in colleges and enlightened graduates without their walls. But far be from us those changes which instead of ingrooving themselves in forms becoming obsolete tear and snap in twain; those which break up the flow of College history; which sever the connection with past science and with the world of the past; which render the venerable forms of grey antiquity less venerable to the scholar; which make a gap in the long procession of science upon which ages have looked as spectators, and inspire the student with the conceit that he is not at all a transmitter and a torchbearer, but rather one of a new race the creators and sole possessors of knowledge. pp. 72–74.

The discourse of Pres. Chapin, compared with that of Pres. Woolsey, is interesting from the striking contrast of the circumstances under which it was delivered. The first and youthful President of one of the youngest colleges at the West, modestly, yet ably defends the old system, from the recent objections which have been urged against it, and clearly exposes the fallacies upon which these objections are based.

Theories of education are in many respects, like theories of medicine. The newest is likely to attract attention, and to find abundance of imitators. As theories of medicine are tested by time, so are theories of education. The result of their actual working, when fairly tried, is the most satisfying and decisive test of the claims of both. This is a cogent reason for leaving the question between the new and the old, without discussion, to the decision of experiment, and the arbitrament of time. There is a reason more cogent, however, which compels us to discuss the claims of both, when discussion will be of any use, and to anticipate by satisfactory reasoning, so far as we can, what will be the result in fact. False theories in medicine are very costly to human life. The experiment of fact is only determined by the sacrifice of multitudes of living men. Unsound theories of education are equally costly to the noblest part of man. They result in the imperfect or the injurious training of the living soul.

We propose to enter into no defense of the old system. We are content to leave it to the decision which time has passed upon it, and to the confidence which the experience of past generations naturally awakens in the minds of the generation now living. Nor do we wish to attack the new system. We respect the reputed author of this "Report" as well as the gentlemen who have with him subscribed to it their names. So far as the weight of their experience, or the authority of their opinions is concerned, we are content to leave these to their natural influence. So far, however, as this is an argument, designed to establish certain conclusions, and founded upon alleged facts and reasonings, so far is it open to strictures and questionings, and these strictures are invited by the somewhat confident and positive manner in which the argument is conducted.

*"Let the change which comes be free

To ingroove itself with that which flies.”—Tennyson.

The conclusion which the report aims to prove, is that the system of education hitherto pursued in Brown University, has failed to attract a sufficient number of students to support the college, and has also failed to give the education which is justly required by the present state of the community. If the argument were directed to this conclusion only, we should feel that the affair is entirely private, and that with it neither we nor our readers have any particular concern. But in order to establish this conclusion, it was deemed necessary to prove that the colleges in New England generally, are in the same condition, and labor under similar defects. The argument is directed to this general conclusion and has this general bearing.

The question which we propose to discuss is this, do the facts and reasonings that are adduced actually justify this conclusion? The arguments are arranged somewhat informally, under the following heads. "The system of University Education in Great Britain. The progress and present state of University Education in this country. The present condition of this University. The measures which the committee recommend for the purpose of enlarging the usefulness of the Institution. The subject of collegiate degrees."

Upon the first point it is said, that the founders of the New England colleges, being graduates of the English universities, took these institutions, or rather a single college in a university, for their model. After a very general, but so far as it goes a correct account of one of these colleges, it is added. "We however varied in many respects from the original idea, and it must be admitted that our changes were generally for the worse." And what are these changes "for the worse?" "We required residence in a college edifice, and thus assumed the whole superintendence of students; but our buildings were constructed with no reference to this object. Our officers were at first like theirs, a president and tutors, but the president did not live in college, nor, when professors were subsequently appointed, was provision made for their residence." After stating also that we gave our colleges the power of conferring degrees, which in England was restricted to the university, the Report proceeds:

"The result of our departures from the original idea has been in every respect unfortunate. In the first place, we assume the responsibility of a superintendence which we have rendered ourselves incapable of fulfilling; and we have lost the humanizing effect produced by the daily association of students with older and well bred gentlemen, so obvious in an English college; and, in the second place, we have expended almost all the funds appropriated to education in the construction of unsightly buildings, we had almost said barracks, for which, perhaps, the highest merit that can be claimed is, that they are not positively and universally a nuisance."-Report, p. 10.

The only changes "for the worse" that are here specified, are two; the fact that the students, though required to live in a pub

