Page:On the education of the people of India (IA oneducationofpeo00trevrich).pdf/229

Rh when to speak and write it correctly will be deemed a distinguishing privilege. Let English have fair play, and be placed at least upon a par with Sancrit, Arabic, and Persian, and it will become manifest to the most indifferent observer, that the natives study the latter, not because they are the best media for instruction, but because they lead to employment and competency, which the English does not. Perhaps an exception should be stated with reference to the Sanscrit—judging from a recent memorial of a number of Hindu youths to the secretary of the sub-committee to the Sanscrit College, representing, that after many years spent in the study of Sancrit, they are in a destitute condition, as they can find neither employment nor consideration among their countrymen.

So long as European literature was confined to Latin, Mr. Tytler estimates the attempts of our ancestors as mere forced imitations of the classics, the far greater part of which are now deservedly forgotten. Supposing the fact to be even as stated, it cuts both ways; and we may, by a parity of reasoning, assume, that so long as Eastern literature is confined to Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian, the writings of Indian students will be mere forced imitations of the Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian classics. But Mr. Tytler is a great deal too sweeping in his remarks; for many of the works of our ancestors in science, morals, and poetry, that were written in Latin, so far from being forgotten, are held in the highest estimation, even at this day, and are remarkable no less for strength of reasoning than for purity and elegance of expression. We shall be perfectly content if native students should be found to think as justly, and write as beautifully, in English, as Buchanan, Bacon, and various others did in Latin; or, to come nearer our own times, and in a professional walk, as Harvey, Sydenham, Boerhaave, Haller, Heberden, and Gregory did, in the same language.