literature versus philosophy

7/27/2019 Literature Versus Philosophy

1/3

Literature versus Philology

Author(s): Hamilton Ford AllenSource: The Classical Weekly, Vol. 3, No. 20 (Mar. 19, 1910), pp. 163-164Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic StatesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4386190.

Accessed: 27/12/2013 02:08

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 of

content 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].

.

Classical Association of the Atlantic Statesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to The Classical Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.179.174.30 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 02:08:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4386190?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4386190?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classaas


2/3

THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY I63Posidonius on rhetoric. I cite from Plut. Pomp. 42;'In Rhodes Pompey heard all the scholars and gaveeach one a present of a talent; but Posidonius evencomposed or wrote out the lecture which he heldbefore him, having prepared it in reply to Herma-qoras, about the principles of rhetoric in general'.This rp6s -Ep,ua'y6zpavf Plutarch's text has deceivedthe editors of Cicero's Brutus and many others.One can hold a lecture in reply to, or in rejoinder toor for subversal of the current doctrine or theoryof the most eminent representative of a widely pre-vailing system, without having that authority presentin the flesh, or even alive. But this Jahn and theothers overlooked and thus created impossibilities.There was a theory of status everywhere, but itseems the reXo-ypdq5ot not always accepted the classi-fication of Hermagoras. In Quintil. 3. 6. 3I ff.Some put two, as did Appollodorus (who taught Oc-tavianus); so also Theodorus though with a radi-cally different theory. And then Posidonius himselfis named, who had also two large classes of -Ta'ras.But this will do to clear the matter.NEW YORK UNIVERSITY. E. G. SIHLER.

LITERATUREVERSUSPHILOLOGYFor some time in public discussion and privateconversation a wordy war has been waged betweenthe partisans of Literature on the one side and thepartisans of Philology on the other, while those whohave not felt called upon to take either side havestood apart and watched the fray, either as spec-tators interested in the outcome, or as mere loversof a good fight. As is usual in wars many of thewarriors in either camp do not understand what thefight is all about, but having taken sides, they aredoing their best to put their antagonists out of busi-ness. It is the leaders - and by these we meanthose who have written on the subject for publica-tion - who are stirring up all the disturbance. Yeteven in their case one cannot help feeling that someof them are as bewildered in respect of the realpoint at issue as are many of the rank and file.The leaders on the side of literature say that theiropponents, whom they stigmatize as 'narrow philolo-gists' and 'gerund-grinders', do not teach literaturein such a way as to ennoble and enrich the mindsof their pupils, but give them the dry husks of adead and deadening study of the dry bones of aninanimate skeleton, while the 'narrow philologist',thus rudely awakened from his intensive study ofthis 'subject' which we call language, is beginningto fight in self-defense, at the same time castingabout in his mind for good and valid arguments byusing which as a club he may pound some sense intothe heads of his adversaries.In this, as in every question debatable with argu-ments or fists, there are two sides, and if we can

call a halt in the conflict we may be able to show toall concerned that they really agree in all essentialsas well as in most of the details.Literature - in the dictionaries there are manydefinitions -is that which is written in the noblestlanguage and gives enlightenment and pleasure intheir noblest forms. No one, not even the philolo-gist, will for a moment deny that the study of litera-ture, as thus defined, will be of exceeding value tothe student. Yet, in spite of the fact that there arehigh-school pupils who 'understand Shakespeareperfectly', it is true that literature cannot be under-stood, or even enjoyed, until the mind cf the pupilhas been educated by easy, not too easy, stages tothe point where it can feel the thrill of pleasurewhich comes from association with the best mindsthrough the medium of the best literature.

Now everyone thinks that he understands hismother-tongue; some are even conceited enough tosay that they understand two or more languages, butwhen a test is made the subject is brought to seethat he did not know what it was 'to understand'.Hence the need for English, Course A, and Rhetoric,Course B, as well as for courses in other languages;hence the need for the intensive study of mere wordsthat the student may be sure that from the possiblemeanings he can choose the one which will fit in anygiven case. A brown hat is something we have allseen, but what does Dante mean when he says, "el'aer bruno toglieva gli animai"? One might make aguess and pass on-to other guesses, but if he doeshe will not understand the poet. The answer to thismight be that the teacher's duty is to make such ex-planation as is necessary to insure clear understand-ing on the part of the pupil. 'No', answers the phil-ologist, 'for how does the teacher know that he isright? Does he hand down a continuous, unbrokentradition from the poet? How does the pupil knowthat the teacher gives the correct interpretation? Inyour statement lies the crux of the whole question.Tradition deadens, while investigation gives life.Points once seemingly settled must be reinvestigatedby every age, lest the very life of thought die andthe human mind shrivel'.If we seek for side-lights to aid us in finding asolution of our question and turn to the naturalsciences for help, everywhere we find minute andpainstaking pursuit of knowledge. The scientist ofto-day is not content with the theories and explana-tions of the past; the physician of to-day is not thephysician of to-morrow, unless he is content to beleft behind in the march of progress. Not only doesscience seek for a knowledge of facts which may atonce be made of practical value to many, but it stud-ies matters whose practical value it would be verydifficult to demonstrate to any but the initiated. Theyoung student is at first set at performing experi-ments which have been performed by thousands of

