supplement || the attack on the castle

The Attack on the CastleAuthor(s): Carleton BrownSource: PMLA, Vol. 51, Supplement (1936), pp. 1294-1306Published by: Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/458184 .

Accessed: 19/12/2014 01:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 01:26:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla

http://www.jstor.org/stable/458184?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE ATTACK ON THE CASTLE

By CARLETON BROWN, President of the Association

1\MONG the allegories devised in the Middle Ages for the inculcation of spiritual truths one of the most wide-spread was that of Castle Anima.

The plot of the allegory was very simple, being essentially little more than the elaboration of a hint supplied by the verse of scripture: If the paterfamilias had known in what hour the thief was coming he would have watched and not have suffered his house to be broken through.

The paterfamilias is Mind (animus) whose family are thoughts, emotions, sensations, and actions. The castle is Conscience, in which the paterfamilias has collected the treasure of the virtues. Though the principal thief is the Devil, yet he is not single-handed, because each of the separate vices lies in wait to assail its antithetic virtue. As a guard against the Devil and his satellites the paterfamilias stations Prudence at the door of the Castle. Near at hand stands Fortitude to repel the violent assault of any invader. In the midst is seated Justice to award to each according to his desert. Vigilance is to watch without intermission, since no one knows at what hour the thief may come.

Moreover, to this castle come warning messengers to arouse the defend- ers to action. The first messenger to arrive is Timor Mortis. On being ad- mitted he proceeds to describe in graphic terms the torments of hell. Alarmed thereby, the wardens of the treasure in the Castle take counsel as to what they should do. Says Prudence: "Be faithful, prudent, and watch in prayer, providing goods not only in the sight of God but before men." Says Temperance: "Be sober and watchful." Says Fortitude: "Be com- forted in the Lord, clothe you in the armor of God, the breastplate of justice, the shield of faith, the helmet of Salvation. Grasp the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God." Justice says: "Let us live soberly among ourselves, justly toward our neighbor, and piously toward God. What we do not wish to be done to us let us not do to others."

But the allegory does not conclude with the note of anxiety and despair. A second messenger, Desiderium Vita Eternee, arrives bringing news of the bliss of heaven. The morale of the Castle is thus restored and Timor Mortis is sent away for the present, though it is agreed to recall him should it prove necessary. The story concludes with a moral application: Thus every one ought to banish his torpor, and lift himself up from fear to the desire for the heavenly home.

According to some later versions of the allegory, the paterfamilias was known as Wit and he was given an untoward wife, Will, but with these domestic complications we need not now concern ourselves.

We may still find profitable doctrine in these ancient allegories, for even

1294



Carleton Brown 1295

when stated in the baldest terms they are often capable of being extended far beyond their original application to illustrate truths which are perma- nent.

Thus Castle Anima of the old allegory may be used today as a profoundly appropriate symbol for our intellectual heritage-the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge. In this repository are stored the rich treasures of wisdom and experience which have been bequeathed to us by earlier generations. It would be an easy matter if time served to enlarge upon the value of this inheritance from the past, for it is this which constitutes the intellectual capital of the race; without this neither arts, science, nor the humanities could maintain themselves, and civilization would speedly lapse into bar- barism.

But there is no need to dwell on this topic before this audience. Nor would it be profitable to launch into a psychological discussion of the rela- tions between Animus and the several members of his family.

I wish instead to center attention upon the significant warning which is contained in the words of the allegory: If the paterfamilias had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched and not have suffered his house to be broken through.

Other allegories there are which represent a Castle beset by foes who en- deavor to subdue it by military assault. The special characteristic of our allegory consists in an attack upon Castle Anima by thieves who attempt to despoil it of its treasures furtively. The lesson suggested by this warning, then, seems to be first of all one of vigilance. But is there occasion, one asks, for us today to defend our intellectual heritage against the wiles of those who would lay waste and carry off its treasures?

