BY CHANCELLOR J. H. VINCENT, D.D.

The “Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle,” with the general Chautauqua movement, has had its share of criticism. Its advantages have been pointed out, and sometimes magnified. Its managers have had their attention called to the dangers and defects of the system. Personally, I enjoy adverse criticism and the practical counsel which it has brought quite as much as words of praise, for praise may paralyze effort, while the goad of the critic is likely to stimulate both ingenuity and resolution.

The members of the C. L. S. C. have from the beginning been encouraged to express freely to the Superintendent of Instruction their dissatisfaction with either text-books or methods. As a result of this freedom, vigilance has been promoted, and many improvements have been from time to time introduced.

The aims of the C. L. S. C. are unique. The provision of text-books precisely adapted to these unique aims has been one of the ever-present problems. If our readers were children in the school room, and daily recitations were practicable, it would be easy to find suitable text-books on every subject in the curriculum. If these readers were chiefly high school or college graduates desiring advanced courses of reading, it would be comparatively easy to provide standard works written by specialists for specialists, and assuming on every page a large measure of knowledge already possessed by the reader. If it were the aim of the C. L. S. C. to study one subject at a time, and that for a long time, exhaustively, from its alphabet to its “last word,” it would not be difficult to find numerous text-books on that subject adapted to every variety of capacity and attainment.

The C. L. S. C. is not, however, designed for school children, nor for advanced readers, nor for specialists. It has enrolled but few names of members under eighteen years of age. Its members are “out of school.” It rejoices in thousands of college graduates, but these take up its readings not for advanced study as post-graduates, but to review under favorable conditions the scholastic studies of former years, and in some cases, perchance, to make amends for carelessness and superficiality during those years of unappreciated opportunity.

The C. L. S. C. is therefore a “school of reading at home” for college graduates who desire, whatever the motive, to review the college course, and for people who, having been deprived of early educational opportunity, desire by a general course of reading to place themselves in sympathy with the school and college world; to know something of the educational courses now being pursued by their children; to test their own powers by a survey of the varied field of letters, and thus by our four years’ superficial course of reading prepare for special studies further on. The C. L. S. C. aims to provide, therefore, first for the four years’ general course, and afterward for the special studies.

The scope of the four years’ course is the usual college curriculum. With this aim we began. To this aim we adhere. The success of the scheme in promoting intellectual quickening and activity has been attested by thousands who have tried it for several years.

Here lies the chief cause of our embarrassment. It is difficult to provide books precisely adapted to the needs of our peculiar constituency. The Superintendent of Instruction and the Counselors have felt this from the beginning. Heavy and elaborate books discourage a class which we are anxious to lure into the love of literature. Books too much abridged fail to satisfy more mature minds. Old books may be behind the times, or, although acknowledged to be standards, may not for the reasons above given be fully adapted to our readers. As for new books—every one knows how hard it is to secure them, and how easily a flippant criticism may destroy the confidence of the uninitiated in them. Notwithstanding these embarrassments we have tried to do our best, providing old books where the council could agree upon them, and new books where they seemed to be absolutely necessary.

It is not to be expected that any book, especially any new book, will meet with universal approval. As for criticism—well, who knoweth the ways of critics with the new books! Did not Samuel Taylor Coleridge say of Burke’s essay on “The Sublime and the Beautiful,” “It seems to me a poor thing?” Did not Horace Walpole call Goldsmith “an inspired idiot?” Did not Dr. Johnson pronounce Fielding a “blockhead?” Does not Hume affirm that “no page of Shakspere is without glaring faults?” Was not the manuscript of Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair” rejected because the critic to whom it was submitted pronounced it “without interest?”

Some books of the C. L. S. C. have excited unfavorable criticism—religious books by those who do not care to read religious books at all, and think it an impertinence to obtrude them upon the general reader; certain scientific books because “not up to the times,” or the critic being himself a scientific specialist is certain that the views of our specialist are “unsound.”

Concerning one of the books on the list, a correspondent says:

I do not quote the above as a specimen of classic English, but as indicating the temper of the writer, whose letter is accompanied by nineteen manuscript pages of closely written criticisms upon the condemned volume.

