Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

it would seem, more to meet ignorance on the part of the master than the scholar, before being put into their hands. Hence the market is full of crude compilations all professing to be for the special use of schools. One of the most popular forms just now for schoolbooks is the catechetical. We have catechisms of geography, history, natural philosophy, &c. &c., (in endless variety. It is probable that the excellence of the Church Catechism and its wonderful success in fulfilling the intentions of its framers has led to the general adoption of the catechetical form. But the compilers of these manuals have not brought to their task the learning and judgment which distinguished the divines who drew up the Church Catechism. Nor have they at all understood the object those wise fathers had in view. Its very shortness might have taught them that it was by no means intended to supersede all further oral teaching, but to serve only as a guide, to indicate to the teacher an outline which his own industry was to fill up; to be a corrective to errors into which he might fall; to be deeply implanted in the minds of his scholars, as a standard by which they might assay the doctrines they heard in the schoolroom or the church. Whereas the books of which I speak are adapted to no such purposes. Not only do they presume the most absolute ignorance on the part of the teacher, and with tedious prolixity enter into every little detail; but their authors have fallen into the common error of taking elements and minor details to be synonymous, and have in general carefully avoided entering upon the principles on which the science of which they are treating is founded. Nor are many other of the books commonly used free from similar objections. School histories, for example, are generally dry recapitulations of facts and dates, unre

[blocks in formation]

lieved by a single reflection springing from the compiler's own mind, and therefore sure to be forgotten as soon as read. It is the custom, moreover, now-a-days to add a farrago of questions, to be answered from the text. These, as might be expected, the schoolboy contents himself with looking through and making out the answers just well enough to escape punishment; so that, in fact, they prevent rather than encourage a regular perusal the only method by which he could reap any lasting benefit.

The root of the evil lies in the presumption that the teacher can call forth the mental energies of his scholars while his own mind lies idle. There cannot be a greater error. If he is converted into an engine for putting stereotyped questions as he wearily plods along the oft-repeated track of a fixed routine, he will find that nine-tenths of his pupils will do nothing at all, or at best, become mere machines. Few boys' minds outstrip their master's. The clumsy compilations I have spoken of may gratify sloth, but can only cramp an active teacher. Question and answer, perhaps the most lively and attractive method that can be used, when it is extempore and illustrated by a quick fancy and a good text book, becomes hard and dry when put into a permanent form, and will only cramp the thoughts and weary the spirits of both master and scholar.

The best thing a master can do for his boys is to choose some book really worth their reading, make himself master of it beforehand, and while he goes through it in his class-room, explain and illustrate it from all available sources; taking care not to omit to lecture upon such questions of history and general literature as fairly come within the compass of the task before him. By so doing, he will teach his boys how

[blocks in formation]

to instruct themselves,-and that, after all, is the great end of all school work.

The Advancement of Learning was published in the year 1605. It was reprinted in the year 1629, and again (at Oxford) in 1633. I have been surprised to find how materially the common editions differ from the original text. Words and expressions are changed, terminations altered, and in fact, the whole text to a great extent modernized—a sure method of destroying all traces of the earlier stages of a language. Except as regards the spelling, I have held myself bound to reproduce the work as nearly as possible as it came from the author's pen. Where the text, therefore, is found to differ from that commonly received, it may be taken for granted that the change is on the authority of the editions of 1605 or 1633. The latter of these appears to have been corrected with considerable care; accordingly, where they agree, I have held myself bound to make no change; where they differ, I have used my own judgment, guided where it was possible by the Latin edition. To that of 1629 I had not access until some sheets were printed off; but it is very inferior to either of the others, and nothing would have been gained by consulting it. The Latin edition, to which I have from time to time referred the reader, came from the press in 1623. A very fine copy exists in the British Museum, and an equally good one in the Public Library at Cambridge. Whether the Latin is Bacon's own, or a translation from an English copy prepared by him, it is not a fit time to discuss; but there is internal evidence to show that it preceded the Novum Organum in composition, though not in publication.

The limits prescribed to me forbad adding much in the shape of comment. I have, however, here and

[blocks in formation]

there given a hint or a reference to other authors which may furnish the thoughtful student with sources of further reflection.

In tracing the references, I have received no assistance whatever from previous editions, except the translation of the De Augmentis, by G. Wats (Oxford, 1640), in which the name of the author supposed to be cited is generally added in the margin, and sometimes the title of the work. Bacon appears mostly to have quoted from memory, or perhaps from a common-place book, in which he might have jotted down the pith of such passages as he met with while collecting materials and thought likely to be useful. Hence it is often difficult to recognise with certainty the passage he had in view. But although he often does not give the exact words of an author, I have been strongly impressed with his conscientiousness in interpretation, and have found no instance in which he distorts the meaning of a passage to suit his purpose. I can scarcely hope to have always hit on the right passage, but when the difficulty of the task is remembered I shall doubtless receive indulgence.

For the headings, the divisions into chapters and paragraphs, marginal notes, and glossary, I am entirely responsible.

KING'S COLLEGE, London

April 28, 1852.

T. M.

« PreviousContinue »