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


3/3

J64 THE CLASSICAL WEEKLYstudents before him and will be performed by thou-sands of students after him. This is done that hemay be trained in the use and actions of the materialswith which he must work and that the results whichhe obtains may be checked up by the known resultswhich he ought to obtain. Not till the learner hasshown familiarity with and accuracy in the use ofhis materials is he allowed to go on with the studyof minor questions, the answer to which is not al-ready known. When he has shown his ability to copewith minor studies, because of accuracy, application,and the power of marshaling causes and effects inproper sequence, the learner is on the high road tothe city of truth.To return now to the point at issue. The teacherof literature and the philologist have much in com-mon and must work by methods fundamentally thesame in point of accuracy and minuteness. Thephilologist (according to the narrowest definition)makes language itself the subject of his study, buthe must bring to his work many aids, philosophy,phonetics, history. When, for example, he applieshimself to the task of following the vagariesof a Greek particle through its long life of cen-turies, he has set himself no mean task. It requirespowers of the same order as those required by theteacher of literature. Because he deals with sub-stances invisible to the naked eye is the miscroscopistnarrower than the astronomer who uses a telescopeand studies immense suns millions of miles distantfrom our earth? The teacher of literature must beat least enough of a philologist to use the ap-paratus which the philologist has prepared for him,while the philologist must be able to understandthe author's thought if he would understand thelanguage used to express that thought.If the partisan of literature says, "What you sayis granted, but you are beside the point. Our quar-rel is not that the philologist is not a useful ani-mal, but that philologists are in power and wish tomake all students philologists like themselves. Andwhen they have had their way they turn out fledg-lings who, not having their masters' power, but robethemselves in their masters' cloak and hat, and giveto minds still more immature mental food of ex-ceeding indigestibility". To which the philologistretorts, "Yes, but you would give to those same im-mature minds a sense for literature when they havenot the mentality to receive it. Those minds mustbe trained by the study of language before they canunderstand literature. There are already too manyuntrained, illogical teachers by word or pen whofoist upon an unthinking world 'studies' and 'ap-preciations' which are nonsense. Who, who, afterall the labor you have expended on them, will readthe books on the 'five-foot shelf' rather than the'six best sellers' of the day?"But wait, friends Do you not see that each of

you is necessary to the other? and that each mustuse the other's method, if he wishes to obtain thebest results? The whole question is a matter of em-phasis, and, as usual, too great attention to one sideof the question will obscure the validity of the ar-guments for the other side. As regards the factthat the newly fledged Ph. D. gives to his immaturepupils food which they do not yet need and, there-fore, cannot digest, that is merely the fault ofyouth and inexperience, and will be remedied by theyoung teacher's growing sense of proportion.Whether he will ever become a great teacher ofliterature or a great philologist depends on timeand temperament. Teach him how to walk and lethim do the climbing.

HAMILTON FORD ALLEN.WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON COLLEGE.

REVIEWSA Handbook of Greek Archaeology. By HaroldNorth Fowler and James Rignall Wheeler, withthe collaboration of Gorham Phillips Stevens.New York: American Book Company (I9o9).

PP. 559. $2.00.The appearance of this manual, the work of theEditor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Archae-ology and the Chairman of the Managing Commi-tee of the American School at Athens, will be wel-comed not only by teachers and students of theClassics, but also ny the wider circle of those whoare interested in Greece and things Greek. All theolder English manuals of Greek archaeology, such asMurray's HIandbook and Collignon's Manual in thelate Professor Wright's excellent translation, havebeen rendered hopelessly out of date by the rapidprogress that has been made since the time of theirpublication, and the need of a brief and authoritativestatement of the principal results of modern researchhas long been felt. To say that the new Handbooksatisfies this need is to emphasize only one merit ofthe work. In fullness of treatment and of illustra-tion it marks a distinct advance over its predecessorsand the arrangement of the matter is clearer andmore logical.The book begins with an Introduction on the studyand progress of classical archaeology in moderntimes and the first chapter is devoted to PrehistoricGreece. After this the treatment is topical: the re-maining chapters aiscuss Architecture, Sculpture,Terracottas, Metal Work, Coins, Engraved Gems,and Painting and Mosaic. A select bibliography andan index complete the book. The chapter on archi-tecture is the work of Mr. Stevens, revised by Pro-fessor Fowler, the chapters on vases and painltingare by Professor Wheeler, and the other chaptersare by Professor Fowler, but "both authors haveread the book fully and accept responsibility forthe statements contained in it".

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

literature versus philosophy

Documents