinct capacity, it would be brought, more certainly 
than in any other way, to the highest perfection it can ever attain. 
Hence we would rejoice to see an Institute* established, with a sufficient 
* As far as we are informed on the subject, the only approach toward an institution of this kind, 
made in the United States, is the “ High School” of Boston. Yet it is only an approach. As far, 
however, as the experiment has been carried, it has been eminently successful, and has opened 
the most flattering prospect, for something more perfect. In that institution, nothing is taught, 
but the elements of science, and modern languages. Nor are those educated in it intended for 
what are called the “learned professions.” They are designed chiefly to become merchants, 
mechanics, and English teachers. Notwithstanding this, we are told that when they meet, as they 
sometimes do, the pupils of Harvard, in any form of intellectual strife, they occupy no inferior 
ground, but appear to great advantage. No stranger can tell, except, perhaps, from an occasional 
scrap of Greek or Latin, who is from the “ High School,” and who from the University. We 
doubt not that the first fair experiment, of a complete English and scientific education, will be 
made in New-England, where most of our important improvements begin. And we deem it 
exceedingly desirable that it be made soon. Thoughts on the, Study, Sfc. 
number of able professors, and all the necessary means of instruction, 
where nothing would be taught but modern science and modern 
language. But they should be taught in perfection. We believe that 
such an institution would be amply patronized, and would produce in 
time the happiest effects. The experiment would at least solve the 
problem, How far a knowledge of Greek and Latin is indispensable as 
an element of a liberal education ? and the solution would be useful, 
by settling a controversy, which, without the experiment, threatens to 
be interminable. 
Finally; were the Greek and Roman nations now in existence, 
possessed of no more knowledge than they had, during their most 
enlightened periods, they would be much more benefited, by studying 
modern languages, for the sake of science, than the moderns are, by 
studying theirs, for the attainment of words. Such, we feel confident, 
would be their own opinion ; and their conduct would conform to it. 
Thus would the current of education be reversed, the less enlightened 
people being no longer considered a model, for the more enlightened 
to imitate. POSTSCRIPT. 
It was not until after the preceding numbers were finished, that we had an 
opportunity to peruse, in the “ American Quarterly Register,” an article on the 
“ Study of Greek Literature.” Notwithstanding the zeal and scholarship, and we 
may add the fervid eloquence, with which the subject is there treated, our views 
are unshaken, by any thing the writer has been able to advance. Unfortunately, 
though he has handled the matter, in his own way, with what some people may 
call ability, it is in such a way, as can never elicit any genuine light, and there- 
fore never lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Instead of writing philosophically, 
he has written rhetorically; and, instead of an analysis, has given a panegyric. 
He has asserted much, but proved nothing—except by authority—we mean, by 
the opinion of men, who thought as he thinks, and were, therefore, we appre- 
hend, very partial witnesses. Might we repose entire confidence in all he alleges 
—and he seems sincere in all—we would be almost induced to believe, that with- 
out an acquaintance with “ Greek literature,” no one could learn even to speak 
or write in English—certainly that no one could learn to do either with correct- 
ness or high effect. But we trust that the reverse has been established, in the 
body of our article. The main drift of the writer’s argument—if argument it may 
be called—consists in the allegation, that a great majority of the distinguished 
authors and orators of modern times, have been versed in Greek literature. The 
truth of this has been already admitted, and a reason assigned for it, which is 
deemed satisfactory. That somewhat of the character of the paper in the “ Regis- 
ter” may be the better known, we shall make a few extracts from it. 
“ A philosophical knowledge of English is impossible, without acquaintance 
with a language from which more than fourteen hundred words are immediately 
derived, and if we trace etymologies through the Latin, nearly forty thousand. 
It is also impossible to know the compass and depth of English literature, without 
being scholars in Greek. The revival of classical literature, as if ‘ coming to 
create new worlds,’ reduced the unformed intellectual waste to order and beauty 
through all Europe. It was the providence of God that commanded it, and forth- 
with light 
“ Sprung from the deep, and, from her native East, 
To journey through the airy gloom began.” 
