the effort is to avoid too great complication, and a word of explanation in passing is all that is needed to justify the present grouping. Similarly, in the accusative column, degree (how much), duration of time (how long), and extent of space (how far), in reality the same thing, are here given separately, because it is important for the pupil in each instance to recognize the specific idea which the case expresses.

Without going farther into details, let me call attention to some of the suggestive facts shown in the chart. There are 1,449 substantives in the 29 chapters of the book. There are 41 different constructions as here classified. All these appear in the first 23 chapters, and 18 of them in the first chapter alone (see the first column). These 18 are, of course, the more common constructions and, as a matter of fact, are the ones to which 1,279 of the 1,449 substantives (or 88 per cent.) are to be referred. These oft-repeated constructions, the pupil can easily see, are eminently worth his acquaintance and on the other hand the rarer constructions can be easily impressed as they appear because of their very rareness.

The reassuring thing about such a plan is that, with only slight changes in detail, it will work equally well for any book in Caesar or, for that matter, for any other Latin reading. Passages of equal length in Cicero have even fewer constructions. I have even used this same chart with Greek classes, the from-ablatives, of course, becoming genitives, and the with- and in-ablatives, datives. In the remaining three books of Caesar only eleven other constructions are to be found, making a total of 52 for the four books usually read.

By a similar method all the uses of the subjunctive can be shown on a single page. The subjunctive in independent clauses does not occur in Caesar I-IV, and the scheme resolves itself into a classification of clauses which have their verbs in the subjunctive. The first division is between the fundamental ideas expressed by mood: volition, anticipation, possibility, etc., and the various kinds of facts. Within these groups further classification is made according to the form and function of the clauses.

WHAT CAN WE DO FOR THE TWO-YEAR PUPIL?

JULIA P. BENSON, TEACHER OF LATIN, YEATMAN HIGH SCHOOL, ST. LOUIS To some of us who eagerly frequent doctor and sage and hear great argument about the purpose and methods of teaching Latin in the secondary schools it seems that one important point is usually ignored; this is that the large majority of those who enter high school spend only one or two years there. Unhappily there is no room for difference of opinion with regard to the large number of pupils who drop out of high school after but one or two years. Up to this time very little special cognizance has been taken of these pupils in the planning of the Latin course, yet these are the very ones, perhaps, who should be considered with greatest care. Very, very few of them will ever again do any systematic studying. In view of this the little time they have with us seems so infinitely precious that it would be appalling to feel that a fifth of that time were nearly thrown away.

In order to determine, if possible, why we do not despair, let us ask ourselves what we may hope to give in a two-years' course. A knowledge of Roman life and literature? In its best form, the sense of kinship which can be gained alone by the study of the language which is the outgrowth of that life? Yes. For all else the complete series of historical events and the philosophy of them, we cannot hope to give in two-years' time what the history teacher can do in a few months. Is it possible in this period to enable pupils to read Latin fluently, or with pleasure? Certainly the brightest ones will be able to reach Caesar with a fair degree of ease, yet we would not hope that even they would be able to translate Cicero, Horace or Virgil without difficulty and further study.

Viewed from these two aspects of general information and ease in reading, two years of study seem to yield small returns. What then can be our justification for it? Shall we content ourselves with the glib phrase "Latin gives such excellent mental discipline?"

In these latter days the glitter has quite gone from this one useful specious tenet of Classicists. Far from diminishing the value of Latin, the newer point of view makes it greater in relation to other subjects in the curriculum than it was when the doctrine of general discipline held sway, for this reason: While we deny that the specific can function as the general in unrelated groups, it is conceded that in related ones it does. Herein lies the enhanced value of Latin. Before, Latin, along with other languages, shared in common with many other subjects the general claim that its study would give valuable training in general memory, reason and judgment, inductive and deductive. Now we make the unhesitating claim that our work operates to any extent only in its own group, viz.: language; yet how strong a claim this leaves us can be appreciated readily if a thought be given to the important part played in life by language. The whole world at all times is a woman— when it thinks it speaks. Written and spoken expression is the natural consequent of thought. That subject which gives power and variety to this indispensable means of self-expression and communication has surely no mean place in the list of educative subjects.

