any more now except perhaps for the Latin of a few Levantine

monasteries. At the utmost our men read them. We were taught these

languages because long ago Latin had been the language of

civilisation; the one way of escape from the narrow and localised

life had lain in those days through Latin, and afterwards Greek had

come in as the vehicle of a flood of new and amazing ideas. Once

these two languages had been the sole means of initiation to the

detached criticism and partial comprehension of the world. I can

imagine the fierce zeal of our first Heads, Gardener and Roper,

teaching Greek like passionate missionaries, as a progressive

Chinaman might teach English to the boys of Pekin, clumsily,

impatiently, with rod and harsh urgency, but sincerely,

patriotically, because theyfelt that behind it lay revelations, the

irresistible stimulus to a new phase of history. That was long ago.

A new great world, a vaster Imperialism had arisen about the school,

had assimilated all these amazing and incredible ideas, had gone on

to new and yet more amazing developments of its own. But the City

Merchants School still made the substance of its teaching Latin and

Greek, still, with nothought of rotating crops, sowed in adream

amidst the harvesting.

There is no fierceness left in the teaching now. Just after I went

up to Trinity, Gates, our Head, wrote a review article in defence of

our curriculum. In this, among other indiscretions, he asserted

that it was impossible to writegood English without an illuminating

knowledge of the classic tongues, and he split an infinitive and

failed to button up a sentence in saying so. His main argument

conceded every objection a reasonable person could make to the City

<<BackPagesTo menuForward>>