in Sturm's school, our teachers now a-days will approve, although it may be that occasionally their standard of thoroughness does not precisely coincide with that of the old rector, which demanded, for instance, that the second aorist should be formed from the imperfect, or that a future form, "eu" should be recognized, and the like. But, could they approve of the classics selected, and the order in which they were read at the Strasburg gymnasium? Hardly; else it would not be that, in our gymnasiums now, far different classical authors are read; or, where the same are taken up, that it is in another order and another spirit. We can overlook the fact that Cornelius Nepos, who is studied in most schools at the present day, was rejected; but, so was Livy, and so was Tacitus. And, of the most important of the classics, only a small portion was read; I need only mention Homer. Such fragments surely can never lead to a spiritual appreciation of the genius and the character of authors. But, how all this has become changed in the progress of time, we shall discuss elsewhere.

On a first glance, we might be led to believe that Sturm was devoted not merely to the knowledge of words, but to that of things also; but, if we examine the matter more closely, we shall alter our opinion. In fact, the scholars of the lower classes acquired Latin words for every possible object that was about them in life, whether in the kitchen or cellar, the garden or stable, the school-room or church. And they were thus taught almost according to the manner of Comenius in the "Orbis pictus," only that they learned the world in the original instead of in pictures. But, with what view were boys taught these Latin names? Was it that they might obtain a knowledge of things likewise? Certainly not. They were only placed thereby in a condition to express themselves in Latin upon common and familiar topics, just as a German who designs to travel in Italy will furnish himself beforehand with a stock of every-day words and phrases.

But, some one will say, "Sturm also demands that boys should project a sort of encyclopædia, in which they should enter the names of various objects under certain pre-arranged heads; as, for example, under the head of 'birds', the ostrich and the wry-neck; or, under the head of 'mammalia,' the lion and the elephant. And, is not this to be regarded as a knowledge of things?" I think not. I think that it is at best only a method of fixing names in the mind, which, however, are the shadows of things to come; for, it is very unlikely that those boys who placed the ostrich and the wry-neck under the head of "birds" had ever seen either the one or the other. Comenius,

by means of his pictorial representations, here affords a far better knowledge of the actual world.

If we now compare the course of study in a modern gymnasium with that in Sturm's school, we shall perceive at once that there are many subjects of instruction not provided for in the latter. But, many will say, "This is the advantage of the Sturmian method, that it restricts itself to a very few branches, while we, on the other hand, teach almost every thing. The greater surface the less the depth,"

etc.

All such persons I now ask to suspend their judgment until they have accompanied me in a critical survey of Sturm's system of teaching. Boys were received into the gymnasium in their sixth year, and yet I find not one word of any special instruction in reading and writing German correctly. I would not ask for that instruction in the German grammar, which is now so popular, but only for an elementary drilling in German, which is indispensable. When and where they receive this, it certainly does not appear; nor have we any more light on the question whether the older boys wrote German compositions, except what we derive from the fact that they made translations of the Latin classics into German.

And, as it was with elementary instruction in German, so, likewise, in his original plan, Sturm has not a syllable of any instruction in arithmetic for the first eight classes. And, when he comes to treat of the upper classes, he dismisses the subject thus briefly: "Arithmetic must be introduced, Mela examined, Proclus laid before the scholar, and the elements of astrology taught." And yet, in the letters to the teachers of the ten classes, I find not a word said of arithmetic; nor, from the two letters to Conrad Dasypodius, is any thing decisive to be gathered on this point. The second of these last mentioned letters, written in the year 1569, thirty-one years after the establishment of the gymnasium, speaks of instruction in mathematics, yet in a way from which we infer that it had not been long introduced. Later, in the course of instruction dating in 1578, as well as by the examination held during the same year, we see that arithmetic was taught in the second class, and a few problems from the first book of Euclid, together with the elements of astronomy, in the highest. Also, in the school-plan projected by Sturm for the gymnasium at Lauingen, mathematics is not placed among the school studies, but rather classed among those branches which are to be learned afterward, through attendance on college lectures.

All things now considered, there appears to have been at least a gross neglect of mathematical instruction. If the scholar has

learned in the second class but the rudiments of arithmetic, and in the highest only a few problems in Euclid, how can he comprehend even the few first elements of astronomy, taught also in the same highest class? To judge by the astronomical examination communicated herewith, the knowledge that was imparted of the science would seem to have been almost entirely limited to the exhibition and the explanation of an armillary sphere; as the teacher, in the year 1578, made no allusion to the Copernican system which had appeared in 1543, but taught the doctrine of the annual revolution of the sun around the earth. On the other hand, as we have seen, Sturm assigns to astrology a place among the subjects of study.

Never will our present teachers of elementary schools, to say nothing of gymnasiums, look with favor upon such a neglect of mathematics, even though they may advocate the very simplest methods of instruction. And, so much the less, as it is natural to suppose that very many scholars did not take the full course, but only passed through the lowest classes in this Strasburg gymnasium, and, consequently, could learn nothing at all of arithmetic. For, as we have before shown, this branch during the first years after the establishment of the gymnasium probably received no attention at all, and, when introduced later, was assigned to the second and highest classes only.

