When my connection with THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY began, I fondly hoped that teachers of the Classics, especially those in the Schools, would contribute more, spontaneously, than they thus far have done to the making of the paper. This they might do by calling attention to books or articles which they have found of particular value, or by propounding queries, on matters, let us say, that have given them trouble, or by writing about passages in the authors commonly read by way of preparation for College. However, when, at the meeting of The Classical Association of the Atlantic States which was held at Princeton in 1911, a Question Box was made a part of the programme, and all members were invited to send questions in writing to the Secretary prior to the meeting, practically no questions of any sort were propounded, so that it seemed as if no troubles or queries disturbed the souls of the members of the Association. At the meeting itself most of the questions handed in related to Latin Composition, a circumstance which helps to justify, if justification is needed, the large amount of space perennially given to that theme at classical meetings and in classical publications.

Sometimes, however, a teacher helps the editor to a subject for an editorial, as did, for example, the teacher who called forth the discussion of Helps in the Teaching of Latin and Greek, 6.65-66 (see also 6.57-58). Recently I received from a teacher a letter, from which I quote a paragraph:

In our Latin Department we are divided. Those who insist on rules verbatim say they do it to give power. In my opinion the principle of the rule is sufficient, and the way to give power in Latin is to read Latin. I shall greatly appreciate a remark from you at your earliest convenience.

The question interested me greatly. It made me think of the hours I spent in learning by heart, as a way of satisfying most exacting drill masters in the School where I got the Latin and Greek necessary to enter College, the rules of syntax. When I was a Freshman at Columbia, it was still the fashion to compel students to own Grammars of Latin and of Greek, and to seek to oblige them to study portions of those books. I learned by heart large quantities of rules-and have never regretted the learning. This experience doubtless colored my reply to the letter quoted above:

I should hardly say myself that the learning of

No. 10

rules verbatim in itself gives 'power'. I should put it, rather, that the learning of rules verbatim is a form of accuracy, and accuracy seems to me always a highly desirable thing, for at least two good reasons. One reason, far the less important, is that Americans are temperamentally unwilling to be accurate. Lowell's Introduction to the first series of Bigelow Papers, at least that part of it in which he talks of the Yankee experiences and the resultant Yankee character, will explain pretty clearly what I mean. Secondly-and this is a far more important consideration-accuracy is a form of truth, and truth, in one form or another, is the only business of life. So training in accuracy, in my mind, would lead to power indirectly as a by-product, because accuracy is essential to power. To some extent, then, I would agree with those members of your High School group who are opposed to you.

I went on to say that, unfortunately, the current formulations of grammatical rules often leave much to be desired. Here I found myself repeating what I said in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 2.97, in objection to such statements as "The Ablative of Separation is sometimes construed with, sometimes without, a preposition", on the ground that, the moment the preposition enters, we no longer have an ablative of separation, but a complex expressing separation, in which the ablative no more needs a special designation than does any other ablative used with a preposition. An accurate memorizing, however, of an accurate statement of phenomena, such as the statement that accompaniment is expressed in Latin (a) by cum with the ablative, (b) under certain circumstances by the ablative alone, was, I maintained, well worth while.

I concluded my reply as follows:

I think there is another argument in favor of pretty exact memorizing of matters in the first year. If the students are trained from the very beginning of study in any subject to exact formulation of ideas, with respect to that subject, they are likely to develop the habit of accuracy and to carry that habit through all their devotion to that particular study. This I count a very considerable gain.

On the other hand, I should find it easy to agree with your personal doctrine, that the way to acquire power in Latin itself is to read Latin. But isn't it entirely possible that the habit of accurate study discussed above might help in the reading of Latin and therefore minister to power over Latin? C. K.

When the plans for the performance of the musical play Galatea in aid of the Greek Scholarship Fund of The New York Latin Club had been fully matured, Dr. Talcott Williams, Director of the

School of Journalism at Columbia University, was invited to be present, and to make a brief address before the play began. In reply he wrote as follows (October 18, 1913):

I regret that I cannot be at the performance of Galatea, but another engagement prevents. I have always believed, from observation and my own experience, that Greek and Latin were the best training for English style. A year in the School of Journalism confirms this. All the arts of expression must be studied from models and the model must be distinct, separated from customary experience and possessing distinction. It is because casts of Greek and Roman statues have these qualities that they are used in preference to modern work or genre in training the student in the elementary stage of drawing. So, as we all know, in the selection of early models in music.

