best caught with a fly, and an artificial one at that. Consequently a preacher who thinks that he must fill the house or be pronounced a failure, and is not very scrupulous in regard to the means, being, as we have said, neither too pious nor too proud, is tempted to have recourse to the angler's artificial bait, to cast about him for out-of-the-way subjects, to study small eccentricities in manner or matter, to be superficially original and elaborately peculiar. In this way the crowd may be gathered, but what good is done? The flock "look up and are not fed." The unconverted leave the house of God, not smiting their breasts and saying, "God be merciful," but repeating, with noisy merriment, the witticisms which they have heard, or commenting on the eccentricities which have been exhibited. To them, the sermon is not a warning, a voice from the eternal world, awing their souls into silence and solemn thought, but a mere entertainment, which, leaving untouched the conscience and the heart, amuses for the hour.

The itinerancy leads certain minds into temptation in these directions, because the itinerant must make himself felt at once. He who gives way to an unholy ambition is afraid to trust to sound thought and solid strength, for these make no noisy talk in the community, gather no sudden crowd, create no sudden fame. The really intelligent and thoughtful, who love solidity and strength, are not readily drawn from their accustomed paths; and sudden crowds, consequently, must be made up of the frivolous and the impulsive. Soundness and strength may, in the abstract, be best, but the pulpit trifler deems them too slow to suit his purpose, or to meet the requirements of a system which requires all to be done in so short a time. We are aware that these same temptations may occur under other systems as well as our own, and that full-blown specimens of claptrap and charlatanry may be found in the "settled ministry," as well as elsewhere. Still, we deem the temptation one that occurs more readily under a system which demands rapid results.

Thus we have set forth what we deem the chief points of friction or of danger incidental to our system. We have tried to put them strongly, rather than diminish them. We purpose in a future article to turn to the other side of the question, and inquire for the advantages of the itinerancy. These are neither few nor small.

ART. VII.-HOW CAN WE TEACH GREEK?

THE Greek language has always formed a leading branch of classical education in this country, as in England and many other Protestant countries of Europe, and still occupies much of the time of students during several years. But what are the results? Is there even a single youth or teacher who feels satisfied with his success? Might it not be expected that, among the thousands who have passed through the regular collegiate course, there would be a considerable number who would read Greek books through life with profit and pleasure, and enrich their conversation and writings with quotations from the old masters of learning and eloquence? But where do we find anything of the kind? Would not a private gentleman be regarded as a prodigy, who should be found an habitual reader of Greek classical authors in their original language? And if any person should quote them, even in the most literary society, would he not be called a pedant by others not ashamed of being unable to understand him? At the same time would it be thought strange or improper, if several persons should be heard speaking French or German, although they might have spent but a few months, or even weeks, with one of our able foreign instructors? With such facts before us as are familiar to us all, may it not be well to inquire whether any improvement can be made in our methods of instruction in Greek? We might include the Latin language in the scope of our inquiries, were it not for certain particulars in which it appears in different aspects.

Some writers have endeavored to show that great advantages are derived by every student of Greek, from the discipline which his mind receives, in the long practice in learning and applying the rules of that language, (which is reputed by many to be the most perfect ever known,) and from the light which it casts upon English etymology, even though he may never open a Greek book in after life. We have not seen taken into account the unfavorable influences operating on the mind of a youth, by the prolonged and repul'sive task of applying abstract rules and vexatious exceptions to words which he never hears applied to their chief natural

use in speech, and by being at every step reminded of the instructor's incompetency to teach or to practice in that essential department. The contempt for learning, or at least the erroneous or confused ideas of the objects and uses of education which are naturally imbibed in the course of such a training, may exert deleterious influences on the opinions, character, and life.

But, whatever estimates may be made of the advantages or disadvantages above alluded to, will it not be admitted to be desirable that our youth, after leaving college, should be able. and disposed to read Greek books, and to prefer some of the classics, or at least the Greek New Testament, to the novels and romances of the present day, and to the frivolous and injurious amusements which engross the attention of some even of our educated countrymen?