Before proceeding to answer this question directly I wish to recall an incident which occurred a quarter of a century ago at a meeting of the Modern Language Association. In an address delivered December 29, 1910, Col. Elliott F. Shepard called attention with the utmost earnestness to the successive attempts which were even then being made to restrict more and more the study of the classics in American colleges and universities. After deploring this attack upon the citadel of the humanities, he continued: "But it is not for the scholars in the Modern Languages to regard this attack upon the classics with indifference or complacency. For, believe me, gentlemen, if this attack succeeds your turn will come next." Seldom has more inspired prophecy been uttered, although of those who listened to his warning probably few imagined that they would live to see the fulfill- ment of his prediction.

The attack upon the Castle at that time, however, was for the most part carried forward by a series of mining operations directed especially against the classical wing. And in these operations the besiegers seem to have at-



1296 The Attack on the Castle

tained virtually all their objectives. But today the attack is no longer being made furtively and it is not directed alone at the classical wing but is an aggressive frontal attack against the main position.

A present-day social philosopher in an article, "What Education Is Most Worthy?" published in a popular journal only last Spring proposes a de- tailed program for education in American schools and colleges:

I would give academic credit for swimming, baseball, football, basketball, and those other lusty games that require and develop more intelligence and character than all the conjugations of Greece and Rome ...

Even the modern foreign languages are hardly fit for the classroom; one never learns them from books, however patiently suffered and perused; if you wish to learn French, go live with the French and throw the grammars to the grammarians, who are the only ones that have ever profited from them . .

Philologists should be encouraged to learn and preserve Latin and Greek for the purposes of scholarship and history, but there is no more reason for making a dead language compulsory than for compelling the student to learn an obsolete trade. There is but one decent thing to do with a dead language, and that is to bury it.'

Our educational reformer, it will be noted, is not an absolute iconoclast. He would install the classical languages along with other fossil remains in a museum as curiosities to be examined by philological specialists.

Beside these modern sentiments as to the educational value of foreign languages let us place the words written more than a thousand years ago by King Alfred. Coming to the throne at a time when learning had been almost wiped out by the ravages of war, Alfred reflected upon the happier conditions of earlier times:

And how foreigners came to this land in search of wisdom and instruction, and how now if we are to have them we should have to get them from abroad .. I remembered also ... how the churches throughout the whole of England stood filled with treasures and books, and there was also a great multitude of God's servants, but they had very little profit from the books for they could not understand anything of them inasmuch as they were not written in their own language. Our forefathers who formerly held these places loved wisdom and through it they obtained wealth and left it to us. One may still see their track, but we are unable to follow after them. For this cause we have lost both the wealth and the wisdom, because we were unwilling to follow in their footsteps.. .. I wondered why the good and wise men who were formerly all over England and had thoroughly learned all these books did not translate any of them into their own language. But I soon answered my own question in these words: They never imagined that men would ever become so neglectful or that learning would fall away to such an extent. They purposely omitted to translate them in order that here in this land wisdom might be the greater according as we knew more languages.

1 Will Durant, Saturday Evening Post, April 11, 1936.



Carleton Brown 1297

The period in which Alfred lived-somewhat patronizingly termed the Dark Ages-finds slight recognition in the program of history drawn up by our modern social philosopher. In his high school course the first year is devoted to Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Crete; the second to classical culture, Buddha's India and the China of Confucius, and the third year to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, together with Islam, the Moguls and the Tang Dynasty of China. The college course in the first year would cover Modern History from Luther to the French Revolution; in the second year, the vicissitudes of revolution and democracy from 1789 to the World War; in the third year American history from the Mayas and Incas to the present time. "It would be," he explains, "but an introduction to history.... But it would give the young student such a perspective of human affairs from the first pyramid to the last election as might fit him to think and move more intelligently among the issues of his time."

