THE TEACHING OF LITERATURE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 134, 29 February 1908, Page 12

THE TEACHING OF LITERATURE.

- Tho teaching of . literature to children was Jiscuisod by three distinguished:literary'crU tioa before tho English Association 'at its roceni session. ■ - : Mr. J.rAV. Maqkail sajd he was glad that in the papers a distinction had been made between the teaching of English and of litoraturo. Literature was the interpretation of ■■ life, and iu\that songo. could not be taught— it teaches. Perhaps one-pf.the greatest dau- ' t gers which assailed- teachers now was the no\tion,: born partly pf tho ultra-conscientious- . ness which was a feature of ; this age, that their ■ task -was never onded, and that they inuat to the work in.hand. .This was so very especiallyin regard to literature. If they ondeavoured■to teach the interpretation of lifoto children, they offered them the > -interpretation before .there, was any acquaintance with the test,;' What they could do— and it was no 'light and ignoble task—was to stand away from botwpen the child and the literature, and to clear away the obstacles. , Those obstacles were, rowy,'and one-of the l greatest was the text-book.'One of.tho next ' greatest was the teacher, who, to deal with litorature in any vital sense, was to efface himself—not the easieet of duties.

"Mr. Sidney Lee," as reported by the "Tini9s l " '.'said-tliat i any views/ ho held on tho teaching of Shakespeare in secondary schools could flot.cjaim he,based on practical expe-•rience,-:'';tlioiigli'; lio'-had devoted, much of his ,time and thought.>for: a goqd many years to 'Shakespeare's'life'„ and work'. Shakespeare stood at the head of the great jarmy of English men of letters, and had dona more for tho .prestige of. ,the. English name through tho 'civilised "wbrld" than any other Englishman. It was the difficulfeitß.sk/of . the tnaeher to bring liomo.sucli facts as these to.the intelli-. gonco of boj's anH' ,w girls. :Tliey kiipw how easily Shakespeare might lose all his. magic charm for the children' unless the teacher adapted his/method t6;tho''nec'essitics :of the case, and might conie to bo regarded not as a mighty influence "stimulating the mind and hoart, but: uncongenial taskmaster to ho abandoned with relief on leaving school. "If there wero any ; likelihood\thnt tho inclusion of Shakespeare' in .'the school..curriculum must yield suclf result in the normal pupil, it .would .far Ijetter to excludo him- : altogether:' 1': _ 'Tho; tfcnig&r was a real one. Shakesp;ire 'must;pey.er becomo 'tho 1 clrill'd' dull lesson,' , ; 'must never bo metamorphosed into a -daily lirug. At all hazards they must prevent; their -pupils from flinging away their, Shakespeare, on.{paving school as away His Jlbrace. The first step inHho^stuay.^'; of—the : poet was of'the highest moment., ..It was .foi'., .experts to decido the questions.-involved,, but ,ho could not hqlp thinking that'' soma "such book ,as Lamb's •'Ta{es frqm : Shakespeaj-e' should bo brought to (children's'notice-at tho very earliest age at- which .they. could■ comprehend what tliey road. . '' is -'Prof.Raleigh agreed that English literaturQ and composition. .woro two subjects, apd ho waS prepared to. say that English literature Wasone 0 fthojworst classes in which to teach English composition.' It was unfortunate if .the ohief idea "present to . tho child's mind was that it war, the teacher who knew wh'^t. Shakespoaro meant, the teacher ■ who knew- how: Milton :in:Jns proso should have turned l}is did not . teach children-to/fall, in 'love, yet'tlioy introducled them, to - literature, ,whioh 'Was;almost .as difficult and dangSrous' a-matter, for tho introduction to literaturo in any full senso was an introduction to lifo itself.