education; are you now, perhaps, in the first form in one of our celebrated places of instruction; have you ever been punished for a bad exercise? Now then tell us, what does such a writer, obtruding himself" in the haunts of bearded men," deserve?-However, let us go on with this objection. "Of what importance," it is asked, "is it in after life, whether a boy can play well or ill at cricket, or row a boat, &c. ?" Of the present glory, or of the future importance, I have never heard much advanced; but I have no hesitation to say that those exercises are both rational and important; and that, for the best of all possible reasons, as being conducive, at this time of life, to health, to activity of mind, as well as body. So thought Milton-so thought Locke; and so thinks every man of common sense. In this point of view, therefore, such exercises are not only innocent, but rational and important, as preventing that stagnation of mind, which dwindles a young man into a pale and plodding dolt. But the absurdity of the reviewer's opinion reaches its utmost climax, when we are gravely informed that it is useless for a boy to play at cricket, because when he is a man, he can go to law! Are these the judges to whom our publications are to be submitted? Are these to adoptthe maxim of Publius Syrus, " Judex damnatur, cum nocens absolvitur"?-One would suppose that the writer conceived the son of an English nobleman or gentleman was to be bred up in such a manner as to be allowed to take no delight but in looking over a ledger, or that he was destined to become a sedentary lecturer or professor, with his best hat brushed, and his long cravat plaited, once a week; or, as unlike as possible to the clean, civil gentlemen in Mr. H.'s shop, to resemble in appearance and physiognomy the portrait of Mr. Thomas Dilworth over a deal desk, never separated from a pen-knife and pounce-box. If I have wandered so far from the material points to be considered, I must lay it to the charge of the reviewer, whose steps for a little way I have thought myself bound to follow, in making these remarks on the futility of his principal objections. The course of argument has now brought me to the strongest and most material test. The criterion proposed is summary and decisive. An illustrious army of poets, philosophers, chemists, painters, historians, general scholars, warriors and statesmen, &c. are all drawn up in array against the education produced by public schools; the whole is brought forward to prove that if such men are produced without "that system of education, to which the English are so much attached," the inference is obvious. Although we do not send our noble youths to Westminster to become poets and philosophers, we need not shrink from this challenge. By their fruits we shall know them. It will be therefore VOL. VIII. NO. XV. Cl. Jl. N necessary to examine the lists more attentively; for like an Asiatic army, that at first appears formidable in numbers and in distant splendor, they, on a closer examination, seem almost to sink into nothing. One general observation, however, must be made,—that in the illustrious catalogue before us, the whole field, (in the sportsman's phrase) including Ireland and Scotland, is staked against a part; and it would be a wonderful testimony, indeed, in favor of a few schools, if in the whole educated population,- that is, probably, as ten thousand to one, there were no great and wise men, except those produced by a few particular schools. The reader therefore will bear in mind, not how many great and wise men were produced without the system of our public schools; but in what proportion, taking into consideration the extent of a cultivated and educated population, these schools have furnished their quota; and whether, side by side, and rank by rank, they are not still masters of the field. If it should appear that they have furnished great and wise men, not only bearing a proportion, but equal, if not superior, to the great catalogue of illustrious worthies opposed to them, it would go near to decide the question between the reviewer and myself. Before I proceed to examine the catalogue, I must bring before the reader's recollection the very sweeping assertion of the critic. "It is very remarkable," says he, "that the most eminent men in every art and science have not been educated in public schools; and this is true, even if we include, in the term of public schools, not only Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, but the CharterHouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylor's, Rugby, and every school in England, at all conducted upon the plan of the three first." Now if we avail ourselves of the critic's admission, we shall find that nine out of ten in his catalogue have really been educated in one of those schools, which are denominated public foundation schools, conducted on the plan of the three great collegiate schools, in opposition to private seminaries, which, however respectable and meritorious, are arbitrarily established without certificate, recommendation, or election. Thus the ground will crumble under his feet, and leave him without even the plausibility of argument. But on the other hand he takes a position, which appears untenantable. "The great schools of Scotland," says he, "we do not call public schools; because in these the mixture of domestic life, gives to them a widely different character." But the young men educated at the High school, in Edinburgh, and who board in the city, have no more of the "mixture of domestic life," than those who board with the dames at Eton; they, therefore, cannot be said to belong to the class of private instruction. On the same principle, the critic will exclude from public education all the illustrious characters on the continent, who are brought up in the vast and magnificent colleges, which partake of the nature both of school and university, because they are obliged to board in private families. In the outset of a dispute, it is highly expedient to come to a right understanding on the definition of terms; and the reader will probably think that our antagonist has not been remarkably happy in this particular. We will not, however, weigh him too scrupulously in the balance of consistency, or take a strict advantage of the concessions, which he has undesignedly made; but proceed to