administered at this famous public school. “Whereupon,” says Ascham, “Sir William took occasion to wish that some discretion were in many schoolmasters in using correction than commonly there is, who many times punish rather the weakness of nature than the fault of the scholar, whereby many scholars that might else prove well, be driven to hate learning before they know what learning meaneth; and so are made willing to forsake their book, and to be willing to put to any other kind of living.” This incident led to the composition of the Scholemaster, which was a guide for “the bringing up of youth,” in which gentleness rather than severity is recommended, and “a ready way to the Latin tongue,” in which an honest effort is made to simplify language teaching and adapt it to the tastes and interests of young learners.
Richard Mulcaster,[1] another Englishman and humanist of the sixteenth century, questioned seriously the wisdom of his associates and contemporaries in their exclusion of the mother-tongue from the course of study. In his Elementarie he asked: “Is it not a marvellous bondage to become servants to one tongue, for learning’s sake, the most part of our time, with loss of most time, whereas we may have the very same treasure in our own tongue with the gain of most time? our own bearing the joyful title of our liberty and freedom, the Latin tongue remembering us of our thraldom and bondage. I love Rome, but London better; I favor Italy, but England more: I honor the Latin, but I worship the English.” Mr. Quick is right in maintaining that “it would have been a vast
- ↑ Positions. By Richard Mulcaster. Edited by Robert Hebert Quick. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1888. pp. 309.