Yet in the very act of launching this program for an educational pano- rama from the pyramids to the last election the writer in question makes some naive if inconsistent admissions which unfortunately are likely to be overlooked by readers dazzled by these get-rich-quick methods in education. In his concluding paragraph he remarks: I believe that European education is more thorough in its methods and finer in its product than ours; partly through a longer and more stable tradition that intercepts fads and frills at their birth; partly through a wise concentration of scholastic time upon a smaller variety of subjects . . . and partly through the severer demands made upon the student both in the quantity of work required and in the strictness of discipline maintained. His proposal to send the ablest of our normal-school graduates to study the educational methods of England, Germany, and France might lead to profitable results, but one would suppose it possible to learn such an obvi- ous lesson without awaiting the return of the normal-school pilgrims.

Some persons may feel that the views put forward in this article need not be given serious consideration by the members of such an Association as ours, but I ask you to bear in mind that it reaches more than a thousand readers to every one present in this audience-even including those not present who may afterwards read what I am saying here. Moreover, radical-even virulent-criticisms of the processes of education always have for the popular mind a far stronger appeal than careful and scientific discussion. An obiter dictum like, "There is but one decent thing to do with a dead language and that is to bury it," will to many persons appear to be conclusive argument.

We could afford perhaps to treat these assaults on the castle with more indifference if they were isolated and sporadic attacks. But it appears that at the present time an organized effort is being put forth to modify essen-




tially not only the methods but also the objectives of education in this country. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science for November, 1935, was entirely devoted to a series of articles on the general subject "Education for Social Control." A radical difference in basis and motive, however, is to be noted between the article which we have been considering and this series of papers. The writer of the former attacked the educational curriculum solely from the individualist point of view; it was his contention that the student could acquire a knowledge of modern foreign languages more effectively by travel in Europe than by studying them in the schools. The group of writers in the Annals, on the other hand, attack our system of education because it "rests upon the leisure class idea" which they regard as "wholly out of place in a democracy."

To examine each of these articles separately, even to present a full list of their titles is here impossible, nor will it be necessary inasmuch as all of them proceed from the same premises and have the same goal in view. A few quotations will suffice to illustrate the thesis which they seek to estab- lish. One writer protests: We are trying to teach a selfishly individualized education to a socialized generation. . . . The central problem of education is to train the individual for the society and age in which he must live.... Our curriculum reflects an individualistic, egoistic, possessive, and competitive society, whereas if it were responsive to actual conditions, it would reflect creative, social, and cooperative impulses. Our curriculum is loaded with Latin, algebra, geometry, and the English classics, all of which are de- signed to prepare students for more of the same irrelevant content at the college level.... Our whole curriculum has too long been dominated by the idea of culture, by histoiy for history's sake, by the classical tradition.... An education that is unrelated to life rests upon the leisure class idea. It is wholly out of place in a democracy where each individual must perform some useful function.2

This writer, it will be noted, allows a ray of brightness to enter the gloom of the socially controlled curriculum, in permitting the exercise of creative impulses. One wonders, however, just to what extent creative impulses would function, and what preposterous fruits they would produce, if nourished exclusively upon contemporary painting, music, and letters. For any con- sistent rejection of the treasure of the past must include rejection of the treasure of its art.

Psychologists tell us that between the mind of the child and that of the adult one of the main differences consists in the fact that, whereas to the adult the present is seen in its relation to the past and the future, the mind of the child reacts almost exclusively to what is immediately present. These attempts to hamper and circumscribe liberal education are attributable

2 Edgar Bruce Wesley, pp. 22-23.



Carleton Brown 1299

in no small degree to the strong tendency in the life of today to measure the importance of almost everything in terms of the present instead of judging it by the perspective of the past-or even of future possibilities.

Further, how is it possible to gain a true interpretation even of the life of the present without an understanding of the contending forces which have contributed to its development? When objects are regarded solely according to their distance from the eye of the beholder, all perspective is lost. An attentive reading of Lecky's History of Rationalism or his History of European Morals would supply a wholesome antidote for many of the doc- trinaire theories and superficial social programs which vex the world today.