While this claim is justly made for any language, it seems not too much to assert that inasmuch as language is based on thought-relationship, that language which reveals this relationship most clearly is of greatest value. Undeniably an inflected one makes this revelation in a more illuminating way than does an uninflected one. Its very nature forces the pupil into conscious realization of the value of each separate thought in relation to the others. Because of its influence on English, Latin stands high in the list of studies for these short-course pupils under consideration.

Again and again we hear teachers of higher classes in science and mathematics, as well as literature, say that they prefer the Latin pupils, because, to quote their words' "The Latin pupils know how to read English. They can get the thought out of difficult passages in which the other pupils flounder helplessly." In addition to being better able to grasp the thought of another, our pupils are certainly better able to give a clear statement of their own ideas-have a larger and more discriminating vocabulary and greater facility of expression. An article on oratory by Senator Hoar, published in the June Scribner's of 1901, may prove interesting in discussing the value of Latin for English. He says, "In my opinion, the two most important things that a young man can do to make himself a good public speaker are: first, constant and careful written translations from Latin or Greek into English: and second, practice in a good debating society." He goes on to point out that nearly all the famous English orators have given much attention to careful translations from Latin into English and that Cicero devoted much attention to translations from Greek into Latin. He declares the value of translation is very different from that of original work.

The explanation which Senator Hoar gives for his statement that the value of translating from Latin into English, in getting command of good English expression, can hardly be overrated, is in substance as follows: The explanation is not far to seek. You have in Latin the best instrument for the most precise and most perfect expression of thought. Having got the idea into your mind with the precision, accuracy and beauty of the Latin expression, you are to get its equivalent in English. Suppose you have knowledge of no language but your own. The thought comes to you in the mysterious way in which thoughts are born, and struggles for expression. If the phrase that occurs to you does not exactly fit the thought, you are almost certain, especially in speaking or in rapid composition, to modify the thought to fit the phrase. Your sentence commands you, not you the sentence. But the conscientious translator has no such refuge. He is confronted by the inexorable original. He must try and try again until he has the exact thought expressed in the English equivalent. This is not enough. He must get an English expression which will equal as near as may be the dignity and beauty of the original. This practice will soon give him command of the great riches of his own noble English tongue, will add beauty to his style and cause the process of thought itself to grow easier.

Fortunately for the purpose of teaching language-structures the interdependence of words is forced upon the first-year pupil with every Latin sentence he forms. Nowhere in the course is it so important to have instructors of thorough training along the grammatical side of Latin. Only such an one can teach the underlying thought of case and mood, thus unifying what might else seem to be arbitrary sets of rules. For example: appreciation of the adverb form of the ablative and the adjective use of the genitive will aid immensely in the use of these cases. The subjunctive, too, may be robbed of many of its horrors if the basic thought which underlies the mood be made familiar to the pupils. Though the force of individual words may be better understood, unless they be combined in the best form of English expression we shall have neglected a very important part of our task. No translation of the simplest sentence should be accepted unless it is expressed in good English, idiomatic English if need be.

It may perhaps be feared that, in laying so much stress on language-structure and translation during the first year, both interest and the work in forms will suffer. This need not be so. It is not difficult to arouse enthusiasm in pupils for good English expression, even while working with disconnected sentences. As to forms, the absolutely indispensable part of our first-year work, they and interest can surely be combined. Each teacher will find his own method the best for him. There is, however, a sine qua non, which is that the teacher shall with all his heart believe that the teaching of Latin is at least as worthwhile as the teaching of the other high-school subjects and shall come before his pupils as if he had something for them worth their best attention. The first-year pupils come into the Latin class with minds filled with the lesson they have just recited, or with the conversation which they have just shared on their way to the Latin room. If an apparently uninterested teacher sits or rises before them there is certainly no quickening of their Latin interest. This teacher calls perhaps on one pupil for the translation of a sentence, on the next for another sentence, and so on. In this way perhaps half of the recitation will have passed and some of the pupils will as yet have taken no part. We may hazard a guess that many of that half are still wool-gathering, giving just sufficient attention to know when their names are called. Let us now suppose that an alert teacher, filled with love for his work and conscious of its value, is before the class. Let him give a rapid fire of questions which can be answered in a word or two. In a moment every pupil is aroused. Latin consciousness awakens and all are in a fair way to receive benefit from the entire lesson, instead of some small part of it.

