Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-09-21
LITERATURE NOUR COLLEGES.
The Views of IA Young Vermonter on How
1t ShOuld be TAught.

|
| 1t should be Taught.
Al the meeting of the Social Science
association at Saratoga a paper was read
on "The Teaching of Literature in our
| C)lleges' by Mr.. James Buckham of
the John Hopkins University. The de
| partment of English literature in our col
| leges, he said, has practically remained at
| a standstill, while all the other branches
have steadily progressed, 1t is deficient
| in the following points |. Its narrow
ness. 2. Its secondary Importance in the
curriculum. 3. Its unfruitfulness as lit
erary culture. A brief and hasty prepare
| tory course in rhetoric; a mumbling Of
Cnaucer and Spenser; a memOrZing for
"qulZze5" OF the prominent events In the
lives of the early literary worthless, togeth-
er with a cut and dried list Of their priD-
cipal works; scanty interspersng OF lee
lures, and the requirement OF lew easily
evaded critiques from tie student-thls
constitutes, III some colleges, what is call
ed a course in English literature. Some
make the study wholly pathological 9th
ers relegate philology altogether to the de-
partment of Languages, and 1t is because
of these diverse attitudes that the treat
ment of English literature in our colleges
is SO partial aud inadequate. The first ne
cessary step toward reform is to combine
the two methods. My plea is for the un-
ion of philology and pure literature in one
course OF study, giving, t the most, one
third of the time To phllology, and two
thirds to literary criticism, lectures, care
tul rea ing and the conscientious imlta-
ton of the best styles, with view to form
| ing a graceful and vigorous style of ones
| own. | would also insist that philOlogy
| should come first, not last, i'll the course,
! as it now does at our leading universities.
| My scheme of study would be: PhllOC-
| lntrO6nctDrV literature literature
| Introductory TO criticism; criticism intro
ductory TO production. Production of
| some sort should be the practical aim OF
the study OF literature. Our American
colleges cannot produce the best thinkers,
| the best Wrltv!s, ne best orators, with the
kind OF literary training which they fur
nish to day. The time demands broad,
thorough, progressive literary training in
our leading institutions of learning-a
course that shal continue net only
through the four undergraduate years, but
shall virtually demand for It's consumma-
ton a fifth or even d sixth year spent in
post graduate study. Our colleges must
devote more time. more attention, and
more ability to the teaching of English
literature. There is much truth in the
sarcasm of recent writer about the
Shelving of worn out clergymen by plac-
ing them in the chairs of English litera
ture in our colleges" The temptation is,
under the present method, to secure as
cheap a man as possible to do the work.
Thus it happens, owing to short hours
and cheap Instruction. veritable royal
road to learning-that men are graduated
a. bachelors of art who are, so far as use
of the English language is concerned
benedicts of illlteracy. Far too little at
tention is paid 60 developing the literary
$, nse OF the student. BY the present meth
cd of intellectual hypodermic injection
only transient stimulus can be given
The best writers ought to be studied a
, models Present systems teach the anatC
my of the English language and the earl,
English classics, but they do not teach lii
erature. We ought to teach literature IL
its broadcast sense, and it should be laugh
by its highest Interpreters.