Apollo," as Sir T. Browne says; but surely it is no unreasonable estimate;
yet how far do we fall short of it? General culture is often deprecated
because it is said that smatterings are useless. But there is all the
difference in the world between having a smattering of, or being well
grounded in, a subject. It is the latter which we advocate--to try to
know, as Lord Brougham well said, "everything of something, and something
of everything."

"It can hardly," says Sir John Herschel, "be pressed forcibly enough on
the attention of the student of nature, that there is scarcely any natural
phenomenon which can be fully and completely explained, in all its
circumstances, without a union of several, perhaps of all, the sciences."

The present system in most of our public schools and colleges sacrifices
everything else to classics and arithmetic. They are most important
subjects, but ought not to exclude science and modern languages. Moreover,
after all, our sons leave college unable to speak either Latin or Greek,
and too often absolutely without any interest in classical history or
literature. But the boy who has been educated without any training in
science has grave reason to complain of "knowledge to one entrance quite
shut out."

By concentrating the attention, indeed, so much on one or two subjects, we
defeat our own object, and produce a feeling of distaste where we wish to
create an interest.

Our great mistake in education is, as it seems to me, the worship of
book-learning--the confusion of instruction and education. We strain the
memory instead of cultivating the mind. The children in our elementary
schools are wearied by the mechanical act of writing, and the interminable