« PreviousContinue »
Regum, Jobum, Psalmos, Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, Canticum Canticorum, lesaiam, Jeremiam, Threnos Jeremiæ, Ezechielem, Hoseam, Amosum, Michæam, Nahumum, Habacu. cum, Sophoniam, Zachariam, Malachiam, Appendicem Ani.
madvv. ad Scriptores Apocryphos V. T. The Volume concludes with « Catalogus Librorum a me hucus. que editorum,” which we shall cite, because it may be of use to some of our readers : I. Symbolæ ad Rem criticam et exegeticam V. T. Lipsiæ, 1779. 8. II. Dissertatio philologica de Parallelismo Sententiarum, egregio
Subsidio Interpretationis grammaticæ V. T. Lips. 1781. 4. III. Standrede auf Sophia Friederika Ernesti. Leipz. 1782. 8. IV. Collationis Proverbiorum Salomonis cum Bibliis Polyglottis
Londinensibus et Hexaplis Origenianis Specimen, Lips. 1782. 4. V. Curæ criticæ et exegeticæ in Threnos Jeremiæ : insertæ tom. XII.
Repertorii Eichhorniani p. 1 -57. VI. Lexici in Interpretes Græcos V. T. maxime Scriptores apocry.
phos, post Bielium Spicilegium, Lips. 1784. 8. VII. Ejusdem Spicilegium 11. ibid. 1786. 8. VIII. Abschiedspredigt in der Universitätskircke zu Leipzig ge.
halten. Leipz. 1785. 8. IX. Curæ Hexaplares in Psalmorum Libros e Patribus Græcis.
Goetting. 1785. 4. X. Auctarium Interpretationum Ecclesiasta Salomonis. Goett.
1785. 4. XI. Sammlung einiger öffentlicher Religions vosträge. Gött. 1788. 8. XII. Observationes criticæ in Versiones Græcas Oraculorum Iesaiæ,
Goett. 1788. 4. XIII. Commentarii novi critici in Versiones veteres Proverbiorum
Salomonis Spec. I-IV. Goett. 1790~4. 4. XIV. Commentationis theologicæ de Vocabuli avuce in Libris N. T.
va: io Usu Pars prior. Goett. 1791. 4. XV. Novum Lexicon Græco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum,
Lips 1792. 8. 2 voll. XVI. Ei. Editio II. ib. 1801. 8. 2 voll. XVII. Ej. Editio 111. ib. 1808. 8. 2 voll. XVIII. Predigten von G. H. Richerz, nach seinem Tode heraus.
gegeben von J. F. Schleusner Gött. 1793. 8. XIX. J. D. Michaelis Observationes philologicæ et criticæ in Jeremix
Vaticinia et Threnos. Edidit, multisque Animadversionibus
auxit J. F. Schleusner, Goett. 1793. 4. Xx. Gottingische Bibliothek der nenesten theologischen Literatur,
herausgegeben von J. F. Schleusner und C. F. Stäudlin. Th.
1-3. Goett. 1794-7. 8. XXI. Observationum nonnullarum de Patrum Græcorum Auctori.
tate et Usu in constituenda Versionum Græcarum V.T. Lectione genuina. P. 1-4. Viteb. 1795-8. 4.
XXII. Antrittspredigt in der Schlosskirche zu Wittenberg gehalten.
Wittenb. 1795. 8. XXIII. Sylloges Emendationum conjecturalium in versiones Græcas
V. T. P. 1-11. Viteb. 1799-1808. 4. XXIV. Additamenta ad Novi Lexici Græco-Latini in N. T. Editi.
onem primam. Lips. 1801. 8. XXV. Jubelpredigt in der Schloss und Universitätskirche zu Witten
berg am 18ten October 1802 in den Actis sacrorum secularium
Academiæ Vitebergensis A. C. 1802. Lips. 1803. 4. XXVI. Auctarii Observationum in Suidam et Hesych um ac alios
Lexicographos Græcos, ratione maxime habita Glossarum sacra.
rum. P. 1-4. Viteb. 1809-1811. 4. XXVII. Libellus Animadversionum ad Photii Lexicon. Lips.
1810-4. Maj. XXVIII. Curæ novissimæ, seu Appendix Notarum et Emendationum
in Photii Lexicon, Lips. 1812. 4. Maj.
A DEFENCE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
When I observed in a popular periodical work, an attack on Public Schools, authoritative in its style, illiberal in its spirit, inconclusive in its argument, and incorrect in its statements, I expected to see in some publications of opposite principles a regular confutation of it. Their silence I construed into a general convicțion that the attack would be a telum imbelle ; that the
envy and love of detraction, which aimed the blow, would be so obvious as to render it harmless. My conversation with literary characters tended to confirm that construction, But when I considered the extensive range of that publication, and the merit which distinguishes many of its articles, it appeared probable that the greater number of its readers would not stoop to detect sophisms, or to unravel the clue of the maze of misrepresentation ; I thought it there. fore expedient that some notice should be taken of this article, that neither apparent indifference nor real contempt might be mistaken for general acquiescence. As a Classical work, like yours, cannot be contaminated by party principles; and as you have shown your impartiality by admitting different views of University education, I have chosen the Classical Journal as a vehicle peculiarly appropriated to this disquisition. It will not be necessary to follow the writer through all the windings and doublings of his course; if he can once be driven from his strongest stations of attack,
he will be easily dislodged from the rest, and be left without a substantial ground of defence
Before I enter more particularly into the subject, I shall say a few words on the curious and novel mode of critical investigation, in the article under review, and in many
of that publication, employed with some success. The dissertation on a subject so important as the conparative merits of different modes of education, begins thus :
“ There is a set of well-dressed gentlemen, who assemble dai: ly at Mr. Hatchard's sliup!” We are told, moreover, that these
personages are clean and civil ;” an observation not only conducive to illustrate the question, but highly worthy of such
“ Swains," as Churchill describes one, of whom he thus deftly singeth:
Was there a rival to my Maggie found:
Than that rare medicine, which we brimstone call.”2 We should imagine the author, by dwelling with so much appa- . rent satisfaction on the word clean, to be newly arrived from a certain city renowned for cleanliness and fragrance, as it would be difficult to step into any bookseller's shop in the metropolis without meeting persons equally clean and civil.
