provide vocational training for all boys and girls as it is to give all boys and girls traditional training? And it is to be remembered that traditional training is also vocational since it has led and always must lead to the great professions of law, medicine and teaching.

Many times in these articles the artist has been called in to point the argument by placing before us striking pictures of stoop-shouldered, big-spectacled boys and girls bending over Greek lexicons or Latin grammars, while on the next page rosy-cheeked, golden-haired damsels beat eggs and broad-shouldered young men plane boards with enthusiasm. We are invited to gaze first upon this picture and then upon that. The reading public could not be expected to know that such schools of traditional training as these articles picture do not exist to-day. They cannot be expected to understand that even traditional education can be administered by modern methods and that the good health and fine appearance of boys and girls are a matter of as much importance in academic as in vocational schools. But now, it is no unusual experience to pick up the daily papers and current magazines and to find, from the pen of unquestioned authority, articles calling us back from the extreme view which has been taken and impressing upon us the fact that, as surely as we must meet the demands for broader opportunities, just so surely must we remember the supreme importance of that training of the mind and that cultivation of the heart which can come only through careful, serious and thoughtful contemplation of the old rather than of the new, that definite mental discipline which is acquired through the study of languages ancient as well as modern, that development of reason which is the result of an intimate acquaintance with a rigid course in mathematics, and that intelligent and sympathetic view of our present civilization which can be derived only from a knowledge of the world's past history.

Further, special, technical and vocational schools are more and more insistently demanding thorough and careful preparation in liberal studies. The engineering faculty of a great University recently entered a successful protest when an important preparatory school proposed to eliminate Greek from its curriculum; and the dean of that engineering faculty told me a few weeks ago that there is no preparation for a student of engineering equal to the old-fashioned classical course. In a bulletin on vocational training recently issued by the Association of Collegiate Alumnae, 206 institutions offering special and technical training to women are listed. Of these, 20 specify no entrance requirements; 25 ask a High School diploma or its equivalent; 77 base admission on the College Entrance requirement; 18 admit by special examination; 38 require a bachelor's degree or its equivalent as shown by examination; 22 require one year or more of College work; training and 3 graduate degrees.

3 require normal

These instances with others that we are meeting frequently would seem to indicate that to its other advantages a liberal education is adding a considerable commercial value. But, aside from the indications of the practical value of a liberal education, is it too much to hope that learning may be cherished for learning's sake in this great country of ours? that culture for culture's sake may not be despised? and is not discipline a worthy end in itself? Why is learning as represented by traditional training aristocratic? surely not because it is confined to the rich and to the great. No one familiar with large public Secondary Schools will find good reason to question the absolute democracy of the personnel of the College preparatory courses. No one acquainted with the results of this training and the achievements of its product can question its usefulness, its value and its inspiring influence in lives otherwise blank, bleak and drab.

Why must culture be mentioned with a sneer as though it were not a very real and a very important factor in the lives of individuals, of communities and of nations? Those of us who daily contemplate young America wending his happy way through pleasant educational pastures, browsing a little here and nibbling a bit there, and at the end proudly displaying a handsome sheepskin, will, I am sure, agree that disciplinary subjects shall forever be encouraged. And so, my plea is for the encouragement of liberal studies in High Schools in recognition of their proved value to generations of boys and girls, for a just acknowledgment of the plain duty of High Schools to prepare boys and girls for a larger life than mere wageearning. Scholarship and culture must be preserved in any nation that is to be truly great.

The discussion is turning, the pendulum is coming to normal; we are reaching the very certain conviction that the past in education was not all bad, that the present is not all good and that real progress will be made only by taking the best from past and from present into the future as we go. There is plenty of room in the world for both forms of education and plenty of work for the adherents of both sides of the discussion. I cannot believe that what is being called 'progressive' or 'democratic' education will ever find itself firmly established until it lays its own foundation in the solid rock of discipline, of thoroughness and of concentration of thought and effort and gives over its apparent attempt to raise itself upon the ruins of traditional training. It has seemed to me an indication of weakness that much of the support of the 'new' education has taken the form of condemning the old. I realize that much of the discussion has had for its object the drawing of public attention to the new cause a trick of advertising entirely unworthy of the magnitude and the importance of the problem. But the smoke of battle is lifting and soon we shall all see more clearly and in truer perspective.

