links can scarcely be discerned. Thus it came to pass that some grasped one fact, others another, and that none received a really thorough and universal education.
7. Fifthly, many different methods were employed. Each school and even each teacher used a different one. What was worse, teachers would use one method in one subject or language, and another in another, and, worst of all, even in one individual subject they varied their method, so that the scholar scarcely understood in what way he was expected to learn. This was the cause of the many delays that took place, and of the lassitude of the scholar, who had frequently no desire even to attempt new branches of study.
8. Sixthly, no method was known by which instruction could be given to all the pupils in a class at the same time; the individual only was taught. With a large number of pupils this must have been an impossible task for the teacher. The pupils also must have found it very wearisome and extremely irksome, if each had to go on preparing work until his turn arrived.
9. Seventhly, if there were several teachers, this was a fresh source of confusion; since each hour some new subject was introduced. Not to mention the fact that a diversity of teachers tends to distract the mind quite as much as a diversity of books.
10. Finally, both in school and out of it, the scholars had perfect freedom as regards the books they read, and the teachers gave them no assistance in their choice. For all were imbued with the idea that to read many authors afforded many opportunities of making progress, whereas such diversity produced nothing but distraction. It was not surprising, therefore, that very few mastered all the branches of study. The wonder was that any one was able to find his way out of such a labyrinth, and indeed only the most gifted succeeded in doing so.
11. For the future, therefore, hindrances and delays of this sort must be set aside, and we must make straight for our goal, neglecting everything that is not of immediate service.
