Autobiography of Seventy Years, Vol. 1-2Hoar, George Frisbie
History
Autobiography of Seventy Years, Vol. 1-2
Hoar, George Frisbie
United States -- History -- 1865-1921; United States -- Politics and government -- 1865-1900
The conditions of admission were quite easy. They were such
as a boy of fourteen of good capacity, who could read and
write the English language and had gone through some simple
book of arithmetic, could easily master in two years. There
were three or four schools were the boys were pretty well
fitted, so that they could translate Cicero and Virgil, Nepos
and Sallust and Caesar and Xenophon and Homer. The Boston
Latin School, the Roxbury Latin School, Phillips Academy at
Exeter and Phillips Academy at Andover and Mrs. Ripley's
school at Waltham were the best schools for this purpose.
The boys from the Boston Latin School generally took their
places at the head of the class when they entered. Next came
the best scholars from the other schools I have named. But
the bulk of the pupils were very poorly fitted.
There was, as it seems to me in looking back, little instruction
of much value. The good scholars and the bad went to the
recitation together. The good ones lost the hour, and the
poor scholars got the benefit of hearing the good ones recite.
Their mistakes were corrected by the professor. They handed
in written exercises in Latin and Greek which were examined
by the instructor and the faults corrected, and returned.
There were, during the last three years, declamations once
a month, where the boy recited some piece of prose or poetry
in the presence of the class, but got very little instruction
or criticism from the professor. Then, in the last three
years, English themes were required. The subjects were given
out by Professor Channing, himself a most accomplished and
admirable scholar in his line. He seemed to choose his subjects
with a view of taxing the ingenuity of the boy to find anything
to say about them instead of taking something which the boy
knew about and devoting himself to improve his English style
in expressing his thought. Channing was a good critic. His
published lectures on rhetoric and oratory, now almost wholly
forgotten, remind one of Matthew Arnold in their delicate
and discriminating touch. He had a face and figure something
like that of Punch in the frontispiece of that magazine. His
method was to take the themes which the boys handed in one
week, look them over himself, then, a week after, meet the
class, call the boys in succession to sit down in a chair
by the side of his table, read out passages from the theme,
and ridicule them before the others. It was a terrible ordeal
for a bashful or awkward boy. Those of a more robust nature,
or whose performance had nothing ridiculous in it, profited
by the discipline. But it certainly took all the starch and
courage out of me. I never sat down to write my theme without
fancying that grinning and scornful countenance looking at
my work. So I used to write as few sentences as I thought
would answer so that I should not be punished for failure
to bring in any theme at all, and never attempted to do my
best.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account