We shall not offer, on this quotation, all the strictures, to which it is liable. It 
might be sufficient to remark—and every reader of judgement would concur with 
us—that it has neither argument nor philosophy in it. It contains nothing but 
assertion, conveyed in a few flourishes of rhetorie and poetry. This, however, is 
not its worst fault. It is inaccurate in fact or expression, or both. Does the 
writer mean to say, that “ forty thousand” English words are derived immediately 
from Latin words, which are again derived immediately from Greek? If so, 
he is mistaken. We profess not to know how many words Rome borrowed from 
Greece. But the number is far short of forty thousand. The whole catalogue of 
original Greek words—we mean Greek roots—does not, we believe, exceed five 
or six thousand. And if such be not our author’s meaning, we are unable to de- 
tect it, so obscure is his language. The phraseology, to “ trace etymologies (of 
English) through the Latin” (to the Greek) justifies, we think, the construction 
we put on it. 32 
Thoughts on the Study of the 
Admitting, however, that “ forty thousand” English words were derived from the 
Greek through the Latin, the fact would not justify the writer’s inference from it. 
An acquaintance with Greek would not then be essential to a “ knowledge of the 
philosophy of English.” It would be important in its etymology. Strictly speaking, 
however, the mere derivation of a language constitutes no very material portion of 
its philosophy ; much less the whole of it. It makes a part of its history, and very 
little more.* Were the case otherwise, what would become of the philosophy of 
the Greek language itself, with whose parent tongue we have no acquaintance ? 
What of the philosophy of the Hebrew, which some suppose to be the primitive 
language of man ! Must we abandon the study of the philosophy of those two 
languages, because we are ignorant of their roots ? The writer will not say so. 
Wherefore then is an acquaintance with Greek essential to a “ knowledge of the 
philosophy of English ?" It is left to the writer to render an answer, under a 
conviction that he will not be able to frame a satisfactory one. We fear he has 
not taken a correct view of what constitutes the philosophy of language. In the 
compass and multifariousness of philosophical grammar, etymology forms but a 
very limited point. Another quotation. 
“ The old English literature, the rich, massy architecture of the true English 
mind, is all Greek in spirit. In habitual communion with Grecian intellect, the 
ruling minds of England, in the first era of her true greatness, grew to a majestic 
intellectual stature. The student of that age finds himself in a sphere, where his 
emotions are somewhat like those of Brennus and his soldiers, when they ad- 
vanced into the midst of the hall, around which the venerable priests and senators 
of Rome, in their robes of state, and white flowing beards, and the sceptre of 
office in their hands, were seated in silent dignity. Master spirits are around 
him, their aspect commanding and sublime, their dress heavy with the magnifi- 
cence of former ages, their movements of godlike majesty, their features shining 
with the expression of a great indwelling soul.” 
* A brief examination of the subject can scarcely fail to convince us, that a knowledge of the 
etymology of English words neither contributes materially to our ready and correct understanding 
of them, nor facilitates our application of them to their highest and best purposes, in writing and 
speech. These ends can be attained only by associating and conversing with individuals of edu- 
cation and taste, by consulting our dictionaries, by studying carefully the best English writers, and 
by frequently exercising ourselves in composition and speaking, always taking care that the lan- 
guage we use be select and accurate. And, by a steady perseverance in this course, we can 
attain to the highest command of English, as a medium of expression, without studying the lan- 
guages from which it is derived. That this is true, appears satisfactorily from the following 
analysis. 
The English, as heretofore mentioned, is derived from three other languages, Saxon, its parent 
stream, and Latin and Greek, in the character of feeders. That a knowledge of the roots of 
Saxon-English, then, is as necessary as a knowledge of the roots of that which is furnished by 
Latin and Greek, will not be denied. But that neither is necessary, facts innumerable concur to 
prove.. 
The following words are of Saxon origin; and no English scholar of the most ordinary educa- 
tion, misunderstands them, or applies them incorrectly, in either writing or speaking. On the 
contrary, he has as full and perfect a command of them, as the most accomplished Latin, Greek, 
or Saxon scholar. 
Tale, hand, handle, finger, fang, speech, snake, snail, snug, crum, smut, hurt, hunger, din, wake, 
watch, grave, groove, storm, day, witch, wicked, field, heaven, earth, if. 
