Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Saturnian verse, in which the old Saturae were probably written (the verse quoted by Festus is apparently Saturnian, render this all the more probable.

One of the chief characteristics of the Roman genius was the fondness for the display of satire and ridicule, and it is worthy of note that the literature of the Romans is more deeply tinged with this spirit than that of any other nation. Up to this time these old Roman burlesques had served (like the editorial page in the modern newspaper) as the principal instrument for publishing the criticism of men and measures, and for hurling the shafts of satire against the vices of society.

With Ennius, an innovator in so many ways, Satura took on a new form, and for this reason: The success of the new drama, with its fully developed plot, killed the demand for the old dramatic medley, as a theatrical entertainment. The new plays, however, were moulded on the type of the new Attic comedy, the comedy of manners, and gave little opportunity for the display of satire and ridicule, which had so characterized the old time burlesques. Nothing could be more natural then, than that Ennius should remodel the old satirical medley into the literary Satura, and form thus a proper channel for the expression of that sort of miscellaneous criticism which formerly was current in the old Satura, and which is referred to by Horace Epist. II. I. 145-160) in his description of the spirit of the indigenous drama. Ennius retained the name, the spirit, and the essential features of the old Saturae. The characteristics of his Saturae are traceable throughout the whole history of satire down to Juvenal. The language never rises to the height of other kinds of poetry (Hor. speaks of his satires as 'sermones,' and his muse as pedestris'? The peculiarities of the Sermo Familims are everrwhere noticeable. There is a strong tendency to dramatic form. Dialogue forms an important feature. The personal, autobiographical element is ever where noticeable. The inordinate amount of obscenity likewise portrays its peculiar origin, l'nusual laxity in structural arrangement, the easy change of topic: variety of metres are other characteristics; and can we believe, as the Waters on satire would have us that the spirit of satire and ridicule was current in the al Satura, ani in all the authors of the literary Satura except Ennius and his nephew curus. In the fragments of Ennius, scanty though they be, there in annen of all the elements of the Roman Satura, including that of satire. Lato fets developed these characteristics each in his own peculiar way, the e dition of society and the temperament of the writer being the leading instructe per le cannot behere that Enrius, the man who was perhaps more interneta phan *** Wher Roman in mulling Roman thought on Greek lines, in Inf i ne

ulur mn awakening scepticism in religion, and in dispelling ***** H

o tel is what the instrumentality of satire. 1 sh t hu there! **s gixxi eridence of this spirit of satire in his 4 in that is this and the suns which he drew upon or used as models,

the ***** ** W h en treated and which became the stock subjects of Haley R ERIK fua xhe as in the language itself.

thin M

F wa* rad Ar the author by Professor William A. Near were made by Professors A. G. Harkness and

At the request of the Committee on Officers for 1896-97, the Secretary read the following nominations : –

President, Bernadotte Perrin, Yale University.
Vice-Presidents, Minton Warren, Johns Hopkins University.

Clement L. Smith, Harvard University.
Secretary and Treasurer, Herbert Weir Smyth, Bryn Mawr College.
Executive Committee, The above officers, and

O. M. Fernald, Williams College.
Basil L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University.
Francis A. March, Lafayette College.
Samuel Ball Platner, Western Reserve University.
John Henry Wright, Harvard University.

The report was adopted, and the above-named officers elected.

In the absence of a member of the Latin sub-committee of the Committee of Twelve, the Secretary announced that the report on Latin would shortly be sent to all the members of the Association for their approval. The report is here inserted.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF TWELVE ON THE STUDY OF LATIN.

The Programmes of secondary education put out by the Committee of Ten in their report published in 1893, proposed the reduction of Greek preparatory studies from three years to two, and the reduction of Latin preparatory studies from five periods a year for four years to five periods a year for the first two years and four periods for the remaining two years.