reconnoitre the host, set in array against us. The first are the Poets; and truly commanding, with the exception of a few weak auxiliaries, the array appears. We have the great leaders, Shakespeare, Spenser, Ben Jonson (we may as well give the proper spelling to his name.) After these come what may be called the captains, Beaumont and Fletcher, Butler, Pope, Swift, Akenside, Goldsmith. Then come the lighter troops, headed by Rochester and Congreve; and lastly, the desultory force, consisting of Sprat, Parnell, Garth, Gay, Shenstone, Samuel Johnson, (who appears among them like Cato at a comedy) Sir Philip Sidney, Savage, Arbuthnot, Thompson, and Burns; to which list, that a Scotchman may have fair play, I will add the name, and a truly respectable one, of Beattie; and request also that neither Ramsay nor Drummond (superior to many mentioned) should be omitted. On this list I shall make a few observations, some incidental, and some very important. I shall then compare with this catalogue the list furnished from three or four only of our principal schools. Perhaps I might justly challenge Sprat and Sir Philip Sidney, who are at least of doubtful fame as poets. Few people read Sprat, and fewer still Sir P. Sidney's Sapphics or Heroics. There is also one name admitted to swell the ranks, which is a mere automaton; I mean Arbuthnot, unless, perhaps, the reviewer meant Armstrong. First stands alone, and without a rival, the mighty Shakespeare. We must, indeed, instantly admit, that, could any system of education by its intrinsic effects produce a character, as far as genius is concerned, so transcendent and astonishing, that mode would be undoubtedly unrivalled. But who does not perceive that Shakespeare can be no example in this question? He was a being of his own order, a being, to whom nothing analogous appears in the history of the faculties of man. "Within his circle none durst walk but he." Before a being of this order, all systems of education shrink; they are the toil and the work of man; Shakespeare was the work of nature: so truly, in respect to him, may we say, "poeta nascitur, non fit." Education, therefore, might, more than any circumstances of fortune, be called, in him," the drop upon the lion's mane." Yet we must not so blindly worship the god of our idolatry, as to consider him as faultless; we may even venture to assert that, had he received a public classical, and general education, he would have exhibited the perfection of the art of poetry, the union of taste, judgment, and correctness, with the strength of genius, and the fire of imagination. The case is directly the reverse with another most eminent character, placed against Public Schools,-- Ben Jonson. In opposition to Shakespeare, he stands, I confess, the most consummate proof of the force of education. In native gifts he was, no doubt, far below Shakespeare; but education and learning seem in him to run the race with genius, and unite to exhibit to after-ages one of the most striking instances of their effects. In point of poetical imagery and wildness of fancy, let the reader compare, with this view, the songs of the witches in Jonson's Mask, and then in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Ben Jonson, therefore, but not Shakespeare, would appear to be a splendid example, as far as poetry is concerned, against Public Schools. I am inclined, however, to suspect that the reviewer is not very intimately acquainted with the works of this distinguished writer. I will therefore beg the reviewer's attention to the following "Epigram," as it is called. TO WILLIAM CAMDEN. Camden, most reverend head, to whom I owe More scarce can make that doubt, but thou canst teach. Which conquers all, be once o'ercome by Thee. Many of thine this better could than I : But for their powers, accept my piety! Now as the critic may know as little of this William Camden as he seems to do of Ben Jonson, it may be proper to acquaint him that this WILLIAM CAMDEN was the author of a book called "Britannia,” of "Remains concerning Britain," and of "Annals of Queen Elizabeth," and that moreover, HE WAS HEAD-MASTER OF WESTMINSTER SCHOOL: under whom, at that same school, was educated THIS IDEN TICAL BEN JONSON! It is probable that the critic may not have read so much of Ben Jonson as to have seen this" Epigram;"yet had he but opened the first page, the following remarkable and decisive words would have stared him in the face, in the dedication to Camden : "I am none of those, who can suffer the benefits conferred upon my youth to perish with my age. I pray you to accept this, such, wherein neither the confession of my manners shall make you blush, nor of my studies repent you to have been the instructor." Who will not be astonished at such ignorance, such impudent ignorance! The writer has committed himself in this instance, as in others, by an inaccuracy, the more unpardonable, since Ben Jonson is himself precisely such a character, as in estimating the comparative merit of schools, so far as his own art and learning are concerned, would turn the scale. Having thus taken one of your guns, Ben Jonson, from you, and placed him on the other side; we must dispute Butler with you, because the scene of his education is doubtful. There are probable reasons to believe (see Wood) that he was entered at Christ-Church, from Westminster; but as he was not matriculated, this cannot be proved; and we may venture to say, neither can you prove the contrary. The list therefore of eminent poets educated at a very small number of great schools, opposed to all England, Scotland, and Ireland, is the following: The far greater part of these were educated at two schools only, Winchester and Westminster. Before we leave this article, I must add a few more remarks, to which I beg the reader's attention. What has been quoted from Ben Jonson cuts two ways; proving not only the place from which he derived his learning; but his modesty and piety, as well as the humility and kindness of his master: so far was either, as clearly appears from their life and writings, from assuming that "public school importance, which ridiculously and offensively displays itself in the haunts and business of bearded men.' 1 If we follow Longueville, who says that he was educated at the Grammar School of Worcester, we shall be far from corroborating the critic's assertion. |