These words, we repeat, no one ever misunderstands, or misapplies. Yet how few are ac- 
quainted with their etymology ; and how little will any one be benefited, in using them, by being 
told that they are derived, as follows ! 
Talc, from—Tellan—to tell. 
Hand, from—Hentan—to take hold of. 
Handle, from—Handell, a diminutive from the same root. 
Finger, from—Fenger, a holder or catcher, which comes again from Fengan—to catch or hold. 
Fang, from the same verb, Fengan. 
Speech, from—Spsece—to speak. 
Snake, from—Snican—to creep. 
Snail, from—Snsegal—a little creeper, which is again from the same verb, Snican. 
Snug, from—Snican—to crawl or sneak. 
Crum, from—Grymman—to break. 
Smut, from—Smytan—to pollute. 
Hurt, from—Hyrtian—to injure. 
Hunger, from—Hyngrian—to eat. 
Din, from—Dynan—to make a noise. 
Watch | from—Wecan—to wake or watch. 
aZve, j fr°m Grafan to dig. 
Storm, from—Styrmian—to agitate or shake. 
Day, from—Daegian—to shine. 
jftom—'Wiecian—ito enchant, or injure by poison or sorcery. Were we inclined to be severe in our animadversions on this extract, we should 
be justified in using, as respects it, the saw of Napoleon : “ From the sublime to 
the ridiculous is but a single step.” We do not say that the writer has taken that 
step ) but, should the reader say or think so, he has our permission to do it. We 
shall not contradict him. The whole concern, matter, style, and manner, is no 
bad specimen of one of the ebullitions of a youthful orator, in his maiden speech, 
on the fourth of July. It is fustian throughout. Is the writer actually enamored 
of that fashion and style of literary “ dress,” which is “ heavy with the magnifi- 
cence of former ages ?”—in more intelligible words, which is stiff- and formaffrom 
transposition, and studded all over with classical conceits, and many-colored 
scraps of Greek and Latin, after the manner of Burton’s “ Anatomy of Melan- 
choly ?” Would the return of that style of writing rejoice him? If so, we envy 
him not his taste. We had much rather witness, in personal costume, the return 
of stiff brocades, gaudy stomachers, slash-sleeves, three-cornered hats, bag-wigs, 
and laced waistcoats and breeches; because we think literary harlequinism worse 
than that of bodily clothing. As the writer is such an admirer of ancient litera- 
ture, we wonder that he forgets the caution of the Roman satirist against the 
purpvreuspannus, verba sesquipedalia, and other like ornaments, in the litera- 
ture of the age he so peculiarly delights in, much of this antiquated decoration, 
intermingled with the quaint conceits of the time, presents itself. We prefer sim- 
plicity, ease, and flexibility, in all sorts of dress, mental as well as corporeal; and 
hence our dislike of starch, buckram, and patch-work. We would as soon see 
Greek and Latin Languages. 
33 
Field, from—Fellan—to fell or cut down ; because the timber is cut down in a field. 
Heaven, from—Heofen—to raise, because Heaven is supposed to be on high. 
Earih, from—Erith—ploughed ; because the earth is a ploughed place. 
If or Gif, from—Gifan—to give ; if signifying give, or grant. Thus, if a thing be so, is tanta- 
mount, in meaning, to give or grant that it be so. 
Of all words of Saxon-English the same may be affirmed. No English scholar misunderstands 
or misapplies them ; nor is he benefited, in making use of them, by a knowledge of their deriva- 
tion. An attempt to remember their derivation, when in the act of employing them, would but 
encumber the memory of a writer or speaker, and impede the operations of his mind. 
Of words of Latin-English the same is true. A knowledge of their etymology gives no appreci- 
able facility, in their employment, or in the accurate understanding of them. No tolerable English 
scholar ever mistakes the meaning or use of the following terms :— 
Post, in the ground—military post—post under government—post-office—post-chaise—to travel 
post—post, for hoises—apposite, opposite, composite, impost, compost, deposit, depot, repose, compose, 
pause, position, composition, deposition. 