The harm which would have been worked by the acceptance of the proposition with regard to Greek was so great and unmistakable that immediate and unhesitating protest was demanded. Accordingly the American Philological Association, at a large meeting held in Philadelphia, December 28, 1894, unanimously adopted a motion (now generally made known throughout the country) that, in any programme designed to prepare students for the classical course, not less than three years of instruction in Greek should be required.

The harm which would have been worked by the acceptance of the proposition of the Committee of Ten with regard to Latin was appreciable, and the point of view from which the reduction in that subject was made was a dangerous one. Nevertheless, since the proposed reduction in Greek was the more serious of the two, the Philological Association confined its immediate expression of opinion to that subject, charging its Committee of Twelve, however, with the further duty of considering the questions involved in the propositions with regard to Latin. The Committee accordingly gave the question careful thought, and conferred also with a large number of other members of the Association engaged in the teaching of languages, ancient or modern, in schools or colleges. It found a striking harmony of opinion, which was further evinced at the meeting of the American Philological Association held in Cleveland on July 13, 1895, by the unanimous passage of the following resolution :

“The American Philological Association is of the opinion that the best interests of education demand the retention of the full amount of five weekly periods for four years now generally given, throughout the country, by schools that have a four-year course. And it would be glad to see an increase of the number of years devoted to the subject, either through an extension of the high-school course to five or six years, or through the carrying of some of the high-school subjects into the grammar-school curriculum.”

The Association recognizes the fact that the prevailing crowding and lack of uniformity in our secondary education in America are serious evils. Accordingly it is in sympathy with the desire of the Committee of Ten to relieve the present congestion of studies and at the same time reach a national programme or series of programmes which might everywhere be adopted; but the Association differs radically from that Committee with regard to the method to be employed. It is of course clear that, under the present circumstances of increasing demands for time on the part of many of the so-called newer subjects, the results desired cannot be obtained unless there is either a general reduction of the time given to each subject or a complete omission of some of the subjects or a relegation of some of them, in whole or in part, to the grammar-school grade. In the judg. ment of the Philological Association the first method, which was the one proposed by the Committee of Ten, is not the true one. It is not best to relieve an overcrowded programme by reducing studies that are of central importance. It is better in any case to make sure that the few essential things in any programme of study, whether classical or scientific or of any other kind, are given their full weight and effectiveness, than to teach many things incompletely through an insufficient allotment of time.

It is to be clearly understood that the Association is not now concerned with the question whether every one should be required to study Latin, but is simply laying down the proposition that those who do desire to study it should find a sufficient amount of time devoted to it to enable them to gain the best results. In point of fact there seems to have been a general agreement that five periods a year for four years is none too large an amount to assign to the subject. No demand for a reduction from this amount has come from the schools themselves. On the contrary, it seems to be generally recognized that a larger amount of time, rather than a smaller, ought to be given to the subject of Latin. In a number of schools in different parts of the country courses of five or six years have already been developed ; and the feeling which led to this movement found formal expression, at the meeting of a large and widely representative Classical Conference held at Ann Arbor in March, 1895, in the passage, without a dissenting vote, of a resolution in favor of a six-year course.

This belief in a longer course, rather than a shorter one, appears most natural to one who studies the problems of education not simply from the point of view of American experiments, but with the knowledge also of the experience of other countries. Our better schools usually provide four years for the study of Latin, with live exercises a week. If to this amount be added the two years of Latin regarded as normal by colleges which prescribe a part of their work, American education has at best a six-year Latin course to present as against the nine-year or ten-year course found in Germany and England. Moreover, the number of weekly exercises given to the subject is smaller in this country than in Europe. A reduction to a still lower standard, such as is proposed by the Committee of Ten, would be uncalled for and unfortunate. We protest against it, because such a reduction would tend to cripple the study of Latin and other studies which are appreciably affected by its welfare, and because such a reduction would postpone the hopes we entertain that Latin studies will be developed in this country until the opportunities afforded equal the best open to students of the old world. We therefore appeal to our universities, our colleges, and our schools, and to all friends of sound education, in whatever occupation, to see to it that our preparatory Latin, in place of being weakened, is strengthened and developed as soon as practicable into something more substantial than we now possess. To this end we especially ask the co-operation, not only of all classical teachers, but of those who are interested in our own and other modern languages; and in general we ask the support of all men who believe in a well-rounded liberal education, in which literary studies constitute an indispensable part.