Concerning this same book, a high authority in English to whom it was submitted, has said: “It is a clear, compact, and readable statement of the laws and principles of speech.” A Boston writer of ability had said: “This little volume is the very best text-book for any one desiring to perfect himself in the laws and principles of speech. It is grammar, rhetoric and composition combined, and is doubly worth its price.” A Philadelphia critic had said: “A better treatise could not be placed in the hands of a student who has not been initiated into the intricacies which make prose composition an intolerable bore to the young.”

Other and equally strong commendations of this book might be quoted, commendations which were received from trustworthy authorities before it was placed on our list. I submitted the volume to one of the best literary critics in the country, who called attention to some errors which needed correction. Owing to the illness of the author, or for some other reason, his attention was not called to the corrections required, and therefore numerous minor defects, which would have been carefully remedied by its competent and scholarly author, appeared in the new edition. Dr. Johnson made six thousand alterations in the second edition of “The Rambler.” But for the oversight, for which I fear I must acknowledge myself responsible, the volume under consideration would have been thoroughly revised.

Many local circles have as leaders men of literary ability and scholarship who, prepared for such wise service by the humility which comes from years of educational experience, have pointed out these defects, at the same time fairly representing the true value of the book, and putting emphasis upon its admirable instructions which, by hyper-criticism, may have been lost sight of.

Concerning another book on the course, a critic says:

The same writer proposed another series of works on ancient Greek literature, as a substitute for the two volumes of Prof. Wilkinson. The series he proposed, however, contained an amount of matter which would prove utterly discouraging to our readers and which would cost ten times as much as the more condensed work of Dr. Wilkinson. Besides all this, the work of Dr. Wilkinson meets the object of the C. L. S. C.

When one gets into the world of criticism, he finds himself among “doctors” who “disagree.” I have quoted one view of Dr. Wilkinson’s text-books, presented by our unknown critic. Now for another. Dr. Howard Crosby, of New York, a most finished scholar and close critic, and a judge of both English and Greek literature, says: “Dr. Wilkinson’s Greek course is clear, attractive, judicious in its treatment of the subject, and fills a valuable place in literature.” Of the second volume, the same scholar says: “The new volume is thoroughly attractive. It is fully up to the high standard of the other.” Such commendation as this sustained our earliest judgment of the works in question. Prof. Frieze, of the Latin Department of the University of Michigan, says: “I have not yet seen the ‘Preparatory Latin Course in English,’ though I was favored with a copy of the Greek. I have only to say that if the Latin equals the Greek it can not fail to be a contribution to classical culture both for classical and English scholars, of very great value. I have been delighted with a perusal of Prof. Wilkinson’s critical notices, his own translations, and his selections of the translations of others, and I sincerely congratulate him on the admirable style in which he has presented the matter, as well as the character of the matter itself, and the plan of the whole work.”

Prof. A. C. Kendrick, D.D., head of the Department of Greek in the University of Rochester, says:

Dr. Alvah Hovey, President of the Theological Institution, writes to Dr. Wilkinson:

The Rev. A. P. Peabody, D.D., LL.D., late of Harvard University, writes:

The Boston Watchman adds to such commendations as the above the following testimony:

In suggesting to Dr. Wilkinson the idea of this “After-school Series,” I requested him:

1. To give in two volumes the substance of what the college boy in his preparatory and college course would learn of Greek literature—not the language, but the literature;

2. To put into his books as far as possible the method and spirit of the college recitation room, discussing collateral topics, introducing biographical and classical incidents, and employing illustrations from modern life and literature; to put his individuality into the work, so that teacher and pupils might be brought into friendly relations, and thus something of the animation and enthusiasm of the recitation room be enjoyed by solitary students.

It is Dr. Wilkinson’s attempt to realize this idea that produces the impression upon one critic of the “uninstructive chattiness” of the author. To a man who has just spent eight years in the study of the classics, and who makes them a specialty, there may be some things in Dr. Wilkinson’s book which are not instructive; to people for whom the book was written, there is not an uninstructive page in the book. Perfection in the recitation room may not be possible. Qualities in the viva voce teacher which attract and delight and benefit one student may not so favorably impress, and may sometimes almost annoy, another. A member of the Circle writes (in reference, no doubt, to Dr. Wilkinson’s book): “One author frequently converses, as it were, with the reader, telling him in a friendly way of the many things he will relate after a while.… The book has caused the Circle to be ridiculed, and I could not think it was not without cause.”