The writer of another paper in this series, discussing "Education for Eco- nomic Security," declares3 that "the outstanding defect in our present program is the failure of the teachers of utilizing them [i.e. the subject-matter fields] more effectively as a means for achieving the social-civic aims of education." He would co-ordinate the work of the several departments "through a curriculum organized about social and economic concepts rather than in subject-matter specifications." In another paper, "Educa- tion for Participation in Government," the writer objects that

in many school systems all pupils are required to take certain courses, such as algebra, even though they have no intention of becoming engineers or mathematicians. ... The majority of those who do master this course find it of little practical value in school or in life, apart from meeting artificial and obsolete college requirements. Courses in civics and government certainly offer as much educational value for the average pupil as do courses in algebra.4

No one, of course, will criticize the introduction of courses in civics for the purpose of explaining the operation of our governmental machinery and awakening youth to a sense of their civic duties and responsibilities. As a matter of fact, courses have long been given in high schools as well as in the colleges and universities in which not only the mechanism of our political system but the history of the Constitution is studied. And it must be an exceptional student who completes his high school training without an understanding of his primary obligations as a citizen. The writer of this last paper is himself Director of Research in personnel administration for the U. S. Civil Service Commission, from which we may infer that he was thinking particularly of training for those intending to enter government service. But the number of such persons is distinctly less than the number of those who aspire to becoming engineers and mathematicians. And if algebra is not essential in some branches of government service, certainly in others a knowledge of foreign languages is indispensable. Nor will it be for- gotten that in the government's own schools-at West Point and also at

I Lucien B. Kinney, pp. 30-40. 4 L. J. O'Rourke, pp. 50-52.




Annapolis-a rigid training in both mathematics and foreign languages is required.

Another paper is entitled "Should the School Seek Actively to Recon- struct Society?"-a title which might without impropriety be altered to read: "Should the Social Sciences Seek Actively to Reconstruct the Schools?"

When one turns from these papers in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science to A Challenge to Secondary Education,5 a substantial volume of nearly 400 pages, likewise issued in 1935, one finds precisely the same point of view, and even the same phrases employed. A casual examination shows that the two represent not independent but concerted criticism of the basis of secondary education. And the writers in both refer repeatedly and with cordial approval to the Report in 1934 of the Commission on the Social Studies, American Historical Association, by which their own statements are more or less directly inspired. The very fact, then, that we have to do with a widely organized and strongly supported campaign gives added importance to the views which are expressed.

The present curriculum of the high school is criticized as still laden with subjects that are highly academic or classical, subjects that prepare young people for a tradition-ridden college, rather than for living in the modern world.... Courses in history, for sample, deal largely with political and military affairs. Much of the social history describes the modes of living of well-to-do political leaders, of large land-holders, of affluent merchants and manufacturers. On the other hand, there is no realistic story of the struggles of workers and farmers to wrest a living for themselves and their families. There is little or no treatment of the arduous building of labor organizations which helped to lift the wages and working conditions of millions of people above the poverty level (p. 197). Instead of organizing the curriculum into narrow subjects of study, it should be set up as integral parts of the broad theme or objective, namely "planning and building the new society." . . . These parts might be designated as areas of experience, for example, "making a living," "developing health," etc. Each of these areas would have definite social objectives (p. 200).

The subjects now being taught in the secondary schools, it is pointedly suggested (p. 218), hold their place in the curriculum through the professional interest of "large numbers of teachers [who have] devoted many years of their lives to preparation for the teaching of these subjects. Could they be expected to be discarded without protest?" The insinuation under- lying this question is not a pleasant one and hardly seems justified. Yet if one were disposed to indulge in suspicion one might point out with quite as much reason that professional interests are also involved in the pro-

I A Challenge to Secondary Education, by Samuel Everett (editor) and others (D. Appleton- Century Co., 1935).



Carleton Brown 1301

posal to turn over the lion's share of instruction in the secondary schools to teachers of the social sciences.