If the work of the first year is to be done thoroly-and if it be not so done all is lost-we must go over the same matter again and again. How urgent then the necessity for variety in presentation This is especially true in the drill on forms. To illustrate: A declension may be recited in toto by one pupil, or one may be asked for the nominative, the next for the genitive, and so on. Or the Latin case-ending may be given and the pupil required to give the name of the case, or vice versa. A number of the class may be sent to the board and required to write the same declension or tense, as a comparative test of speed and accuracy. One may line up the pupils like an old-fashioned spelling match and have a rapid review on forms There are a hundred different ways of achieving variety in the presentation of the regular, fundamental work, and the interest which follows is sure to bring greater attention. Just here it may very well be asked whether we shall devote all our energies to teaching the structure of the language and felicitous translation, depending only on our varied presentation of the pure subject-matter to insure the interest necessary to good work, or shall we reinforce these devices with some attention to history, archaeological matters, too. The experience of many Latin teachers seems to show that a reasonable amount of time spent in dealing with matters of general interest improves rather than lessens the character of the harder, more definite work.

Among these different devices for arousing interest none is more vitalizing than training in intelligent reading aloud of the original and the translation of it from the spoken Latin. Those teachers who say they have no time for such things-that it takes all their time to

beat in the necessary facts—are surely giving up the greatest time-saver in the whole system of education; viz., interest.

tences.

In the reading of Caesar, the chief difficulty lies in the long, complex sentences. While their mastery is essential to success in Latin, this mastery is also of great importance in English, whether in English literature or in the study of other subjects written in English. The question arises as to the best method of gaining command over these inverted senOne method is that of direct attack-the careful study of subordinate clauses one by one-devoting entire lessons to the consideration of the different kinds and their combination, without scattering our energies at that time by attention to translation of aught else, save as it bears upon the matter in hand. If in connection with work of this sort we, for a time, make a careful analysis of each involved sentence met, we may hope to see our troubles rapidly grow less.

It seems reasonable to make our prose work of such a character that it will aid in overcoming the chief difficulties our pupils have to meet at the time when they are meeting them. A glance at prose books designed for second-year work will show how little some of them do this. While the Caesar students are struggling with indirect discourse, indirect question and command, various constructions of purpose, etc., many prose books offer work on ethical datives, constructions with interest and refert and other points quite beyond the second-year pupils' need or comprehension. Practical experience proves that the pupils are willing and interested in working on prose that will help them in understanding the Latin with which they are concerned, while none but the hopelessly linguistic care for discussion of abstruse points which have but little practical bearing on the rest of their work. Let us then adapt our prose to our pupils' needs.

As in the first-year work, nothing but a good degree of excellence should be allowed in the translations. Pupils are not slow to admit that only good English can be regarded as a translation of good Latin. If the Latin were faulty imperfect English might be satisfactory, but in rendering Caesar's clear and concise style nothing but clear and concise English can be adequate.

We would probably agree that the habit of having translations often written on the board is perhaps the best means of improving the pupils' style. When written out before their eyes, they realize faulty structure and expression far better than from the spoken word.

As in the first-year work so here variety of presentation proves interest-promoting. If we begin with the review one day, let us then, next day, begin with the advance lesson or with rapid work on forms or constructions. If the pupils one day translate the review from hearing the Latin read, the next day let them read the Latin intelligently with intelligent expression, or write the Latin from dictation. We all know dozens of ways of varying the monotony, but do we remember to use them?