In the meantime, I congratulate you on the organization about to be consummated; I am heartily in sym

ONE WAY TO TEACH LATIN

The demand for more definite constructive criticism of the teaching of Latin which appeared in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 7. 97-98, 145-146, seems to me a reasonable one. We can really be of little service to one another until we are willing to explain not what ought to be done but what we actually do in our class-rooms. Personally I have the grandest ideals of what Latin teaching should be and I never care to read another man's opinion of what we should do in the class-room for the simple reason that my own ideals keep me busy enough. In actual practice I find that they meet so many obstacles-set up doubtless by the demon of things as they are that by the end of the school year they are mutiliated beyond hope of recognition. When, however, a teacher is willing frankly to show how he has faced the difficulties that beset us all and what his experience has been, we are all anxious to learn and glad to set him down as a benefactor. Accordingly I wish to take my own medicine in the hope that some one who is hoarding secrets of value may be led to communicate his knowledge as freely as I proffer my trifles.

Judging from my own experience I have long been under the impression that our greatest fault as teachers is unconscious hypocrisy. We know our subject quite well, we teach it quite well, and then we naturally suppose that our pupils have learned it quite well. And here lies our error. We forget the old maxim that taught us never to under estimate the ignorance of our pupils, and we ascribe to them knowledge which they might have, which indeed they ought to have, but which they have not, and which, I regret to say, they don't care to have-if they can get along without it. In fact this fault is so widespread that I think that most of the present criticism of our schools, when justified, is really caused by this one deficiency.

In my own work I have found it facing me at every turn. Owing to the peculiar organization of our school my relations with my pupils are so personal and intimate that there is absolutely no line of any kind between them and me. This circumstance has given me opportunities to understand the attitude of the scholars which the average teacher can not possess; and I should have to be blind not to become conscious of the failing to which I have alluded. In my Vergil class, however, I have employed a method which has enabled me at least to estimate what my class really knows far more accurately than I could ordinarily.

The class is small, averaging about twenty pupils. These are usually delightful as individuals and as a class, but I am sorry to say they manifest no great enthusiasm for Latin. They look upon Vergil as the last Latin obstacle on the path to a diploma and after the first month of polite interest they are content to recite when called upon and for the rest to sleepfiguratively if not literally1.

Some years ago I contrived to infuse some life into the class by insisting that the pupils do practically all the work done. So successful has the plan been that I have never seen occasion to modify it.

The method is very simple. I call upon a pupil to translate and after he has read the requisite number of lines I ask him to stop. Then the other students, without raising their hands or paying any attention to me, point out the mistakes and ask whatever questions they choose. If there is a difference of opinion about a construction they argue it out, without referring to me except as a last resort. As a rule a student is not supposed to make more than one criticism at a time. I have occasionally left the class-room, but this proceeding is, I believe, frowned upon as a kind of breach of contract. In addition to their regular work students receive credit for the criticisms they make and for all questions which they ask and can answer themselves. Those pupils who fail to do a reasonable amount of this class-work have their marks lowered. It has to be made absolutely clear that pupils who translate are to be marked only on the teacher's judgment of their recitations and that nothing is to be subtracted on account of questions asked or criticisms made upon their work by fellow-pupils. Unless the class is convinced of the teacher's sincerity in this particular little can be accomplished.

When I first introduced this system of reciting I was surprised to find a great deal of opposition-goodhumored but real. I had thought that such a slight change would be received without comment, but I soon discovered my mistake. For weeks I was obliged to defend my course by arguing with various individuals out of class and I am not sure yet that they were ever convinced. As one boy put it the scheme was not fair. He had to study an hour or so on Vergil outside of class and now I insisted that he work just as hard during the period. Soon, however, the plan came to be looked upon as a more or less harmless vagary of a perhaps well-meaning but certainly erratic teacher. During that year I was repeatedly asked when they were going back to the old system.

I regret that I am obliged to admit having such mediocre classes. It is especially humiliating when I realize, as I listen to some teachers talk, that in a Vergil class all that they have to do is to put the last polish upon a well-nigh finished product, which emerges from the process a cultured citizen. I have to feel satisfied if I have succeeded in coaxing a few of my class to think occasionally for themselves. Here let me also record my envy of Dr. Radin, whose experience with students has been so fortunate that he can even evolve an hypothetical boy who will, when the vocabulary in his text fails him, turn to Roget's Thesaurus (shall we say to the word belief with its two or three hundred expressions?) and then with the aid of a dictionary select the exact equivalent of his Latin word. I am chagrined to say that I am sometimes forced to urge my pupils to use their notes.