"Most Americans," it is affirmed, "will never use history, mathematics, physics, chemistry and the like, as these subjects are now taught. For the most part, such skills and knowledge can be learned in a graduate school or whenever individuals feel the real need for such specialization."

Foreign languages are to be accorded similar treatment. The same writer continues: Few Americans will ever travel abroad and therefore need a foreign language. A relatively few individuals will use foreign languages in business. Only a very small group of children will have language for its own sake. The whole tone of a secondary school can be so developed that the acquisition of a foreign language as a mark of the leisure class and as a badge of invidious distinction will be in disrepute (p. 295).

Abandonment of these courses by the secondary schools would, of course, open a wide chasm between these schools and the colleges and universities. Consider what it would mean if our institutions of higher education were compelled to extend their curriculum downward to include elementary instruction in all the sciences, mathematics, and the humanities. And consider also that the student looking forward to advanced work in any of these fields would be obliged to postpone even laying foundations in them and to spend the valuable years of his time in the secondary school subjected to "a curriculum organized about social and economic concepts." Should we really "promote democracy," as it is asserted, by making it necessary for the more capable and promising students to bridge this chasm between the secondary school and the college by transferring himself, at what in many cases would be prohibitive expense, from state-supported schools to private preparatory schools?

After removing from the curriculum these "subject-matter fields"- which at present constitute a large proportion of the courses offered in the secondary schools-what do the advocates of education for social control propose to substitute? In regard to this they express themselves much more vaguely than they do in indicating the subjects which they would drop. Their program has for its objective "an understanding of the nature and purpose of the social organization and an interest in social and economic movements." While no one will object to all possible enlightenment in these matters, this, it will be observed, is not so much civics as it is social theory. And I, for one, seriously question whether the average high-school student without further study in "subject-matter fields" is ripe enough to gain an intelligent "understanding of the nature and purpose of the social organization." In wrestling with such problems the immature mind, instead of forming independent judgments, is likely to be exploited by those who have their own social theories to expound.




Quite apart from the justifiable suspicion with which we may regard the introduction of such courses in a program of Education for Social Con- trol, one may point out that it is a reversal of logical method to load the secondary school curriculum with courses which are ordinarily given in college, while at the same time excluding elementary instruction in subjects outside the field of the social sciences. Some elasticity in the secondary school curriculum is desirable, and it will be conceded that students should not be obliged to pursue the same subjects whether they are preparing for college or not. This is in fact current practice. The program which is proposed, however, would not give greater elasticity, but by cutting out languages, mathematics, and sciences would force the student into the groove of the social sciences.

The discussions of these new educational policies are enlivened by the introduction of up-to-the-minute slogans and catchwords, such as "We are trying to teach a horse-and-buggy curriculum to an automobile age." And "rugged individualism" is repeatedly execrated and is banished to the wilderness like Azazel as a scapegoat bearing the sins of the people. On the other hand, the advocates of the proposed system exert themselves to laud Democracy as its goal: "The finest democratic ideals would dominate all aspects of the school experience. Democratic purposes would serve as a guide to all the activities in which pupils engage." But one sometimes sus- pects that "democracy" is used, like "the blessed word Mesopotamia," without any very clear appreciation of what it signifies. In such passages as the following, for example, the foreign label is easily discernible:

The revolutionary changes now under way make a thoroughgoing reconstruction of American education inevitable. Such reconstruction is particularly needed in American secondary education where current practice is largely based upon a classical tradition which is outmoded (p. 285).

In the United States, as in other countries, the age of individualism and laissez-faire in economy and government is closing and a new age of collectivism is emerging. In order to realize our cherished democratic ideals and the maximum use of technolog- ical efficiency, this new age must exert many mandatory social controls (p. 291).

Is there not something distinctly incongruous in a program which associates "democratic ideals" with "mandatory social controls?"

Without questioning the sincerity of the advocates of this program, one is disquieted by this expressed determination to "exert many mandatory social controls," especially when one recalls that the series of papers in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science are grouped under the general title "Education for Social Control."

