The Novel and the Common School | Page 6

to our deeds and our thoughts! It is as easy to
know about Socrates as about Franklin and General Grant. Having the
mind open to other times and to the significance of great men in history,
how much more clearly they comprehend Franklin and Grant and
Lincoln! Nor is this all. The young mind is open to noble thoughts, to
high conceptions; it follows by association easily along the historic and
literary line; and not only do great names and fine pieces of literature
become familiar, but the meaning of the continual life in the world
begins to be apprehended. This is not at all a fancy sketch. The writer
has seen the whole assembly of pupils in a school of six hundred, of all
the eight grades, intelligently interested in a talk which contained
classical and literary allusions that would have been incomprehensible
to an ordinary school brought up on the ordinary readers and
text-books.
But the reading need not be confined to the classics nor to the
master-pieces of literature. Natural history--generally the most
fascinating of subjects--can be taught; interest in flowers and trees and
birds and the habits of animals can be awakened by reading the essays
of literary men on these topics as they never can be by the dry
text-books. The point I wish to make is that real literature for the young,
literature which is almost absolutely neglected in the public schools,
except in a scrappy way as a reading exercise, is the best open door to
the development of the mind and to knowledge of all sorts. The
unfolding of a Greek myth leads directly to art, to love of beauty, to
knowledge of history, to an understanding of ourselves. But whatever
the beginning is, whether a classic myth, a Homeric epic, a play of
Sophocles, the story of the life and death of Socrates, a mediaeval

legend, or any genuine piece of literature from the time of Virgil down
to our own, it may not so much matter (except that it is better to begin
with the ancients in order to gain a proper perspective) whatever the
beginning is, it should be the best literature. The best is not too good
for the youngest child. Simplicity, which commonly characterizes
greatness, is of course essential. But never was a greater mistake made
than in thinking that a youthful mind needs watering with the slops
ordinarily fed to it. Even children in the kindergarten are eager for
Whittier's "Barefoot Boy" and Longfellow's "Hiawatha." It requires, I
repeat, little more pains to create a good taste in reading than a bad
taste.
It would seem that in the complete organization of the public schools
all education of the pupil is turned over to them as it was not formerly,
and it is possible that in the stress of text-book education there is no
time for reading at home. The competent teachers contend not merely
with the difficulty of the lack of books and the deficiencies of those in
use, but with the more serious difficulty of the erroneous ideas of the
function of text-books. They will cease to be a commercial commodity
of so much value as now when teachers teach. If it is true that there is
no time for reading at home, we can account for the deplorable lack of
taste in the great mass of the reading public educated at the common
schools; and we can see exactly what the remedy should be--namely,
the teaching of the literature at the beginning of school life, and
following it up broadly and intelligently during the whole school period.
It will not crowd out anything else, because it underlies everything.
After many years of perversion and neglect, to take up the study of
literature in a comprehensive text-book, as if it were to be learned--like
arithmetic, is a ludicrous proceeding. This, is not teaching literature nor
giving the scholar a love of good reading. It is merely stuffing the mind
with names and dates, which are not seen to have any relation to
present life, and which speedily fade out of the mind. The love of
literature is not to be attained in this way, nor in any way except by
reading the best literature.
The notion that literature can be taken up as a branch of education, and
learned at the proper time and when studies permit, is one of the most

farcical in our scheme of education. It is only matched in absurdity by
the other current idea, that literature is something separate and apart
from general knowledge. Here is the whole body of accumulated
thought and experience of all the ages, which indeed forms our present
life and explains it, existing partly in tradition and training, but more
largely in books; and most teachers