Yet but few English scholars know that all these terms and different forms of expression have, 
as their root, the Latin verb Pono, to place. Nor does the Latin scholar pay the least regard to 
this root, when he is making use of them, in writing or speech. He conforms to custom, which, 
here, and in every other case, is what the poet pronounces it, 
_ Et jus, ct norma loquendi— 
the law and rule of speech. Again, 
Fact, effect, defect, perfect, prefect, fit, feat, defeat, counterfeit, forfeit, surfeit, benefit, profit, and 
several similar words, come from the Latin root Facio. Yet what mere English scholar knows 
this ; or what Latin one troubles himself to think of it, when he is employing the derivative terms ? 
Palpably none. Yet every one understands the terms, and applies them correctly. Once more. 
Promise, compromise, committee, pretermit, premiss, remiss, surmise, demise, mission, commission, 
omission, are all derived from Mitto ; and quest, inquest, request, conquest, acquest, bequest, exquisite, 
requisite, perquisite, question, and several others, have their origin in Quiero. But does the English 
scholar know all this? Does he sustain any injury, in the exercise of his powers, from not know- 
ing it ? or does the Latin scholar always refer to it, when he meets with these terms in reading, or 
uses them in writing or speaking? To each of these questions, the correct answer is, Wo. Of all 
Latin-English the same is true. Nor is it less so of Greek-English, as might be easily shown, 
were it allowable in us, to dwell any longer on the subject. Thus, 
Philanthropy, misanthropy, anarchy, monarchy, hierarchy, heptarchy, arch-angel, arch-bishop, arch- 
deacon, archetype, oligarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, democracy, panorama, diorama, cosmorama, bap- 
tize, are all correctly understood and employed, both by the learned and unlearned, without any 
reference to their Greek origin. 
But, admitting the importance of an acquaintance with the etymology of Latin-and-Greek-En- 
glish, a much shorter and easier route may be opened to it, than that now pursued. A knowledge 
of the original Greek and Latin roots is all that is necessary, as a key to what is wanted ; and that 
can be attained in less than a fifth part of the time usually consumed in the study of those lan- 
guages. Two works are already extant in Great-Britain, which are alone sufficient to communi- 
cate the knowledge required. Their titles are, “ The Student’s Manual ; being an Etymolog- 
ical and Explanatory Vocabulary of Words derived from the Greek;” and “ An Etymological 
auc Explanatory Dictionary of Words derived from the Latin ; being a Sequel to the 
Student’s Manual.” Of these, the former is already in its fifth edition, and the latter in its third ; 
a circumstance demonstrative of their usefulness and popularity. By regular exercises on the 
words they contain, being roots alone, English scholars attain, in a short time, all that is requsite, 
toward the etymology of their native tongue, so far as it is derived from Greek and Latin. 
That these Vocabularies, or others like them, will be extensively adopted, as means of educa- 
tion, can scarcely be doubted ; nor do we hesitate to believe, that, in time, even they will go out 
of use, and English dictionaries be so prepared, as to supply their places. And we further believe, 
that the latter plan will be an important improvement on all preceding ones. 34 
Thoughts on the Study of the 
our warriors cased in steel armor, as our English writers in the garb worn by 
them during the reigns of Elizabeth and her father. 
The writer in the u Register” alleges, that, “ in the degenerate age of Charles 
the Second, it was the profound classical scholars of England, who preserved her 
virtuous literature from extinction.” This is true ; and the reason of it has been 
already given. All the educated men of the time were classical scholars; and 
such only could be the guardians of literature. The writer recites the names of 
nearly forty individuals, to whom he does homage, as the curators of learning, 
and adds ; “ The classical erudition of these men gave them a reach of thought, 
and a grasp of knowledge, which makes (his age look hack on them with wonder 
This eulogy is extravagant, and speaks only the over-wrought admiration of its 
author. The personages referred to were highly distinguished. But they were 
men, and no more to be wondered at, either by this age, or any other, than hun- 
dreds of individuals, who have flourished at a later period. Besides, no compe- 
tent judge of the human intellect will contend that it was their “ classical erudi- 
tion,” which made them great,. Nature formed them to be great, their faculties 
were strengthened and trained, and their minds enriched with the science of the 
day, and their attainments in literature, whether ancient or modern, enabled them 
only to manifest their greatness, in writing and speech. The author’s statement 
to the contrary of this is perfectly gratuitous. Nor, for reasons assigned in the 
body of this article, is it founded in fact. Language, and the modes of using it, 
are the effect of ideas and thought, not their cause. Intellectual views are formed 
first, and then words are provided to express them. Ideas may exist without 
speech. But, were there no ideas, there would be no speech, because there would 
be neither use nor foundation for it. There would be nothing to speak about. 