"Secondary education," we are told, "should be organized in terms of a society-centered program in preference to either the child-centered or the



Carleton Brown 1303

curriculum-centered program." This is truly a notable departure from individualism, either rugged or otherwise. But are we yet prepared to ac- cept the doctrine that education has as its fundamental purpose the service of the state rather than the development of the individual? If so, we have already set out on the road to the totalitarian state.

In this pressure for socialized education, nothing to my mind is more insidious than the disparagement of what are termed "subject-matter fields" and "content courses." This attitude is very similar to that dis- played by those professional educators who concern themselves with the functioning of mental processes-in other words with so-called "teaching methods"-without giving attention to their objective. Intellectual energy and perception cannot be developed in a rarefied atmosphere, insufficiently supplied with factual content. Nor can intellectual development proceed unless the mind is continually enriched by new stores of knowledge. But instead of opening larger domains of knowledge the proposed program would restrict the mental horizon by subordinating the humanities and all other fields of intellectual effort to the position of mere tributaries to the social sciences. "The subject-matter fields," it is declared, "are to be con- sidered not as ends in themselves but as means by which social principles, attitudes and ideals are to be acquired" (pp. 30-40). In other words, a socially standardized world, cleared of all cultural impedimenta, is con- ceived as the "far-off divine toward which the whole creation moves."

The attacks which we have been considering, it is true, are directed particularly against the system of secondary education. And some persons may be disposed to ask why the Modern Language Association should concern itself with this matter. I answer that those who are posted on the parapet of the castle cannot afford to ignore attempts to undermine the foundations.

Research in the humanities, as it is being carried on today in the graduate schools and by individual scholars must depend to a considerable extent upon stimulating an interest in these investigations among the larger groups of serious students in the colleges and universities.

For certeinly, as that these clerkes seyn, 'Wher-as a man may have noon audience, Noght helpeth it to tellen his sentence.'

In the same way the intelligent interest of students at the college level is possible only if they have had the advantage of adequate training in the secondary school. Accordingly, if the foundations of education are weak- ened, the entire structure is imperilled.

Enough has been said, I think, to make it clear that the attack which is now being made must be regarded seriously. Let it not be said of us: If the




paterfamilias had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched and not have suffered his house to be broken through.

But I am unwilling to conclude this discussion of the attack on the Castle on a note of pessimism. And in this point also I follow the method of the mediaeval allegorist. For it will be remembered that after Timor Mortis had delivered his message of serious warning, the morale of the Castle was restored and Timor Mortis was dismissed for the time, though with the understanding that he would be recalled later should this prove necessary. But meantime, in place of Timor Mortis a second messenger arrived, Desiderium Vita Eterna, bringing with him tidings of hope and confidence.

It is a relief to turn now from the forebodings awakened by these dis- turbing and confused programs for socially controlled education to the calm and philosophic words of Newman, in his well known exposition of the idea of a University. Although nearly a century has passed since this trea- tise was written, Newman even at that time found the champions of utili- tarianism in education actively in the field, supporting their position by arguments drawn from Locke's Thoughts on Education. The Edinburgh Reviewers had quoted with apparent approval the objections which Locke had raised against classical education. Such was the controversy in which Newman vigorously engaged. To the challenge of those who sought to measure education by utilitarian standards Newman replied:

Certainly it is specious to contend that nothing is worth pursuing but what is useful; and that life is not long enough to expend upon interesting, or curious, or brilliant trifles. Nay, in one sense I will grant it is more than specious, it is true; but, if so, how do I propose directly to meet the objection? Why, Gentlemen, I have really met it already, viz., in laying down that intellectual culture is its own end; for what has its end in itself has its use in itself also. I say if a Liberal Education consists in the culture of the intellect, and if that culture be in itself a good, here, without going further, is an answer to Locke's question; for if a healthy body is a good in itself, why is not a healthy intellect? And if a College of Physicians is a useful institution because it contemplates bodily health, why is not an Academical Body, though it were simply and solely engaged in imparting vigor and beauty and grasp to the intellectual portions of our nature? (p. 162.)