I can readily see how a college graduate, just released from the recitation room, with lofty ideals of scholarship, and with really a vast amount of knowledge, might depreciate with a tone of contempt such a work as that of Dr. Wilkinson. I can see, too, how that smile of contempt from a scholar with local reputation might annoy and afflict less cultivated people belonging to a local circle who, devoted to an institution, are anxious that it and its text-books should receive the commendation of cultivated men. Just such commendation Dr. Wilkinson’s books have received. There may be now and then a slight tone of “chattiness.” There may be too frequent “forecasting of plan and purpose,” but on the whole the Professor’s work is admirably done, and has received the unqualified approval of our best students, men and women of the highest culture, eminent professors of Greek and Latin who fully understand and appreciate the aim of the author. I can assure my correspondent that there is nothing in Dr. Wilkinson’s books to cause the Circle or the books to be “ridiculed” by any true scholar.

A recent university graduate, and I have no doubt a brilliant scholar, writes:

The same writer pleads for “vigorous supervision by scholars and authorities on the respective subjects as the only thing that will enable the Chautauqua Idea to be carried out in a way that will help, and make them better and stronger in thought and life.”

This sentiment meets my heartiest approval. Indefatigably and conscientiously have the Superintendent of Instruction and the Counselors sought to do this very work for the readers who seek their direction.

It would surprise our friends to examine our budget of criticisms pro and con, from all classes of people; from public school teachers, college professors, ministers, post-graduates, classicists, scientists, so called “self-made men,” and people who, professing to know almost nothing, seek advice and offer counsel. We have diligently sought to profit by the things which have been said.

Our readers must see the difficulties which encompass us; the wide diversity of opinion concerning certain books, and the impossibility of securing works which will receive universal approval.

There are persons who do not believe in popular education at all. A recent correspondent, a man of immense wealth, wrote: “Mechanics and sewing women should confine themselves to industrial education, and not aspire to the knowledge of literature and art.” Would it be possible to produce works on literature and art for the people which a man of that type could approve?

An author of some pretensions, without much reputation in literary lines, tried to place a work of his own on the list of the C. L. S. C. in lieu of one on the same subject already adopted. Failing to win a place for his own, he proceeded in another book savagely to criticise the preferred volume. Would it be possible for this disappointed author to approve any book on his specialty that might be placed upon our course?

A certain youthful professor in an American college sneered at the idea of anybody enjoying the poetry of Homer or of Virgil unless he could read it in the original. Would it be possible for this literary fop to appreciate the books which seek to present the best thoughts of the old authors in classic English?

Dear fellow-student: Feel free to offer criticisms which may be helpful to the Board of Counsel. We do not modify our policy for every criticism received. But we weigh conscientiously and carefully all that is said in favor of or against the prescribed books. From year to year our course has been modified. I stand ready at all times to accept the best books; to abandon the best we have for anything better that may be placed within our reach. And as our experience broadens, helpful criticisms multiply, and authors understand our peculiar needs, we shall approach more and more nearly to the ideals which now shine above us.

Do not, I beseech you, fail to protest against false, querulous and impertinent criticisms, and against that hyper-criticism which delights in nothing so much as in pointing out faults and defects, losing sight of the great things in excessive eagerness to detect slight inaccuracies.

Remember that no book is placed upon the course that does not have the personal approval of the best critics, and remember, moreover, that it will never be possible to provide a book which is above criticism. As one of our Counselors writes:

College students, with all their admiration for the professors under whom they moved through four years of study, have some foibles and defects to report and laugh at; but on the whole they honor the men who made them and led them. The authors of our text-books are our professors. On the whole they have done their work well. It is proper to note their faults and avoid them, but in defending them, and in being proud of them, and in rejoicing in the course of reading which they have provided, we have the endorsement of wise, scholarly and experienced educators.

Finally, let us learn the characteristics of the true critic, and according to the measure of our ability let us seek to possess them:

“A critic must have breadth, accuracy, sympathy, reverence, and love. He must have no partialities, and no aversions. He must not be captious, but just.”