lic building, do not reside in a quadrangle, of which the outer windows are grated, and that the president and professors do not reside with them. In respect to the last point, we remark that the masters of the English colleges, when married, do not reside in the building in such a way as to give to the undergraduates the "humanizing effect" of intercourse with their families; that professors were hardly known in the New England colleges till one hundred and sixty years after Harvard college was founded, about the time of their alleged decay; and that the tutors have, in all cases, resided with the students, occupying chambers in the public buildings, and in most cases, eating with them at the commons table. In respect to the first, that of erecting buildings which do not secure any superintendence over the students, we can only say that these buildings do not indeed secure the superintendence of a prison, but we deny, altogether, that the fact that they were not built in the form of a quadrangle, and furnished with grated windows, renders them utterly unfit as an aid to the reasonable supervision which may be and is exercised, when students reside together. That these buildings are "unsightly" we allow, and so far, "the change" was "for the worse." "That the highest merit that can be claimed is, that they are not positively and universally a nuisance" we deny, affirming that they save the parents enormous bills for rent, which would be a "nuisance" indeed, if these buildings did not exist,-that they afford a means of supervision which is most important,— that they tend to create a common feeling, an esprit du corps which, rightly directed, is most desirable, and that were it not for the parsimony of the public, the rooms in these buildings would be almost universally preferred by students themselves. We would ask also, whether it is true, that in consequence of this alleged defect of superintendence, the manners and morals of our students are inferior to those of the students of Oxford or Cambridge, of equal age, and similar domestic training. The points of residence in a public building, and in contact with the instructors are the only ones which are adduced to make out the very sweeping statement, that our changes have been "for the worse." As to the course of study, it is not contended that this was changed for the worse, indeed, it is affirmed that "we adopted the unchangeable period of four years, and confined the course of education almost exclusively to Greek, Latin, and Mathematics; adding, perhaps, a little more theology and natural philosophy." "The studies pursued were Latin, Greek, Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Locke on the Understanding, while some attention was generally given to Theology and the Hebrew language." We ask here how much Greek was studied in these colleges before the Revolution, and even down to 1800? How much Natural Philosophy before 1740, one hundred years

11 ***

after Harvard college was founded? How long was Harvard college founded before "Locke on the Understanding" was written? Was not logic, both in theory and practice, one of the principal studies in these colleges down to a period later than the American Revolution?

We do not wish to be hypercritical, but it strike us as somewhat singular, that the course of study, if unchanged, should be introduced at all under the head of changes whether for the better or for the worse, and that it should be so broadly intimated that this course of study in 1640 or in 1700 even, consisted only of Latin, Greek, Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and "Locke on the Understanding," and that this was copied from the English universities. The author of this report evidently had his mind fixed on two leading ideas, first, that the colleges were in a given condition just before the American Revolution, and secondly, that these colleges were modelled, course of study and all, after the English universities, and did not advert to the fact that from 1640 to 1775, the world had made great advances, that Natural Philosophy had been called into being, "Locke on the Understanding" had started the long succession of imitators and opposers, and that these changes had exerted a far greater influence upon the course of study in the American colleges, than upon that of the English universities.

It seems also in place here to ask, if these changes in respect to buildings, were "for the worse," which we by no means admit, were no changes made for the better? Was not that a great change for the better, with which the New England colleges first started into being, and according to which, the students were subjected to daily examination or recitation by their public tutors, a practice which has not been fully established to this hour in the English and Scotch universities? And is it not true that this feature was adopted from the English schools, as Eton and Westminster ?

We have puzzled ourselves somewhat to answer the question why these remarks on the system of university education in Great Britain were introduced at all, and what bearing they have upon the argument. At one time we thought that we had discovered the answer to this inquiry, in the passing remark which was designed to carry not a little weight with a portion of the public for whom the Report was written, that "the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were, as it is well known, established mainly, if not exclusively, for the benefit of the clergy. They were ecclesiastical and monastic institutions. The course of study which they prescribed was designed for the education of priests," &c. This opinion was strengthened by the remark in the same strain, that the colleges in New England gave great attention to theology and Hebrew, "inasmuch as a large

portion of the students were designed for the ministry." We reasoned thus, the argument which it is designed to found on the relation of our colleges to the universities must be, that as both these classes of institutions were constructed for the special training of the clergy, they are of course unfitted for the wants of the community at large. But when we were told on the very next page that these colleges, founded on the model of monastic institutions, when in their highest perfection and glory, "nurtured the men who, as jurists, and statesmen, and diplomatists, in the intellectual struggle that preceded the Revolution, shrunk not from doing battle with the ablest men of the mother country, and won for themselves, in the contest, the splendid eulogy of Lord Chatham, the noblest of them all; the same men who, when the Revolution was accomplished, framed for us, their successors, the Constitution of the United States, perhaps the most important document that the eighteenth century produced," we verily thought, that if these monastic and clerical seminaries could train men for services of such various and splendid renown, they might, as schools of training even now, with the four years' course of Latin, Greek, &c., be the best for general education that can well be devised. But this conclusion would spoil the argument, and would leave unexplained the reference to the universities of Great Britain.

66

We pass from this, however, to the second topic or head of argument; "The progress and present state of university education in this country." The colleges, as long as they kept to the model of the English universities, with all their "changes for the worse," we are told, were eminently successful." The reasons alleged for this success are, that "the course of study was limited, and time was allowed for deliberate investigation of each science. The mind of the students was suffered to invigorate itself by reflection and reading, and hence, with far less perfect means than we now possess, it seems to have attained a more manly development." The course of study was indeed limited. The Latin authors regularly recited in Yale College before 1800, were Virgil, Horace, Cicero's Select Orations, and Cicero de Oratore, little more than is now required for admission to the institution; the only Greek regularly recited was the Testament, not so much as is now required to enter. A small class, studied for the Berkeley scholarship, additional Greek and Latin. The mathematics were taught from inferior compends. What were the sciences, for the deliberate investigation of which time was allowed, does not appear, unless logic were such an one, which the present generation has been taught to ignore, and therefore to despise. More time was indeed allowed to the student, than at present, to use or abuse. Some of this was used by the industrious, to "invigorate themselves by reflection," but it will hardly