almost indispensable. Moreover, it seems to me there is a decided opinion to the effect that a knowledge of the classics is more or less indispensable to one who claims to be a man of culture and education in the broadest acceptation of those terms.

In regard to the period at which classical studies should begin, the preponderating testimony is in favor of an early commencement. In other words, it is the opinion of most of those who have expressed any conviction at all upon the subject that a good knowledge of classical studies should be acquired during, or even before, the schooling which is designed to fit the young man to enter the freshman class of a good college or university. There is a very decided preponderance of opinion to the effect that the time of the more mature studies, that is, of the last three years of the college course and practically the whole of the technical courses in scientific studies, should be free from any special devotion to classical researches.

I may cite as a typical advocate of classical learning the letter received from Professor Bessey of the University of Nebraska. He states in part:

In the management of the department of botany in the University of Nebraska, I require a knowledge of Latin at least, by those who take up the serious study of botany, and I urge such persons to have some knowledge of Greek also. The botanist must know something of Latin and he should know something of Greek also. One young man who came to me a number of years ago with a preparation in modern languages only, soon became so convinced of the necessity of a knowledge of Latin and Greek that after entering the University he went back to the beginning of Latin and brought up his knowledge of this language, so that he became a critical Latin scholar. He did the same with Greek, and always defended his action on the ground of its being necessary for him in his botanical work. He is now one of the eminent botanists of the country.

As a typical illustration of the attitude of those opposed to classical learning I may give the letter received from Professor Carl Barus of Brown University:

It seems to me little short of ludicrous that anybody at the present age of progress should make an endeavor to reintroduce classical philology, particularly at a time when at such venerable seats of learning as Oxford and Cambridge determined efforts have been made to get rid of this incubus. How is it possible for anybody to fail to realize that the trend of science is ever toward mathematics, that in the next generation the demand for a mathematical equipment and the need of it will be increased tenfold? How is it possible to ignore the fact that this is the direction in which specialization should be made, beginning at an early age, for the burden is continually heavier, and that this is precisely the direction in which nothing is being done? As for philological work, let us have English, French, German, Italian, etc., which not only have the same cultural value, but open to their possessors a world of life and learning and science. I can't answer your questions for they put me in a temper.

These two letters plainly join the battle between the opposing forces and in neither of them is there any uncertain sound.

Professor McKee, of Lake Forest College, sent a most interesting letter. He states that he is distinctly convinced from experiments he has made that classical studies are a positive disadvantage to scientific students. He finds that students who have come with a knowledge of Latin rather than with a knowledge of German do not rank as high as those who have studied German. This is not a mere opinion but is based upon actual data of the examinations of college students.

Professor Branner, of Leland Stanford Junior University, does not agree with Professor McKee. He says:

I believe that a systematic examination of the records would show that the men who have the most enduring reputations in the science I know most about are men who have more or less training in the classics.

This may well be true, since the men who have enduring reputations are older men, and the older men were educated at a time when classical training was required and not made optional, as it is at the present time. Even, however, should the records of scientific men show in the future that those who have acquired distinction in sciences are those who have had no classical training, it would not be a proof of the lack of value of classical culture. It is well known that the taste for scientific studies often develops early in life to such an extent as to exclude all desire for the study of any languages, except those necessary to scientific reading and research. Hence it would happen that men with a natural bent for scientific studies would naturally omit the study of classical languages when such a study was not required for college graduation. Upon the whole, it seems to me that the class of data submitted by Professor McKee is likely to be the most reliable. Unfortunately for my own personal views in the matter, the results of his observations seem to be distinctly unfavorable to the classical scholar. I should not, however, like to rest content with this one instance, but should like to see it supplemented by others. If we think for a moment of the vast number of distinguished men who have already made their mark in science, and recall the fact that practically all of them were well trained in the classics, we would hardly be able to condemn classical studies on the ground that they are positively injurious, as is claimed by many of those who have responded to my inquiries.

My own opinion, partly formed, I must say, before receiving the replies to my circular letter, though somewhat accentuated by reason of these replies, is that it would be a very serious mistake to omit from the higher learning of the United States instruction in classical studies. I believe, on the other hand, that more attention should be paid to these studies, as was the case forty years ago, when it was deemed not possible to have a liberal culture without a knowledge of Latin. I believe that most of the objections to classical studies made by those who have responded to my inquiries would be removed if these studies were begun at an earlier age. I am led to believe after many years of careful consideration of the subject, and as a result of four years of teaching the classics to young college students, and as the result of six years of instruction in the classics received from very competent teachers, that the failure to reach the full value of classical instruction lies essentially in the fact that this instruction is attempted at the wrong time and, to a certain extent, in the wrong manner. The general practice in this country is to defer classical studies until the time a young man begins to prepare for college. While there are many notable exceptions to this, exceptions that are, by the way, the strongest evidence of the pertinence of these remarks, I think it may be demonstrated that four years of classical study, beginning at the age of sixteen, as a rule, would produce no more mastery of these studies than would two or three years of study if commenced at the age of ten or twelve. Youth is the natural period for learning a language. In extreme youth the brain may be regarded as almost unwritten upon and the sensations which it registers most indelibly are those which pertain to language. If the brain may

be regarded as a palimpsest, I think we will all agree that the first inscriptions upon it should be those of language. Mathematics and science and philosophy can be written over words with good effect, but if you try to write a language over the other inscriptions you will have but little success.

V. THE CLASSICS AND MODERN LIFE

THE HONORABLE JAMES BROWN SCOTT Solicitor for the Department of State, Washington, D.C. Ever since the Renaissance there have not been lacking able exponents of the view that the modern is superior to the ancient world; that the literature since the great revival of learning is superior to the literature of classical times, and that the duty of the modern world is to develop itself along modern lines without any great regard to the past. The supremacy of the modern world was ably proclaimed by Perrault in the reign of Louis XIV. The literature of this period, however original it may be, was based upon classic models; and the Battle of the Books, to quote the expression which Swift has made famous, has raged in England as well. That the question is still debated and considered debatable can only mean that the contest is undecided and that the arguments advanced have been neither convincing nor exhausted.

Without attempting to enter upon this controversy, it is perhaps not improper for a layman to observe that even if the supremacy of the modern world in literature, in art, and in philosophy be admitted, the supremacy is the result of the achievement of the ancient world in literature, art, and philosophy, and that the modern world has reached its present degree of civilization and culture by a return to the traditions of the ancient world, inter