CHAPTER XXX.

Method of Teaching Classical and Foreign Languages.

In order to make the application of Pestalozzi's principles to the study of foreign and classical languages, it is necessary to consult the genius of each particular language. This important fact being overlooked by Pestalozzi and his first disciples, is the reason why all the attempts made by them to subject this province of education to the laws of his method, proved abortive. The experiment could not be made with any chance of success by men who, however competent to teach the first rudiments of a language, had not a comprehensive view of its organic structure, its historical development, its idiomatic character and its literature; and men whom their learning would have qualified for the task, were generally too much "bookified" to make themselves otherwise than superficially acquainted with the principles of Pestalozzi, and still less would they have condescended to what they considered the drudgery of teaching the elements. This circumstance, together with the extravagant notions entertained by the Pestalozzian school of the virtues of the Mother's Manual, which was considered as a sort of nostrum for the development of the "organ of language," arrested the progress of the method in this direction, and brought the very idea of teaching classical and foreign languages in a Pestalozzian manner, into merited, though not well-founded, disrepute. We are not vain enough to imagine, that any thing we may say on the subject, can altogether remove so deeply rooted a prejudice; wherefore, leaving the vindication of the Pestalozzian method in this respect to the evidence of

VALUE OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION.

421

facts which time alone can establish, we will address ourselves, in the present chapter, to those who, without a decided view on either side of the question, are sensible of the defects of the old grammar system, as well as of the charlatanery of Hamiltonian and Jacototian devices, and who will, therefore, be thankful to be put in the way for a better plan of proceeding.

As every language, to be properly taught, requires a separate course to be traced out for it, our readers will not expect that we should enter upon every one of the languages which in this country commonly form a part of "liberal education;" it will be sufficient for us to state generally in which order we would have the different languages taught, and then to exemplify our plan with reference to one or two of them, which are generally considered as presenting the greatest difficulties. Consulting only the relative value of the different languages for the great purpose of education, to the exclusion of all adventitious circumstances, we should add a course of Hebrew to the instruction of the mothertongue, as soon as the child is able to construct, and write of himself, such simple sentences as we have specified in the twenty-fourth chapter, p. 262-272. We give the precedence to the Hebrew, because it is not only the most ancient, but also the most simple language, and therefore the best adapted for instruction at an early age; besides which, as the language first made use of for the purposes of revelation, it has a peculiar claim to the attention of every one to whom the actings of the divine mind are more interesting than the productions of human genius. With the professed zeal of a great portion of our public for the interests of religion, it is astonishing to see how few there are, that take a delight in studying the original languages of Scripture; and how many, both among the laity and the clergy, sacrifice years to the attainment of profane literature, whilst the treasures of sacred literature have, perhaps, never engaged their attention. The practical infidelity which lurks beneath this complacent resting in a "cut and dried" religion, whose original records do

not in the least awaken even mere curiosity, is in our opinion a far worse feature in the aspect of the religious world, than the doctrinal blunders, and fanatical misconceptions, which the idiomatic expressions of Scripture have given rise to in the heads of uneducated zealots. The time, however, when these evils are silently endured, will not last much longer; for though the indolence of man would protract the period of ignorance, the hastening development of the divine purpose, during which every religious notion will be put to the severest test of both internal and external evidence, cannot fail to arouse those with whom religion is more than a mere garment, to a careful study of the inspired volume.

But we return to our subject. Next to the Hebrew language we should propose the Greek to be taken up, as that language which bears the stamp of the freest and fullest development of human nature, for which reason undoubtedly it was chosen, or rather raised up, as the means of making the history, institutions, and divine mysteries of the Hebrew people, accessible to the whole of the civilized world, and of propagating the documents of that dispensation, which is characterized by the calling in of "the Greeks." For these two languages, then, the Hebrew and the Greek, we would, from the reasons assigned, enter a general plea, and recommend their early, though not simultaneous adoption, into the plan of education. The interval that should elapse between the first instruction of Hebrew, and the superaddition of the Greek, cannot, of course, be fixed in a general way, but must depend on the progress of the pupil, his talent and taste for languages, and other circumstances. The same remark applies to the time at which, and even the order in which, additional languages should be taken up. For an English child, we should prefer to let the Greek be followed by the Anglo-Saxon, which would not only lay the foundation for a fundamental knowledge of the mother-tongue, but through the medium of the other Teutonic dialects, would also lead to the modern German, and any of its kindred tongues, which it might be desirable for the pupil to acquire.

It

On the other hand the Latin should, in our opinion, be taught, somewhat later than the Anglo-Saxon, upon the foundation of the Greek; and while it would serve to enlighten the pupil concerning the changes which the Anglo-Saxon underwent in its historical development, till it assumed the modern English form, it would, likewise, render the acquisition of any of the modern idioms of the Latin tribe extremely easy. requires not much reflection to perceive, how much more interesting the different languages would be to the child, if thus learned in the order in which they spring from each other; especially if the teacher follow, as he ought to do, the progress of each particular language through the different stages of its development. The following table will, at one glance, illustrate the connexion in which we view these languages:

In a similar wise would the different tribes of Oriental languages arrange themselves around the Hebrew, as the common centre. These, however, are foreign to our present purpose, and we shall therefore at once proceed to the practical part of our subject, taking the Greek language by way of

424

IMPORTANCE OF SOUND IN TEACHING LANGUAGES.

example, and illustrating, as far as it is possible in a work of this nature, the method of teaching which we would recommend. It is, however, necessary to observe, that we shall confine ourselves here to the idiom of Homer, which ought in the first instance to be taken up exclusively, and without reference to, or mention of, the subsequent forms of the Greek language, in conformity with the principle already laid down, that the progress of instruction in every language ought to follow that of its historical development, so far as the knowledge of it has been preserved in the relics of its literature. In addition to this we should premise, that on account of the great use which is to be made of the living sound, even in the instruction of dead languages, the teacher ought, at first, and until the pupil be tolerably familiar with the language, to make use of its native pronunciation, so far as it can be ascertained, and to introduce the English corruption of Greek and Latin reading, which it is necessary the pupil should know, at a later period, when its use can no longer obstruct the acquisition of the language. To those, who cannot see the importance of this point, we would simply address the question, how they should like to teach the Greek in English characters, and they will at once perceive to how many inconveniences they would expose themselves by such a plan. Now if those who teach the language as a matter of the eye chiefly, object to exchanging its characteristic written signs for those of another language, how much more have they who address their instruction in the first instance to the ear, and only through the ear to the eye, reason to object to the exchange of the idiomatic sounds of the language for others, perfectly foreign to it, and, as far as that language is concerned, perfectly barbarous, not only in the Greek, but in the English acceptation of that term. No one is now willing to incur the charge of ignorance by advocating the English pronunciation of the classical languages; the only plea for resisting its abolition is the practical difficulty arising from the universal prevalence of that pronunciation. We feel the full weight of this objection, and certainly think it