William W. Goodwin, Professor of Greek, Harvard University, Chairman,
CECIL F. P. BANCROFT, Principal of Phillips Andover Academy.
FRANKLIN CARTER, President of Williams College.
WM. GARDNER HALE, Professor of Latin, University of Chicazo.
WILLIAM R. HARPER, President of the University of Chicago.
FRANCIS W. KELSEY, Professor of Latin, L'niversity of Buchan.
GEORGE L. KITIREIXE, Professor of Enzlish, Hariard ('

ner:ity.
ABBY LEACH, Professor of Greek, l'assar College
THOMAS D. SEYMOUR, Professor of Greek, Yale University.
CHARLES F. SMITH, Professor of Creek, L'nizer:it; of Il'isconsin,
MINTON WARREN, Profe::07 of Latin, Juhn: Hipkin: lnizersity,
ANDREW F. WEST, Professor of Lalin, Princeton Unizer:ity.

[ocr errors]

WILLIAM C. COLLAR, Head Master of Roxbury Latin School.
EUGENE C. COULTER, Head Master of the University School, Chicago.
E. W. Coy, Principal of Hughes High School, Cincinnati.
T. F. CRANE, Professor of Romance Languages, Cornell University.
NEWTON C. DOUGHERTY, Superintendent of Schools, Peoria, Ill.; President of

the National Educational Association.
TIMOTHY Dwight, President of Yale University.
Edward D. EATON, President of Beloit College.
Wilson FARRAND, Associate Master, Newark Academy.
JOSEPH W. FAIRBANKS, Principal of Smith Academy, Washington University,

St. Louis. J. H. FREEMAN, Superintendent of East-side Schools, Aurora, III. GEORGE S. FULLERTON, Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. JOHN C. GRANT, Principal of the Harvard School, Chicago. FRANCIS B. GUMMERE, Professor of English, Haver ford College. JOHN J. HALSEY, Acting-President and Professor of Political and Social Science,

Lake Forest University. EDWARD L. Harris, Principal of the Central High School, Cleveland; President

of the Department of Secondary Education, National Educational Associa

tion. THOMAS S. HASTINGS, President of Union Theological Seminary, New York. DAVID J. Hill, President of the University of Rochester. B. A. HINSDALE, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching, University of

Michigan. ANNIE B. HYDE, University of Denver. William DEWITT HYDE, President of Bowdoin College. Julia J. IRVINE, President of Wellesley College. JOHN J. KEANE, Rector of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. CHARLES H. KEYES, President of Throop Institute, Pasadena, Cal. GEORGE TRUMBULL Ladd, Professor of Philosophy, Yale University. ALBERT G. LANE, Superintendent of Schools, Chicago. W. R. MALONE, Principal of the Salt Lake City High School. MOSES MERRILL, Head Master of Public Latin School, Boston. HUBERT A. NEWTON, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University. A. F. NIGHTINGALE, Superintendent of High Schools, Chicago. FRANCIS L. PATTON, President of Princeton University. HENRY R. PATTENGILL, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of

Michigan. Oscar D. Robinson, Principal of High School, Albany; a member of the Com

mittee of Ten.NATHAN C. SCHAEFFER, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of

Pennsylvania.
Austin Scott, President of Rutgers College.
William H. SMILEY, Principal of High School, Denver.
EGBERT C. SMYTH, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Andover.
William GREENOUGH THAYER, Head Master of St. Mark's School, Southborough,

Mass.
CHARLES S. THORNTON, Member of the Illinois State Board of Education.

« ПредишнаНапред »