Collateral work is of decided importance in the Caesar year. With some classes notebooks on particular points of interest prove useful. The building of bridges and enginesof-war, the making of maps, etc., rarely fail to be successful in improving the general tone of the work.

Some study of Caesar's life I should count as most important, since a sympathetic attitude toward the author works wonders. Throughout we take for granted that balance is maintained and that we remember always that our main purpose is the study of the language for itself and for its illuminating influence on all language.

We claim for the two-year course some gain in culture, fair facility in reading Caesar, but chiefly such an increased sense of language-structure as will operate in any and all other languages and be capable of expansion along its own line, if opportunity affords.

Will the four-year pupil be better or worse for having the teaching during his first two years directed toward this latter end? Better, some of us believe, for the average student will then enter upon the study of Cicero with ability to gain the thoughts from even involved Latin sentences-with strength and skill in overcoming structural difficulties.

With these difficulties fairly mastered, we can expect of them appreciation of Cicero's wonderful literary style and the poetic thought of Virgil, “the lord of language."

Now, indeed, our task is not merely one of interest but of joy, for now in truth we are ready to read Latin for Latin's sake, to appreciate the beauty of literary form and the melody of golden speech.

It is safe to say that nearly every pupil who has been well trained during the first years will delight in Cicero and Virgil. If they go on into college Latin they probably will find not merely an inspiration for youth but a solace in old age.

To sum up the various points brought up in the discussion, the chief value of Latin for the large number who study only for one or two years is a strengthened sense of language-structure. This is of unquestioned value in English. An alert teacher can find means to add variety and interest to the sterner aspect of the work and attain the end of creating a stronger language sense. The teaching calculated to do this will prove valuable as well during the whole course of pure Latin. The four-year pupil therefore does not lose, the two-year pupil gains immensely by a recognition of conditions and an adaptation of work to fit them. Fairness and economy seem to argue for some such adaptation.

C. ENGLISH

IDEALS VERSUS REALITIES IN HIGH-SCHOOL ENGLISH ERNEST C. NOYES, PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, NORMAL HIGH SCHOOL, PITTSBURG, PA. Out of the discussion and experiment that have accompanied the growth of interest in English as a school subject, there has now come substantial agreement concerning ideals and aims in literature and composition. None will deny that, in general, the aims of English teaching are to arouse love of literature and to cultivate habits of thoughtful reading. In particular they are to bring pupils into such vital contact with great works of literature that they shall gain not only intellectual understanding of these books— knowledge, but also spiritual comprehension-power. Literature should be presented so that it shall instill knowledge of human life and of human nature, nourish imagination and the sense of beauty, foster noble ideals of character, confer power to think and power to feel-in short, give general culture to both mind and soul. The third aim universally accepted is the development of the power to speak and write clear, correct, idiomatic English. Our ideals in English study, then, will be attained only when every boy and girl under our charge shall acquire a love of literature, shall appropriate the treasures of thought and feeling hidden in the books studied, and shall gain proficiency in the use of his mother tongue.

Surely, these ideals are not too high: yet how far are they from the realities! Highschool graduates are not set apart from the rest of the community by a peculiar love of literature or by unusual thoroughness in reading. To be sure, assimilation of the spiritual content of books cannot be measured; but even grasp of the more easily gained intellectual content is far from universal. Of the deficiencies in speech and writing shown by the highschool graduate we hear continually. There is a wide gap between our ideals and the realities about us.

Nevertheless, this discrepancy between our aims and our attainments is no cause for discouragement. Though our ideals may not be realized for every pupil, yet a larger number every year do learn to love literature and to get from it what it has to teach them; and a college professor has recently attributed to the study of English composition in the schools the unprecedented quantity of good English now being written. It must be remembered that it is the faults of our teaching that attract attention; the merits pass unnoticed. Moreover, the last decade has unquestionably seen such improvement both in the quality and the quantity of our results as to give us great encouragement.