The literary works of Greece and Rome meet these needs, and I note that those who have had the Classics understand the tongue and terms of the writer, possess definite standards and know how to apply them, and understand what one means by critical comment. Men of less native ability write better and improve more rapidly when they have had this training than those who have had only English and modern languages. The best works in these tongues are not distinct, they blend confusingly in the current experience of the student, and, when they possess distinction, it is not detached. It is apt to be personal and not architectonic. C. K.

LATIN COMPOSITION IN JESUIT HIGH

SCHOOLS1

The scope of this paper is to indicate the connection presumed by Jesuit educators to exist between the daily exercise in Latin Composition and the viewpoint from which the author prescribed for class study is being treated. I should, then, be obviously defeating my purpose were I to assume at the outset that all readers will understand the meaning of certain terms which will occur quite often in the course of my remarks. The terms 'prelection' and 'repetition' are, no doubt, familiar to the professed student of methodology, and are at once associated by him with the Ratio Studiorum, the authoritative exponent of the pedagogical system followed in Jesuit High Schools and Colleges. They may be found on almost every page. In fact, the words 'prelection', 'imitation', 'repetition', 'theme', as employed by the Ratio may, in a large sense, be styled correlative terms; the understanding of one illumines and in turn reflects the meaning of the others.

Permit me, then, by way of introduction, to outline the meaning I would have you attach to the terms 'prelection' and 'repetition'. The connotation of the others will, I trust, be set forth with sufficient clearness in the substance of this paper2.

1 This paper was read at the Seventh Annual Meeting of The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, at Baltimore, Md., May 3, 1913.

2 One of the best explanations in English of what we understand by the prelection, repetition, etc., may be found in Jesuit Education, by Robert Schwickerath, S.J. The book is published by B. Herder, St. Louis, Mo. In chapter xvi, entitled The Method of Teaching in Practice, the manner

By the 'prelection', then, is meant simply the explanation of the author. It is not, however, an exposition wholly dependent upon the tastes and preferences of the teacher; it must proceed along certain definite lines. In other words, the main view-point from which the author should be studied is clearly defined in the rules laid down for the individual conduct of each class. The first of these rules indicates the scope of the class, the goal towards which the chief efforts of teacher and taught are to be directed. In the High School, of course, the accidence and syntax of the language—I am speaking now, remember, of Latin and Greek-constitute the objective point on which the work of the class should be especially trained. To quote in part the first of the rules prescribed for the instructor of the Fourth Year of the High School: "Gradus huius scholae est absoluta grammaticae cognitio; ita enim recolit ab initio syntaxim ut addat omnes exceptiones et idiotismos, deinde explicet constructionem figuratam, et de arte metrica". In his explanation, then, of the author the teacher should lay special stress on any phrase or sentence that may illustrate the particular section of the elements or syntax in which he is drilling or has already drilled his class. But as it may well happen that the passage as it stands will not serve this purpose, he may frame short and easy sentences based on the author and designed to crystallize, as it were, in the minds of his pupils, the underlying principles of, say, a result or a temporal clause, or the use of the dative, the ablative, etc.

Given this result, he should then comment upon the literary excellence of the passage. This, however, should be done briefly, and the criticism should be such as may be readily grasped by the average boy. The Ratio suggests, e.g. the explanation of metaphors by illustrations drawn from familiar objects, tracing the various meanings of a word and studying its derivatives in one's native tongue, directing attention to the appropriateness and elegance of this or that phrase or idiom, or to the more obvious differences between a Latin and an English expression of one's thought. But while all this should not be neglected, it is relatively subsidiary to the main purpose of the class, and should never be allowed to overshadow it. The fuller development of literary appreciation forms the special scope of the College classes.

And this leads us naturally to a consideration of the position assigned to translation, and of its possibilities as a means of fostering and cultivating literary instincts. For the prelection should usually be accompanied by a continuous translation of the chap

of conducting the prelection and the repetition, as laid down in the Ratio, is set forth in outline, and more or less in detail. I say more or less, because in this respect the teacher is allowed considerable liberty. Fr. Thos. Hughes, S.J., in chapter xv of his book, Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits, has also touched on the prelection, The book is published by Scribner, and forms one of The Great Educators Series, edited by Dr. Butler.

etc.