THE STUDY OF LATIN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11993, 16 March 1901, Page 8

THE STUDY OF LATIN.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—"Urbs Aeterna's" last .letter euggC3ts liuicli material for reflection. I should like to deal with it all in detail, but considerations of space require me to be as brief as possible. In saying that a practised Latinist would naturally argue in favour of Latin, I did not mean to imply that the evidence of such a perron was to be refused or discounted, and I must admit I did not at the time o.b?«rve thai it, perhaps, involves a reflection against myself, who nm not arguing in it» favour. "Urbs Aoterna's" reasoning on this point is perfectly just; of course a practised Lstinist is the right perron to advocate the subject. What I intended to convey was that a knowledge of something more than Latin is necessary, and that my opponent possesses this knowledge I did not and do not deny. He asks whether there must not be eomething in this study if men of mature years 'find tlife pursuit of it profitable? For the following reasons Tconsider that this caanot be taken us indicating that the subject is of sufficient value to justify tho expenditure of timo and labour on it, still less ' its being made compulsory in school and colloge education. Many scholarly men spend much of their time teaching or writing on tho subject for the purpose of obtaining a livelihood. Its utility to themselves is obvious, but (perhaps unfortunately) it is no concern of theirs whether the subject is of any use to anyone eies, including thoso to whom they teach if and for whom thoy write on it. Apart from these, there, aro, I think, very few men at the present day—except such persons as philologists, of whose'work Latin and other languages necessarily, form a part—who ever open a Latin lwok once their school or college career 13 finished. When they do, they are not actuated by any seme of utility in the subject, but rather by unreasoning habit. They have a vague consciousness that the subject is regarded (whether rightly or wrongly they do not question) as an essential element of education, and worth knowing for its own sake, and they accordingly , study it without any conscientoup scruples ns to whether their time is being well spent or not, "Urbs Aeterna's" argument for choosing Latin out of those Innguage3 from which our own has borrowed, based on the shortness'of human life, is perfectly valid; but I would carry it a little further and apply it to the rescission of Latin as well. It is just because our life, is short and we have insufficient time for acquiring to a satisfactory extent even the most useful information that I think wo should not waste our time and energy on a subject that isfar down in the scale of utility. This, no doubt, i." begging the question, for I it assumes that Latin is more or less useless. But I am still convinced that whatever elements of uli'.ity it can be shown to possess for the general Etudent, more and greater elements of valuo can be shown in other subjects, and it is our duty to utilise our time and strength on what will in the end produce the best remits. " Urbs Aeterna " next objects that ono t>f my arguments assumes that we can understand the use of words without a knowledge of their history. And can we not? Have not many of our great writers understood the use of words of whose history they knew nothing? For instance, is it neee3sary, in order to understand the use of the word "conquer," to know that it is connected historically with the _ Latin " conquirere," moaning to " seek earnestly," a combination of con and qimcrere? He tells us that every student of historical English accidence must oppose such an assumption—that is, must deny that we can understand the use of words without a knowledge of their history. This statement is j obviously absurd: it amount 3 to saying that of the millions of English-speaking people only those few who sludv the history of tho language can understand its use. I My opponent goes on to say that Western ' science deals only with the outside of the universe, not with its inner life; deals only with phenomena, not nonmena; while literature is the (expression of the soul of man. Does he mean bv this that the inner life of the univorre is identical with the soul of man, and that tho study of Latin is an aid to its comprehension? If so, I require further light. But if we want to deal with noumena, we must go to metaphysics, not to Latin and the subject of literature. If we say, as "Urbs Aeterna" doe 3 in this connection, that the use,of Latin is to acquaint us with the history of our words, with their inner life, we are dealing with phenomena, as opposed to noumena, just as muoh as we do when we study natural (or Western) science. ( And how j can the study, of Greok and Sanskrit acquaint us with noumena, rather than phenomena? Perhaps tho reason why the lawyer illustration scarcely merits a reply is that there is no convenient roply to give it. " Technical legal knowledge does not always win a case." Of course not, because there is technical legal knowledge opposed to it v which ■ has greater force; but, nevertheless, it i-3 the technical legal knowledge on the other side whioh has won the case.- A knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit would not have helped the oppoeing,counsel in the absence of this l?gal knowledge. It is also true that this victories of legal knowledge are not always to Lβ admired; but is a knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit the remedy? But possibly my opponont means that the lawyer, speaker, writer, etc., requires Latin to enable him to use English correctly. I venture to assert that he will find no honest supporters of this opinion. In my own case, at any rate, I find it neithor necessary nor even of any use for this purnose. " He (' Progress') is aware that there are now, no general degrees." As a matter of fact, I am not aware of this.. I call the degrees of B.A. and M.A.. and, to a less extent,. those of B.Sc. and|D.Sc, general, partly because they do not pertain to arfy particular profession, and chiefly" because, though some of the subjects are compulsory, tho rest are largely left to the option of the student, his freedom of choice being restricted within reasonably wide limits. If Indian philosophy, Eastern science, and Sanskrit were made compulsory for these degrees (and it was thus that I understood at first "Urbs. Afiternn's " prophesy) there would bo no room loft for the oxcrciEe of the students' option, and the degrees would then be limited to special branches, unless, indeed, the optional subjects were still retained, in which caso the degrees, in addition to bein.e too speeiiilirad, • would he too full to servo their present purnofes. And, as for the degrees in law, lnctli(■in". <H<;., th-? special degrees of particular profession!, I don't supposo " Urbs Aeterna " would maintain that these degrees should lie encumbered with subjects unconnected with the respective professions. I observe that he modifies what- appeared to be his previous position by allotting particular Eastern subjects to particular degrees. But wo are getting off the track of Latin. "Urb3 Aeterna," as a man whose chief work hap to do with use of English spe«eh, considers La.lin,a priceless acquisition. I, whose work is just the surao, ror.sidor that its only use lies in givinj me a clear perception of how very limited its utility is. Perhaps "Urbs Aete'rna." would show iis in what particular respects he finds his knowledge of the suMecf of use to himpolf. His last argument is that culture is what aids a man to draw spiritual nourishment, rather than the nourishment itself. To my mind it includes both in an equal degree, but in what way does Latin give this aid? Tho spiritual nourishment enm«s to ur through our own language, and n Latin necessary to enable up to as«imilale the ono or understand the other? Culture, it ceoms to me, includes that training which will enable each individual to conduct his life for the best in his relations with mankind, and involving as one of its mo3t important constituents a ■ complete self-maptefy by each, complete control over his thoughts, words, and ections. his emotions and desires. But what has all tlm to do with Latin? No doubt it reouiros education, but education of a kind whicli dons not comnriso Latin. " How can hn who lacks them (the Humanities) nm'ertfand the ways , of earth's or heaven's greatest?" Is Latin, I then, a bettor medium than English to arrive ! at this understanding? | Thore arc other point* siiggw'cri hy my opponent's letter which I phould like to refer to if space permitted. I will conclude bv making two requests, which I am sure he will prant. _ Tho first is to name some reliable , source in which I may investigate the subject i of Oriental reience. for, as he tells us, it is , not the study of Eastern things by Western methods. I should like to acquaint myself with the subject, whatever it i*. The second is to inform me in which of Proctor's works I can find hie doctrine of coincidence. I did not answer my opponent's stricture on this point in Mr first letter because I was unacquainted with tho doctrine, though I should not think that, whether right or wrong, it

• ] would detract from the educational value <A b ( Proctor's astronomical works.—l am, etc, March 14- Pboobjss. o [Any further correspondence on this subject » must be condensed, otherwise we shall have ri to close the discussion.—Ed. O.D.T.]