certainly considered practical in scope by his contemporaries. On this point, the conclusions of John W. Good, made after a careful study of the Milton tradition, are important. He reports that Milton was considered as an authority on educational principles and that his ideas were referred to and quoted as just the remedy that the educational conditions most needed.22 Furthermore, Hartlib had requested with "earnest entreaties and serious arguments" that the plan be put into writing. Milton's contemporaries, then, as well as Milton himself, appear to have regarded his plan as practical. The fundamental idea of Milton's "Academy" served, indeed, as a model for the educational establishment of the nonconformists after the Restoration. The Academy idea was subsequently introduced into America in 1743, and became for a half-century our chief type of secondary education.23 Second, the evidence of Milton's pupils shows that the plan which he evolved in his teaching was practical. Edward Phillips wrote that the pupils "ran over" in the first six years all the languages mentioned in the tractate with French in addition, and approximately the same assignments in the classics. Thomas Ellwood24 wrote in 1714 of the practical point of view in Milton's teaching of Latin, "not only to read and understand Latin authors, but converse with foreigners." It was on strictly practical grounds that Milton insisted on the Italian fashion of pronouncing Latin. It is doubtless true that in a hasty reading of the tractate, Of Education, one is led to believe that the scope of the curriculum is too great. But by reading more carefully and by plotting out of the studies of the tractate for the nine or ten years of the course one can see that the course of study is not unduly heavy. The languages, for example, do not constitute so great a burden as might be supposed, when we consider the great 22 A complete quotation from Good's thesis is given in the opening paragraph of this article. 23 Frank P. Graves, "Great Educators of Three Centuries," New York, 1912, pages 7, 8. 24 "Relation with John Milton," reprinted in Arber's "An English Grammar," volume III, page 475. amount of time available for their study. The study of grammar is limited to the "usefullest" and "chief and necessary rules." Compositions in foreign languages were not required; nor, so far as we can tell, were the students required to translate from English into the foreign tongues. Furthermore, Milton did not intend his pupils to learn to speak any language other than the Latin. For the others, they needed only a reading knowledge. Some commentators on the tractate have condemned the essay by interpreting in their most literal sense the statements of Milton in regard to learning Italian and Hebrew "at any odd hour" and "at any set hour." Surely a better interpretation is to consider these phrases as meaning simply regular, daily instruction for about an hour. As for the mathematical requirements: surely the fundamentals of arithmetic, geometry, and applied trigonometry are far from being overburdensome for a nine-year course of study. We should recognize also that there is no intent to offer professional training in the Academy. The fundamental principles of hygiene, as known in that day, were to be given in lecture (readings). The course of study in this subject is not nearly as extensive as the course in hygiene given in any good junior high school of today. The fact that Milton specifically excluded legal professional training from his curriculum has been overlooked by some of the critics who have gasped in dismay at the list of lawgivers which he cites near the end of the tractate. There is no real inconsistency here for Milton did not intend his scholars actually to read all the writings of Lycurgus, Solon, Zaleucus, Charondas, Justinian, and the English law-makers. What he does propose is a fundamental course in legal theory and principles; i. e. "the grounds of law, and legal justice." Finally, if Milton's plan was not too arduous for the students of his own time, it is not too difficult at present. There is no reason to suppose that the mental capacity of the race has diminished. With this consideration in mind we shall compare Milton's proposed curriculum with the modern course of study, "from twelve to one-and twenty"; that is, speaking in modern terms, secondary and higher education. A typical modern course and Milton's plan are arranged in adjoining columns. A comparison of the two will show that Milton's course is not more difficult than ours. First Section: Ages 12, 13, 14. Junior High School. Second Section: Ages 15, 16, 17. Senior High School. Third Section: Ages 18, 19. Junior College. Fourth Section. Ages 20, 21. Senior College. We have suggested that the common attitude towards Milton's Of Education needs revision. While the content of his curriculum is no longer fully significant, it was significant in the times for which it was written. As for the scope of the curriculum, it was not too arduous for Milton's time and would not be for ours. We have seen that the adverse criticism of the tractate is a relatively recent point of view, that Milton was capable and desirous of producing a workable plan, that his contemporaries and close successors believed that he had done so, that the proposed load of studies under Milton's plan was reasonable, and that a direct comparison of the scope of a modern course of study with the Miltonic proposals of the tractate shows that the modern course is no easier than the so-called "cyclopean" proposals of Milton. Peace It's not one river that flows to the sea, With a willing heart, and an open mind- CAROLINE PARKER SMITH |