To contend then that mere language enriches, polishes, and strengthens the mind, 
and confers lustre on those who possess it, is to invert the order of nature. 
Knowledge, we repeat, is the fountain of speech ; not speech of knowledge. 
11 Out of the fulness of the heart, the mouth speaketh.” And this is as true of 
the Greek language, as of any other. Grecian superiority in mental cultivation 
was not the effect of Grecian literature. It was its cause. The ancient Greeks 
were much better versed in their own language and literature, than any moderns 
are. But were they therefore greater ? more illustrious, we mean, for the amount, 
power, and usefulness of their attainments ? Far from it. On the contrary, they 
were greatly inferior. Moderns might be named, whom the Greeks would have 
deified, on account of their lustre. Franklin, a stranger to the Greek alphabet, 
was one of them. Of Fulton the same may be safely affirmed. Another quotation 
will show, with still greater force, the fanatical rhapsody, with which an attempt 
is made to exalt, above every other mental product, English literature, said to be 
cast in a Greek mould, and to be instinct with a Greek spirit. 
“ No other nation possesses any thing to be compared, for its richness, to our 
English literature of the seventeenth century. It is surprising, that with such 
materials out of which to build up a strong and symmetrical intellect, the indi- 
vidual as well as general mind of our own age should be comparatively so narrow 
and misshapen.” * * * “ The student” (of the present degenerate day) “ does 
not make himself familiar with the productions of the old English mind ; he does 
not choose his companions, his moral and intellectual friends, out of them. Their 
contents are imperishable thoughts and principles, not facts merely, and it will 
not avail to take up a volume, read it cursorily, and then throw it aside to have 
the attention distracted by the trash upon a modern book-shelf—they must be 
read and reflected on; they contain not mere knowledge, but wisdom. Their 
spirit must be taken by habitual communion into the mind, to interpenetrate and 
imbue it, and become, as it were a part of the intellectual self-consciousness. 
They should be so studied, as to constitute for the soul an atmosphere of thought, 
by which it may become invigorated for original action, inhaling it, as it were, 
unconsciously and freely, like the play of the lungs in the mountain air. In such 
an atmospere the mind grows, its energies are roused, it feels its own power, and 
moves like a war-horse on the eve of battle. The feeling of excitement and ex- 
ultation which powerful thought thus produces, is discipline, discipline of the 
best kind; and this is the reason why the strongest minds have been the greatest 
classical enthusiasts.” 
This paragraph was no doubt intended by its author to be matchless alike in 
profundity and sublimity—to be, in matter and diction, like Jupiter Tonans’s threat- 
ened plunge of any disobedient brother god ; 
“ As far beneath the infernal centre hurled, 
As from that centre to the ethereal world.” Greelc and Latin Languages. 
35 
We give it to the reader as we find it, without guarantying its goodness or bad- 
ness, truth or falsity; for we profess to know but little about it. It is mostly 
beyond our comprehension. In plain terms, it is empty bombast—a mere tissue 
of words, calculated to injure, rather than subserve, any thing attempted to be 
sustained by it. In the most intelligible, if not the only intelligible, part of it, the 
statement it makes is unfounded. It is far from being true, that the “ strongest 
minds have been the greatest classical enthusiasts.” As heretofore intimated, 
the reverse is much nearer the truth. One quotation more, and adieu to the 
Hellenist of the “ Register.” 
After recommending a return to “ the study of the ancient Greek classics,” as 
the only preventive of “ modern degeneracy and a depraved taste,” the writer 
adds, “ Unless this be done, erudition will soon become an obsolete term'. There 
is an evident passion to avoid hard study, and obtain every acquisition at the 
least possible expense of thought. The unparalleled advancement of physical 
science has contributed to this evil. The study of the physical sciences demands 
patience and skill in the observation of the external universe, it requires ingenuity 
in detecting the secret affinities and operations of nature, but it does not turn the 
mind in upon itself, it does not tend to make a man inwardly thoughtful; it has a 
contrary tendency.” 
