Experience has proved that the grammatical rudiments pertaining to declension and conjugation must be worked over very carefully first, although reduced to what is absolutely essential. Besides, the first lessons in the “Odyssey” ought not to exceed a few lines each time; and, during the first months, no accurate memorizing of words is to be demanded. But farther on the acquisition of a vocabulary must be vigorously insisted on; in fact, it becomes the pupil’s most necessary collateral work. By continued effort in this direction a considerable portion of the whole stock of words is gradually acquired; the language forms are supplied with the content to which they refer, and through which they become significant. The teacher must know exactly, not only when to hasten on, but also when to delay; for every perceptible gain in facility is likely to betray pupils into some carelessness which needs to be corrected at once. With good pupils it is not infeasible to read the whole of the “Odyssey,” since facility increases very rapidly toward the end. Nevertheless, such work should not extend much beyond two years; otherwise weariness sets in, or time is taken from other things. In schools it will be well to assign the first four books to one class, perhaps the class composed of pupils nine or ten years old, the next class to begin with Book V. To determine exactly how many books each class can work up thoroughly is unnecessary, as good translations can be used to fill in the gaps that occur. The reason for the division just made will be manifest at once upon a closer inspection of the “Odyssey.” Some books more advanced pupils may later on read by themselves, but they should be expected to render an account of what they are doing. It is not necessary at this stage to explain in detail the rarer peculiarities of the Homeric dialect. Such things may well be deferred until, later in the course, the study of Homer (of the “Iliad”) is resumed. The teacher who is afraid of the difficulties connected with the plan presented should remind himself of the fact that progress by any other path is equally beset with difficulties. While at work on Homer, care should be taken to keep pupils from being influenced simultaneously by such tales as those from the Arabian Nights, because they blunt the sense of the wonderful.
[41] These reasons apply in no way to the “Iliad,” but only to the “Odyssey.” Moreover, it is presupposed that religious feeling has been sufficiently awakened long beforehand. In that case the mythical elements can do no harm whatever, for, in so far as they are inconsistent with religious feeling, their effect is decidedly repellent, and renders an excess of illusion impossible.
[284.] Only two poets, two historians, and two philosophers need to be mentioned to indicate the continuation of the course. Homer and Virgil; Herodotus and Cæsar; Plato and Cicero. What authors should precede these, or should intervene, or follow, may be left for circumstances to determine. Xenophon, Livy, Euripides, Sophocles, and Horace will probably always retain a place by the side of those mentioned; Horace especially offers brief maxims, the after-effect of which the educator should by no means underestimate. It is obvious that Virgil and Herodotus are rendered much easier by taking up Homer first; on the other hand, the return to Homer (to the “Iliad”) during adolescence, is as little to be omitted, if only on account of mythology, as the return to ancient history for purposes of pragmatic study ([250]). Again, the syntactical scheme of the ancient languages, which involves far greater difficulties than do even inflections and vocabulary, is more easily mastered by placing the poets before the prose-writers, because then the pupils are not compelled to struggle with all the difficulties of sentence structure at once. At any rate, it is desirable that, just as the student’s Greek vocabulary is built up from the “Odyssey,” his hoard of Latin words should be drawn from the “Æneid.” The latter, however, will hardly be read entirely, because it cannot be gone over with nearly the same rapidity as the latter books of the “Odyssey,” when facility in reading has been attained. Cæsar’s “Bellum Gallicum” must be studied with exceptional carefulness, since its style comes nearer to being a desirable first model for the student of Latin than the style of the other authors in use. After this has been accomplished, the strictly systematic teaching and memorizing of Latin syntax, together with selected brief examples, is in order as one of the main lines of work. In Plato several books of the “Republic,” especially the first, second, fourth, and eighth, constitute a desirable goal. That Cicero should be revealed to young minds on his brilliant side first, namely, as orator, need scarcely be mentioned. Later on his philosophical writings become important; but many passages require a fuller development of the subject-matter than is given by him.
Cicero should frequently be read aloud, or rather declaimed, by the teacher. An orator demands the living voice; the usual monotonous reading by the pupils fails to do justice to him. As regards Tacitus for school use, there is a difference of opinion. Generally speaking, authors that say much in few words are particularly welcome, not merely to the explaining teacher, but also to the responsive pupil. The opposite is true of Cicero; he must be read rapidly in order to be appreciated.
For a full discussion of Latin texts to be read, the reader is referred to Professor Bennett’s chapters on “The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary Schools,”[42] pp. 111–130. For a discussion of the Greek texts, see Professor Bristol’s exposition in the same volume.
[42] Bennett and Bristol, “The Teaching of Latin and Greek,” Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1900.
[285.] Experience has long since shown how much or how little can be done with students in Greek and Latin composition; and no method will ever be devised which would induce earlier than at present that degree of mental maturity which reveals itself in a good Latin style. So long as gymnasium pupils are no more select than they now are, the majority, so far as writing Latin is concerned, will begin something that will never lead to successful performance. It would be better, instead, to practise diligently that which can be achieved, namely, composition during the recitation hour, with the assistance of the teacher, and, afterward coöperative consideration of the appointed task, by the pupils. This plan secures the advantage of set essays without the disadvantage of innumerable mistakes, the correction of which the pupil rarely remembers. Joint labor is interesting, and can be adapted to every age. As a substitute for essays, abstracts in Latin of texts previously interpreted are to be recommended, these abstracts to be made at first with the help and afterward without the help of the book in question. To abstract does not mean to imitate, and ought not to mean that. To imitate Cicero requires Cicero’s talent, and unless this exists, the attempt to imitate, it is to be feared, will result in cold artificiality. Even Cæsar is not so simple that his style could be taught and learned. But many passages of Cæsar may be memorized; at first short sentences, then longer periods, finally whole chapters. The usefulness of this practice is attested by experience.
[ CHAPTER VII
Further Specification of Didactics]
[286.] The more precise determination of the theory of instruction depends on the nature of particular subjects of instruction, on the individuality of the pupil, and on the external conditions of ethical life.