In the eighth class, in the eight year of the pupil, a beginning was made in exercises in Latin style. Sturm commends them to the teachers in the most urgent manner; but they appear, when closely examined, to have been almost wholly composed of attempts at that spiritless imitation, above alluded to; the preparation for them consisted in singling out and committing to memory, phrases, which they had noted in their lessons, as suitable to be used in Latin discourse or in these exercises. Do I now need to declare emphatically, that those youth, who, in reading the classics, have been engaged merely in a hunt after phrases for future use, or rather misuse, never arrive at a true understanding of these classics, and, what is more, that this method renders such an understanding wholly impossible? Do I need to observe, that youth thus trained will not learn either to admire or to loaderstand even, very many writers, who, like Tacitus, are essentially ties, rent from Cicero ? And as little will they attain to an underbeen ap of the poets, if it is made their chief aim in reading to comLatin only verses themselves, and if for this purpose they are instructed But German wacal flowerets from the Eneid, as they have before own theory, they woo from Cicero; or if, again, with a view to their this in so many words, buonstantly directed to those peculiarities he here remarks, "is by no means contendis, may borrow from the not Italians, Spaniards, French and Germans be eloquentcr ow language? The prose of Boccaccio is a model of purity and elegance to the Italians, and so is the sweet-sounding poetry of Petrarch. Comines charms the French as truly as ever Thucydides did the Greeks. And as for Luther," he continues, "has he not stood forth, a perfect master of our language, whether we look to purity of idiom or to opulence of expression? Princes, counselors, magistrates, embassadors, and jurists, all concede to him, the theologian, this praise. Luther truly vindicated a righteous cause, which in itself deserved the victory; but it was with the sinews of an orator that he wielded the weapons of controversy. Had there been no Reformation, had no sermons of Luther ever appeared, and had he written nothing at all save his translation of the Bible, this alone would have insured him an immortality of fame. For, if we compare with this German translation either the Greek, the Latin, or any other, we shall find them all far behind it, both in perspicuity, purity, choice of expression, and resemblance to the Hebrew original. I believe that, as no painter has ever been able to surpass Apelles, so no scholar will ever be able to produce a translation of the Bible that shall excel Luther's."

If we were compelled on other grounds to conclude that Sturm had become altogether denationalized, and a Roman to the core, this

But I have already evet da rasta v dession if the intelligent reader, where I pas ƒ as vezet zemoć fi maing the classics, only to mi an pines n

be used in exertis in

For all their

mere paltry sonnoissmy: she a
to a philological phases vin dhe
fashion, composed wins the BA

cal spirit. When we persee tuer e

of training that it demands, and so few have accomplished any thing by means of it.”

"We can not," continues Sturm, "lay the entire blame of this result upon the scholars. Year after year there have been many at the Strasburg Gymnasium, who have united to superior talents a strong desire to excel and great diligence. It has been so likewise at Louvain and at Paris. Now how is it, that among so many thousand, there have been so very few, who have applied the requisite diligence to Latin writing and declamation?" On a careful consideration, he concludes that the fault lies with the teachers, and with himself, and is partly inherent in the fact, that Latin is not the native tongue of the scholar.

If we examine this admission of Sturm carefully, we shall be at no loss to discover where the truth lies. Men of the very highest capacities, he says, were exceedingly desirous to become eloquent, but have been appalled before the style of eloquence taught in his school. Had Latin only been their native tongue, then they would have succeeded. But German was their native tongue, and in this, according to Sturm's own theory, they would have succeeded to perfection. And he asserts this in so many words, but a few lines further back. "Eloquence," he here remarks, "is by no means confined to the Latin tongue. Can not Italians, Spaniards, French and Germans be eloquent in their own language? The prose of Boccaccio is a model of purity and elegance to the Italians, and so is the sweet-sounding poetry of Petrarch. Comines charms the French as truly as ever Thucydides did the Greeks. And as for Luther," he continues, "has he not stood forth, a perfect master of our language, whether we look to purity of idiom or to opulence of expression? Princes, counselors, magistrates, embassadors, and jurists, all concede to him, the theologian, this praise. Luther truly vindicated a righteous cause, which in itself deserved the victory; but it was with the sinews of an orator that he wielded the weapons of controversy. Had there been no Reformation, had no sermons of Luther ever appeared, and had he written nothing at all save his translation of the Bible, this alone would have insured him an immortality of fame. For, if we compare with this German translation either the Greek, the Latin, or any other, we shall find them all far behind it, both in perspicuity, purity, choice of expression, and resemblance to the Hebrew original. I believe that, as no painter has ever been able to surpass Apelles, so no scholar will ever be able to produce a translation of the Bible that shall excel Luther's."

If we were compelled on other grounds to conclude that Sturm had become altogether denationalized, and a Roman to the core, this

passage just cited proves to us that it was not altogether so. But why, in view of his deep and heart-felt recognition of the great German master-piece of Luther, and why especially in view of his acknowledgment that Italians, French and Germans, had written classical works, each in their own language,-why, I repeat the question, did he continue, like a second Lisyphus, his fruitless endeavors to metamorphose German into Roman youths, and to impart to them, in defiance of the laws of human nature, another native tongue? The entire age in which he lived was in fault, not he: it was only at a later period, that the claims of our own country and our own language came to be properly regarded.