The current of Newman's reasoning flows so smoothly and irresistibly that it is difficult to abridge his argument. He proceeds:

I say, let us take "useful" to mean not what is simply good, but what tends to good, or what is the instrument of good; and in this sense, Gentlemen, I will show you how a liberal education is truly and fully a useful, though it be not a professional education. "Good" indeed means one thing, and "useful" means another; but I lay it down as a principle that though the useful is not always good, the good is always useful (p. 164).



Carleton Brown 1305

The process of training by which the intellect, instead of being formed or sacrificed to some particular or accidental purpose, some specific trade or profession or study or science, is disciplined for its own sake, for the perception of its own proper object, and for its own highest culture, is called Liberal Education (p. 152).

It would have been easy to present the "practical" advantages of liberal education, but Newman did not choose to do this. He based his argument upon the very nature of man's intellectual faculties, and he refused to de- scend from this high plane to haggle over the relative advantages of this or that course of study. Though his defence of liberal education had been called forth primarily by attacks upon the classics, the principles which he lays down apply not to the humanities alone but equally to the sciences and mathematics. The pursuit of knowledge in any of these fields should not depend on being countersigned by utility.

To the question, "What is the end of University education and of the Liberal or Philosophical knowledge which [it] imparts," Newman answered: that it has a very tangible, real and sufficient end, though the end cannot be divided from that knowledge itself. Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Such is the constitution of the human mind that any kind of knowledge, if it be really such, is its own reward (pp. 102-103).

The communication of knowledge, however, though in itself commend- able, is not the sole function of a University, which is more correctly described "as a place of education rather than of instruction." "Education," says Newman, "is a higher word; it implies an action upon our mental nature" (p. 114). In other words, he draws a clear distinction between pedantry and arid scholasticism on the one hand, and true education. His imagination kindled as he described the enlargement of view which comes with true education: The enlargement consists not merely in the passive reception into the mind of a number of ideas hitherto unknown to it, but in the mind's energetic and simul- taneous action upon and towards and among these new ideas which are rushing in upon it. It is the action of a formative power, reducing to order and meaning the matter of its own acquirements; it is a making the objects of our knowledge subjec- tively our own.

One may doubt whether a psychologist could have described the process more accurately. Certainly no one has described it more eloquently. This is indeed the modern allegory of Castle Anima.

Nowhere throughout the length and breadth of the land, I need hardly remind you in concluding these remarks, could one have found a more appropriate spot in which to plead the cause of the humanities than in this venerable institution of learning and in the very building which com- memorates the founding of Phi Beta Kappa.




According to established practice in this Association, the annual Presi- dential address is delivered as a valedictory instead of an inaugural. Though it would provoke mirth to refer to this very prosy discussion as a swan song, yet it does mark my last appearance before you in an official capacity, and this may perhaps excuse a personal word in conclusion. It is keenly dis- appointing to me that the exigencies of the existing situation have seemed to make it a matter of duty on this occasion to plunge into pedagogical polemics.

Gladlier, I wolde write yif yow leste Penelopees trouthe and good Alceste.

It would have been very pleasant to comment upon the steady increase in the influence and usefulness of the Association, and to look forward to the still larger promise of the future. But though the expression of such gratu- latory sentiments would have been agreeable and fitting, it can be spared; and the actual achievement of the present makes it unnecessary to borrow assurances from the future.

But what I cannot forego is the opportunity in this last word to express my deep appreciation of the generous and faithful co-operation cheerfully given by a host of friends-many of whom I still see before me-in the vicissitudes through which the Association passed in more difficult days. And among this large number, I cannot refrain from offering an individual tribute to my good friend whom you have just elected to succeed in the high honor of this office. It is to this devoted fellowship that the progress of the Association has been due, and with the continuance of this splendid spirit of loyalty its future is secure.



supplement || the attack on the castle

Documents