With respect to grammar in particular, the declensions of nouns, and the inflexions of verbs, we may observe, that to learn words to which absolutely no ideas are affixed, is not to learn to think loosely, and to believe without being convinced.  These certainly can never corrupt the mind.  And I suppose no one will pretend, that to learn grammar, is to be led to entertain inaccurate notions of the subjects, about which it is particularly conversant.  On the contrary, the ideas of grammar are exceedingly clear and accurate.  It has, in my opinion, all those advantages, by which the study of geometry is usually recommended, without any of its disadvantages.  It tends much to purge the understanding, to render it close in its investigations, and sure in its decisions.  It introduces more easily and intelligibly than mathematical science, that most difficult of all the mental operations, abstraction.  It imperceptibly enlarges our conceptions, and generalises our ideas.

But if to read its authors, be the most valuable purpose of learning a language, the grammar will not be sufficient.  Other books will be necessary.  And how shall these be chosen, so as not to leave behind us the understanding of our pupil?  Shall we introduce him first to the sublime flights of Virgil, the philosophical investigations of a Cicero, or the refined elegance and gay satire of Horace?  Alas! if thus introduced unprepared to the noblest heights of science, how can it be expected that his understanding should escape the shipwreck, and every atom of common sense not be dashed and scattered ten thousand ways?

The study then I would here introduce, should be that of history.  And that this study is not improper to the age with which I connect it, is the second point I would endeavour to demonstrate.

But is history, I shall be asked, the study so proper for uninstructed minds?  History, that may in some measure be considered as concentring in itself the elements of all other sciences?  History, by which we are informed of the rise and progress of every art, and by whose testimony the comparative excellence of every art is ascertained?  History, the very testimony of which is not to be admitted, without the previous trial of metaphysical scrutiny, and philosophic investigation?  Lastly, History, that is to be considered as a continual illustration of the arts of fortification and tactics; but above all of politics, with its various appendages, commerce, manufacture, finances?

To all this, I calmly answer, No:  it is not history in any of these forms, that constitutes the science to which I would direct the attention of my pupil.  Of the utility of the history of arts and sciences, at least, as a general study, I have no very high opinion.  But were my opinion ever so exalted, I should certainly chuse to postpone this study for the present.  I should have as little to do with tactics and fortification.  I would avoid as much as possible the very subject of war.  Politics, commerce, finances, might easily be deferred.  I would keep far aloof from the niceties of chronology, and the dispute of facts.  I would not enter upon the study of history through the medium of epitome.  I would even postpone the general history of nations, to the character and actions of particular men.