In some respects, this is the most censurable extract we have made. The 
views it virtually inculcates are hostile alike to the progress of knowledge, and 
to sound taste. The cultivation of the natural sciences, which our author com- 
plains of, as productive of evil, is infinitely useful. It is the study of things, as 
God has made them, and is therefore one of the noblest employments of the mind. 
That an educated man should condemn it, is matter of surprise. Its object is, to 
form an acquaintance with nature, as she is. And no one will deny that she is. 
to man, the immediate oracle of truth ; the true interpreter of the language spoken, 
and the works performed, by the Author of truth. It is, moreover, by the study 
of nature alone, that the condition of man can be gradually ameliorated ; for all 
improvements, whether in philosophy, or in the arts, which administer to the 
comforts of life, flow directly from that source. Were the study of nature aban- 
doned, all advancement in knowledge would be at an end; and, as nothing 
earthly is stationary, the movement of the general condition of society would be 
retrograde, until barbarism would again usurp the seat of civilization, and the 
“ Dark Ages” return. Yet to this issue does our author’s doctrine tend. And 
for what would he exchange the study of nature ?—The cultivation of Greek 
literature. He would barter an acquaintance with what nature is doing note, for 
a dreamy knowledge—for it can be only dreamy, and never vivid—of what the 
Greeks were doing and thinking, four or five-and-twenty centuries ago ! In 
simple terms, he would give Greek literature a preference to the science and lit- 
erature of creation; for creation has its language and literature as well as man ; 
and none can read them, but those who cultivate them. Shall we be told that the 
“ Dark Ages” could not return, provided Greek literature were studied, in as 
much as it once dissipated them ? We reply, that the phrase “ Dark Ages” is com- 
parative, and relates to a period of greater light. And, compared to the present 
period, the “ Dark Ages” continued several centuries after the time of the Revival 
of Letters. Until the beginning of the seventeenth century, the world had but 
little more of light, than a morning dawn. Yet Greek literature had been as 
thoroughly studied, before that period, as it has been since. Besides, it was not 
Greek literature alone, that shed a faint radiance on Christendom, during the four- 
teenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. The study of that was accompanied, 
to a moderate extent, by the study of nature. The light elicited, therefore, was 
the product of both. Finally, compared to the present state of the world, ancient 
Greece herself, notwithstanding her language and literature, was overshadowed 
by “ Dark Ages.” Away then with the empty notion, that the cultivation of that 
literature is the only way to prevent “ modern degeneracy !” An exchange of 
the present condition of Christendom for that of the brightest period of ancient 
Greece, would be to barter improvement for “ degeneracy.” 
But our author’s doctrine violates correct taste, as well as sound philosophy. 
Greek literature is no more the source of poetry than of science. We have 
Helicons and Hippocrenes of our own, sufficient to inspire the votaries of song. 
Nor does Attica contain the only Parnassus, where Apollo has struck his harp, 
and the Muses dispensed their favors. To drop these classical fictions, and speak 
in the language of sober reality: The modern world possesses thousands of sources 
much better calculated to awaken and nourish the spirit of poetry, than the writ- 36 
Thoughts on the Study of the 
ings of either Homer or Pindar, Sophocles or Euripides—or of all of them united 
— Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan being added to the number. Nature is the 
fountain of poetry, no less than of philosophy ; and she never grows old or fades. 
She is as fresh, and vigorous, and enchanting now, as she was when the “ morning 
stars first sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy.” And she can 
inspire as glowingly—not to say divinely—and she does so. 