And would it not be an additional advantage if this end were secured in much less time? Suppose, further, that the process were such as to educate the mind by a judicious exercise of its powers, to give the student confidence in his own intellectual abilities by their successful use, and to render that branch of learning attractive, the associations of the memory with it agreeable, and the prosecution of it continued through life. Suppose once more, that the student would be acquiring a familiar acquaintance with a language now spoken by an nteresting people, inhabiting a country of classical renown, resorted to by travelers of taste. Would these not be additional advantages, worthy of attainment?

But can these benefits be obtained? Is it possible to secure even a portion of them? How can our youth be brought to like the study of Greek, so long and so universally proverbial for its repulsive character? Who was ever known to take real pleasure for months and years in the study of Greek paradigms, particles, syntax, or prosody? Who, from any predilection for this, ever objected to the formal burial of Greek grammars, now annually practiced by graduating classes in our colleges that severe satire on a branch of study which should be pleasing, and of essential use through life?

But let us inquire whether this branch of education has ever been pursued in a different way, and with different results. That language was almost entirely unknown in Europe during

the dark ages; and its introduction was one of the causes of that illumination of the world by the light of the Gospel which dispelled their gloom and misery. The capture of Constantinople by the Turks drove many Greeks into Europe, among whom were men of learning who brought the New Testament in its original language, so that European scholars might confront it with the corrupted Latin Vulgate. Schools were opened for the Greek language, which was taught on one uniform system, with great popularity and success. It was an easy . method, agreeable to the teacher and pupil, the process being that natural to a living tongue. In a short time the pupil could read and write Greek, and understand and speak it with his teacher and with his fellow-students; and no serious objection appears to have been made against the practice introduced by the learned strangers, until Erasmus began to oppose it. He insisted that the modern language was essentially changed from that of classical times, and argued that the pronunciation and accentuation needed great reformation. Reuchlin presented himself as his opponent; and a long controversy ensued, which terminated in the general adoption, throughout Europe, of the system of Erasmus, which has ever since generally prevailed, though with us and in England rather nominally than really. The sounds of some most important Greek letters, in which Erasmus differed from Reuchlin, he described by means of the German alphabet; and to these we generally give their English sounds. Various changes have been made by different authors of elementary books, and by various teachers among us, until no common standard of pronunciation is admitted. A great diversity exists, without any prospect of assimilation, although efforts have been made to establish some kind of uniformity. One conclusion is certain, namely, that if the Erasmian system of pronunciation is correct, ours must necessarily be wrong, because we do not in fact practice this.

But the design of this article is not to discuss the questions between Erasmus and Reuchlin, or those relating to accent and quantity. Neither do we intend to inquire whether the modern Greeks speak a dialect of the ancient or a distinct language. The object is a purely practical one: to propose such a change in the method of instruction that the teachers

and the learners may derive from it some of the advantages above mentioned. But, before proceeding to explain the plan in view, it may be gratifying to some readers to take a hasty glance at the objections most commonly urged against the claims of modern Greek to the character of a dialect of of the ancient, and the answers which have been given to them.

Objection 1st. The orthography was, for a long time, very irregular.

Reply. So was that of English in past centuries: but that of the Greek now conforms to the ancient standard.

Objection 2d. The moderns express the sound of e, (as in the English word me,) by nine different vowels and diphthongs; and how could the ancients have understood each other, if speaking or writing in that manner?

Reply. 1. The moderns understand each other. 2. We express the same sound in our English language by nine vowels and consonants, namely: as in Caesar, me, heat, see, seize, oblique, grief, œconomy, and truly. Beside this, we express the sound of a, (as in make,) in eight different ways; that of i, (as in time,) in six, etc., etc.

Objection 3d. The moderns sound omikron as they do mega, though the former should be short o, and the latter long o.

Reply. No. This objection arises from an erroneous opinion current with us, which regards the short sound of aw (in awl) as the short sound of o. The sound which we give to o in hot is not the short sound of o in note. The modern Greeks, on the contrary, give the true sound of o to both omikron and omega, only shortening the former and lengthening the latter. Objection 4th. The modern Greek has no dual number. Reply. The inhabitants of what was Lacedemonia retain it. But it is not an essential feature of the language.

Objection 5th. The modern language does not contain all the roots of the ancient.

Reply. The ancient language does contain all the roots of the modern.

Objection 6th. The moderns generally use the subjective mood instead of the infinitive.

Reply. The ancients sometimes did the same.