Likewise, in regard to geography, we have no reason to conclude that it was studied. For the above cited expression of Sturm, “Mela is to be examined," was scarcely called for, if Mela was really read in the gymnasium. But, even Mela, meagre as he is, received no attention there, if we may judge from the schedule and the examination of 1578. Nor among the college lectures either, was any place assigned to geography.

And history, too, was quite as much neglected; even in the college, Beuter, whose name appears on the catalogue as historical lecturer, confines himself to the interpretation of Tacitus.

Of natural history and natural philosophy there was not a single line taught in the gymnasium.

Since, then, all instruction in the German language, mathematics, geography, history, natural history, and natural philosophy, was entirely omitted, to which we may add instruction in Hebrew, in the modern languages, French especially, and, perhaps also in drawing, we must conclude that nearly all the time and energies of the scholar were concentrated upon the acquisition of Greek and Latin.

Was now the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans which Sturm's scholars possessed, any the greater, on this account, than that mastered

by the scholars of our gymnasium? or, we should rather inquire, was their readiness, both in speaking and in writing Latin, greater, and did they apply the whole force that was in them principally to acquire these two facilities?

The reply to the first question should be favorable to the scholars of the present day: the reply to the second, perhaps, to Sturm's scholars. And truly it would have been a wonder if Sturm's scholars had not learned to speak and write Latin, since he himself looked upon the art of writing and reading in classical Ciceronian Latin as the noblest aim of culture; and he deemed no sacrifice too dear so that he might reach it. The first sacrifice, (which we have already alluded to,) was an entire neglect of our mother tongue, and even an absolute alienation from it. We have seen from Sturm's letter to Schirner, the teacher of the ninth class, that he considered the Roman children highly privileged, in that, from their infancy up, they spoke Latin themselves and heard nothing but Latin spoken by others; whereas, with German children, the case was far different. This evil, he said, must be removed by the diligence of the teacher, and through the application of his (Sturm's) system. There was only need of a correct method, (and that because Latin was not our mother tongue,) to insure the production, at the present day, of speeches which should compare favorably with those of Cicero. Every effort must be put. forth in order to restore again the long lost skill of the Greeks and Romans in teaching, haranguing, disputing, and writing. The first point, therefore, upon which Sturm, as well as most of his contemporaries, both literary men and teachers, insisted, was the completest removal possible of the German mother tongue, that so the Latin might wholly occupy its place. To teachers and to scholars alike, all conversation in German was forbidden; and games were only allowed on the condition that Latin alone should be spoken therein. Had the old Romans still ruled over Alsace in Sturm's time, they could have adopted no more effectual measures to denationalize its inhabitants, to make them forget their country, and to change them wholly into Romans.

Sturm indirectly boasts of this exclusion of the German language from his gymnasium. "He has introduced a mine of choice Latin words and of familiar Latin phrases, and has called up Plautus, Terence, and Cicero from the shades, to speak Latin with the boys."

Plautus and Terence he here mentions in preference, on account of the representations of their plays by the scholars; which representations, as we have seen, he strongly recommended to the teachers

of the three upper classes. In this connection, his letter to Golius, the teacher of the highest class, deserves our special attention. "I could wish," said he, "that the actors of comedy as well as those of tragedy in your class should all be equal to Roscius; and, therefore, far more accomplished than those in the lower classes can be. I desire you never to suffer the week to go by without a performance, so that an assiduous and habitual attendance at the theatre may be encouraged."

If we are to regard this disuse of our mother tongue as one sacrifice to the ideal,-nay, let me call it the idol rather, of Latin eloquence, then surely these theatrical exercises should be considered as a second sacrifice to this ideal. It appears incredible to us that the committing to memory and acting such licentious plays as are those of Terence could have exerted no evil influence upon the morals of the young. And we are equally at a loss to understand, how it was that so pious a man as Sturm did not object to the pernicious sentiments inculcated by Terence. Could the enthusiastic rector have been blinded by the hope, that his scholars would be moulded, as it were, into expert Latinists by these theatrical performances, and by acting comedy? If the bare reading of an author, like Terence, is dangerous to the scholar, how much more dangerous is it, when, from the necessities of acting, he is obliged to assume the characters and imagine himself in the situations of the drama.

Sturm's endeavor to make boys adepts in Latin eloquence had, moreover, a very great, and in my judgment, a very injurious influence upon his manner of reading and of treating the classics. It is true that he aimed, first of all, as every intelligent school-teacher should do, at a correct understanding of the language of authors; for he insists that the teacher should dwell upon the grammatical construction of the text long enough to arrive at such understanding.

But why is it, if I may ask so simple a question,-that we trouble ourselves to understand the language of a classical author as thoroughly as we do our own, so that we can read him with as great ease as if he had written in our own tongue? Doubtless it is, that, having arrived at an appropriate understanding of the language, we may penetrate through the language to the sentiment, and so at last may educe the intellectual individuality of the author from his works, and at the same time recognize in the author the characteristics of the nation, to which he belonged. But such an aim of classical studies is nowhere visible in Sturm's method; to him, to use a Kantian expression, the author himself is not an end, only a means to an end; that is, every author must be used for the cultivation of this deified Roman eloquence in boys. And how? Precisely as the peacock was