America possesses more to inspire the poet, than either Greece or Italy, or any 
other portion of Europe. We mean that she has native objects, in immeasurable 
abundance, better calculated to awaken fervid feeling, and swell and elevate the 
mind with broad and lofty conceptions, fire the imagination and fancy, and give 
richness and vigor to the powers of invention. Europe has nothing to compare 
with the solemn majesty of her rivers, lakes, and cataracts, the grandeur of her 
mountains, the depth and extent of her primeval forests, and the floral seas of her 
interminable prairies. Nor has she any thing equal to her fine sunny climate, the 
lofty arch and pellucid azure of her skies, and the gorgeous drapery they receive 
from the morning and evening clouds. Yet these are among the richest sources 
and subjects of poetry; all of which our author would neglect, to seek inspiration 
from Greek literature ! Nor are we inferior to the Greeks, in the poetry of 
human nature. Our passions are as deep and lofty, and our fitness to express 
them equal to theirs. We have as much heroism, patriotism, and general virtue 
and power, in the male character, and as much beauty and loveliness, and much 
more purity and intelligence, in the female. An Apollo, a Venus, an Antinous, 
or any other god, goddess, or human being, might be sculptured after living mod- 
els in the United States, and be equal in perfection to those of Greece. We 
possess, moreover, spectacles of moral and political sublimity, to which the na- 
tions of antiquity were strangers. 
The modern world is much more familiar than the ancient was, with all that 
constitutes the poetry of the ocean ; and nothing can surpass that in grandeur, 
whether it be contemplated in the fury of a storm, or the sublimity of a calm. 
But the source of true mental enlargement, grand conception, and poetic inspira- 
tion, which leaves every other immeasurably behind it, is found in astronomy; 
more especially in the recent discoveries in it. And that belongs exclusively to 
the moderns. The ancient Greeks were strangers to it. The science of geogra- 
phy, which is also of modern growth, has done much for the expansion of the 
human mind. And whatever does that is favorable to poetry, in those who pos- 
sess poetic faculties. Nor must we forget some of the modern works of art, with 
which the ancients had nothing to compare. How diminutive, in physical gran- 
deur and sublimity, were the land and sea-fights of the Greeks, contrasted with 
those of the present day, by whose glare even the lightning of heaven is dimmed, 
and its thunders drowned in their tumultuous uproar ! What, compared to com- 
motions like these, are Homer’s conflicts, even in “ such wars” as his “ Immor- 
tals wage?”—Absolutely not more than mice to mammoths ! But these are all 
sources of poetic inspiration and taste. So are all things that tend to expand and 
elevate the mind, and fan its enthusiasm; and such influences are much more 
abundant now, than they were during the most splendid periods of Greece and 
Rome. They belong more especially to modern times. Several of them moreover 
are connected with the “ physical sciences,” which our author condemns, as 
a source of “ evil.” To exchange all these for a few volumes of ancient litera- 
ture, would be a miserable barter. It would be to prefer the productions of the 
Grecian pen to the handy work of God ! a greater error than which, no degree of 
infatuation can commit. 
Finally; we have already admitted, that there was a time, when a knowledge 
of the ancient classics was essential to a liberal education. But is that time to 
be interminable ? Is the minority of the English language never to have an end ? 
Is the period never to arrive, when that language will be so mature and independ- 
ent of its parentage, as to be prepared to set up for itself? The warmest advo- 
cate for Greek and Latin will pause, before answering this question negatively. 
We doubt whether any one will so answer it. Within a century from this date, 
English will be the native tongue of upwards of three hundred millions of the 
human race. Must that immense population, whose number the mind is unable 
to grasp, still depend, and, notwithstanding its subsequent boundless increase, still 
continue to depend, on Greece and Rome, for their intellectual nourishment ?— 
for their literature and their mental discipline ? The fancy is preposterous. As 
well may it be contended, that they will derive from those spots of earth their 
corporeal food. No ; they will have a language of their own, answering to all their wants, and competent to the manifestation of all their powers. In fact, 
with the slight restrictions heretofore mentioned, the English and their descend- 
ants have such a language now; and the time will arrive, when, to oppose this 
opinion, will be considered as much the result of antiquated prejudice, as to advo- 
cate it now is considered the work of a spirit of innovation. Nor do we hesitate 
to believe, that, ages hence, when the Greek and Latin languages shall have been 
neglected and forgotten, English literature, in common with general and profes- 
sional science, will be in a state of much higher perfection, than it has yet attained. 
Greek and Latin are destined to become the Sanscrit of future times, known only 
to the antiquarian and the virtuoso; while English, in an improved condition, 
will be as lasting as our race. 
Greek and Latin Languages.