To proceed. « These clean, civil personages are well in with people in power, delighted with every existing institution,” &c. and further, “
writes a little book, and the rest praise that little book, expecting to be praised, in their turn, for their own little books.” Now, I will be contented to be thought such a person, and the writer of such a book ; and, - without pausing to note the accuracy or elegance of a description, equally entertaining and edifying, as the criticism on the sermon of an illustrious scholar and divine, which began with a diatribe on his wig,--I should think myself deficient in that civility so courteously attributed to me, in common with the gentlemen who frequent Mr. H.'s shop, if I did not, vestibulum ante ipsum primoque in limine, make my bow, like Beau Nash, and thus er. deavour to return the compliment.
There is a set of thriving critics, who frequently assemble at
1 An apology ought to be made for such language to every one except to a writer in a Review, so remarkable for insulting personalities.
2 Churchill's Prophecy of Famine.
H-d house. These thriving critics having become what Speed calls « assiduous trencher-worms,” at the tables of the great, are also become very clean and very civil,—except to those, from whom they can get nothing, such as English poets and English parsons. These critics are well in with people, who, if they are not in power at present, hope to be so soon. They therefore are not at this time particularly delighted with any existing institution, or any existing circumstance; but doubtless they will be so, when things are altered to their wish. Every now and then one of these personages
writes an article in a certain « Review," not so much, considering what is reviewed, as who; and through the same channel, -transcribing only a title page, and without perhaps saying a word about the book, except that the author, of whom he knows nothing, is a good or bad sort of a man,'—takes an opportunity to illumine the world with speculations on important subjects, moral, political and critical. The “existing institutions" with which these writers are least delighted, are the institutions of English education, which they take every occasion to decry: and when one of them has written something very clever, and very severe against these obsolete establishments, in a neat, comprehensive, little article, the rest praise that little article, expecting to be praised, in their turn, for their own little articles. Of these articles, so written by these critical, and sometimes uncivil, personages, the article before us appears to be one.
Having thus endeavoured to set the account even, with respect to the velitations of preliminary courtesy, (to emulate the language of my adversary) and soliciting the forgiveness of the serious reader for this parody of such notable criticism, I come to the point, which is the object of discussion, and to which I now beg his attention.
The essential points, on which the critic and myself join issue, are these :
“ Whether boys,” to use his own statement, “ are put in the way of becoming good and wise men by Public Schools; and whether they actually gather, there, those attainments which it pleasės mankind, for the time being, to consider as valuable, and to decorate by the name of learning.”
When a writer takes the side of the argument, which is adverse to his real opinion, or when he means to exercise the credulity or the risibility of his reader, he generally adopts a certain quaintness of style very different from the ordinary modes of polished diction. On these principles we may almost suspect that our author means to ridicule the cause, which he appears to defend; else he would
1 This was litcrally the case in the review of Mr. BROADHURST On Education.
scarcely suffer such low and vulgar expressions as “ to be well in with,” “ to be put in the way of,” and others, to drop from his pen. But as I mean to be serious myself, I shall venture to conclude that he does not mean to amuse himself at the expense of the partiality of his readers.
My object is not to enter into all the arguments that may be adduced for, or against, the system of public schools, but merely to expose the flippancy, the futility, and, I must add, in some instances, the strange ignorance of a writer, to whose 'opinions, and to whose decision, many might be disposed to look up, on account of the vehicle in which they are conveyed to the public. At the same time, I trust that some additional light will be thrown on a subject so important to the nation in general
, and to parents in particular.
Although we must necessarily keep in mind the question proposed for our examination, a few words must be said in answer to some objections of the reviewer in the outset. The first is, that “ at a public school every boy is alternately tyrant and slave.” By the account of this writer, one might be led to suppose that the tyranny exercised by the seniors over the juniors at a public school, was something like that, which is exercised in a slave ship, except that the slaves never become the tyrants.
I have heard many mamas make such observations, and inveigh with pathetic expressions that would move a heart of stone, against that villainous birch," with which the obstreperous stripling is occasionally disciplined. But that a serious investigator, and a “ learned Theban,” should open his battery against our schools by such trite, and (to use a favorite expression) anile objections, is altogether unaccountable. If such pangs and fears” were really endured, is there one father, who could send a beloved child to the same place of mortification and misery, where he himself knew, from his own experience, what the poor boy was doomed to encounter?
On the contrary, there is scarcely a father, who has received his own education in one of those schools, who does not send his son to the same school, without the least apprehension of that formidable train of sufferings. But even if the exaggerated statement were true, it does not apply to public schools exclusively; and the circumstance just mentioned is superior to a thousand arguments, advanced by those, whose gloomy prejudices exclude the light of knowledge. I shall therefore hasten to other points, leaving the discussion of this to those who have thought religion endangered in our public schools, because Ovid and Homer are introduced in the course of a Latin and Greek education.
We proceed to the next objection of the critic. We are grave