As has already appeared the method is not novel but is based upon rather elementary principles of pedagogy. My only defense for mentioning it is the fact that I have never heard any one explain how it works when applied in Latin. Accordingly I have inferred that other teachers might like to know my actual experience with it.

Its disadvantages are few. It certainly does use up time. The more it is employed, however, the less time it takes. It is exasperating for a teacher to sit quiet while his class wrestles over a usage that he could explain in a moment, but I am convinced that in general the results justify his remaining still. Of course in such cases I attempt to use discretion. The bashful students suffer somewhat, but as a rule they gain courage and learn to forget themselves. Rarely in fact very rarely-pupils lose their tempers or become discourteous to one another. Here again, however, long practice in discussion eliminates the faults it brings to light. Boys often shrink from criticising girls (I have never known the opposite to be true), but they usually overcome this diffidence and the (possibly reprehensible) desire to 'show up' some exasperatingly bright member of the other sex quickly leads to sharp thrusts and ripostes. Finally it is undeniable that the accelerator of 'the method with its beneficent rivalry is not eagerness to learn Latin but a desire for marks. Although I must admit this is a low motive, I can not see that under the old plan any higher ideal was dominant.

On the other hand this mode of conducting recitations enables me to discover exactly what my pupils really know; and I should not advise a teacher who shrinks from facing soul-sickening truths to adopt it. I have been sometimes appalled at the unguessed depths of ignorance revealed by an argument between two students. The heightened interest is another decided advantage. To be sure, interest is not by any means always at fever heat, but it is constantly higher than it was. I do not know the explanation, but it is a fact that more students will listen-I mean really listen to a class-mate explaining something to another than will listen to a teacher. Moreover, the plan tends to make pupils study more carefully and more regularly. A girl who is in the habit of preparing only two out of three lessons is more easily detected and, although many members of the class still take an occasional day's vacation, the number is appreciably less. student likes to have his ignorance exposed by a classmate. If a teacher does it, it can be borne with resignation, but at the hands of a fellow-student it is an humiliating experience to be avoided at all costs. I have known boys to spend an extra hour upon a Vergil lesson in order to render themselves invulnerable, and others to work similarly that they may bring about the downfall of a rival or get revenge for the mortification of a previous recitation. It is hardly necessary to say that what is learned in this manner is better learned. Further, I have found, that aside

Νο

from any increased knowledge of Latin, the method has been worth while in developing the pupil's personality, in breaking the ice between the sexes, and in training certain capabilities that will probably be useful in after life. Ordinary class-room practice—and I am as guilty as any one-in itself trains for nothing I know of unless it be the penitentary. But that has been said ages since.

In conclusion, I may note that with all classes the plan is not equally successful. It always works, but some classes-for example, the present one-never carry it out so fully as others. All of them tend to lean on the teacher in a most discouraging way. The helplessness that is commomly manifest when they are thrown on their own resources hardly bodes well for independent action in after life.

Book XXI and SelecEdited by James

Livy, The Second Punic War: tions from Books XXII-XXX. C. Egbert. New York: The Macmillan Conpany (1913). Pp. xvii + 306. 60 cents. From the general editor of a series one naturally expects a volume exhibiting in a notable degree the characteristic features of that series. This is the case with Professor Egbert's Livy. We find the conservative standard text, the brief but accurate and useful Notes and Introduction, and the low price. Livy's position as the Latin author most popular with freshmen should be strengthened by the appearance of this edition. Professor Dennison had already (1908) published in this series his edition of Book I and Selections from Books II-X, so that all the portions of Livy usually read are now available in this series. No set of selections will suit every one, but I for one am satisfied with Professor Egbert's choice. He gives Book XXI in full; XXII, 1-7 (Trasumene Lake) and 39-52 (Cannae); XXVI, 1-15 (Siege of Capua); XXVII, 40-51 (Metaurus); XXX, 29-37 (Zama). Thus the most striking episodes in the Second Punic War are included.

The text is in general that of Weissenborn-Müller. For my own part, I should like to see a text of Livy based on a new examination of the MSS, but such a thing is not to be looked for in an edition of this sort, and Professor Egbert's text is as satisfactory as any. Of course every teacher of Livy will have his own pet emendations, but a standard text has one merit not always found in texts based largely on conjecturesit can be translated. In 21. 43. 4 I should have preferred to retain habentibus and the second Padus with P, and in a few other cases I should have chosen other readings, but no serious objections to the text occur to me. I have noted only a few typographical errors in the text.