TO MY FRIENDS AND PATRONS: T HE present pamphlet of PA¬ LESTRA contains Nos. 23— 24, which in its Latin text mb races all the subjects I had intended b treat in Part I, but I regret that I ould not bring, in all the English expla¬ nations of the grammatical principles, so that much of the Adverbiis, all the Pra^positiones and Coniunctiones had to be left over, to be treated in the nexf issue. That same pamphlet, Nos. 25—26, will also start Part II, in which the gram¬ matical portion will contain the Versus Memoriales of Emmanvel Alvarvs, the teacher of Latin of all generations of all countries since the days of Refor¬ mation up to my time, and including me. Several numbers of Palaestra had been exhausted, but I have got them all re¬ printed, so that new subscribers may se¬ cure complete sets as far as published- by either sending cash orders of $5.00 for the complete work, or $2.50, as a first installment; I shall mail in both cases all numbers issued at the date. * ^ * No. 4 of the Fabulx Tusculanx will also soon appear with very choice con¬ tents, of which I mention here Cicada & Noctua, Aper & Vulpes, Leo & Ra- na, Ansenres & Grues, Puer Mendax, &.c. This enterprise has been undertaken to supply teachers of Latin with ready material to enliven class work by telling stories in Latin. It is not a business ven¬ ture, but a matter of principle, for I am giving away the whole work entirely gratis to willing and asking teachers. Other people may have them at 10 cents each number. These fables are not re¬ prints or translations of ^Esopus or co‘ pies of Phaedrus, but freely rewritten in narrative form, in easier Latin which any teacher can understand, and for his accommodation Latin notes and para¬ phrasing some sentences are added; while nearly all words of the text are repeated in a lexicographic order after each lesson, and questions are added, so as to offer safe guiding in putting ques¬ tions to his classes. * . * * Of the serial Mount Hope Classics, of which Pericla Navarchi Magonis, published last winter, was the first vo¬ lume, has just been published another, the Mysterium Arcx Boule, a bound volume of VI + 320 pp., by Burton E. Stevenson, (by Messrs. Dodd, Mead &f Co., New York), translated b^||g| Latin, privately published malee Prentice, Esq., 37 Wall Street, New York City, price $3.50, while they last. Only 250 copies have been printed, and only a portion of them is offered for sale. The work is a very clever detective story, entirely up-to-date, which means that a number of foot-notes had to be added on account of new Latin termino¬ logy to express the most modern con¬ ceptions, * . * * The Acta Societatis Gentium Latinx , is the official publication of the Inter¬ national Latin Society, Inc., only 4 pp., imperial 8° is obtainable gratis by anybody interested in our work, by writing to C handler Davis, Esq., Con¬ sulting Engineer, No. 1 Broadway, New York City. WHAT our schoolmen do not KNOW. The Latin faculty of the College of a great Western State University is experimenting with PaeaEsTKa. The teachers have selected six boys and girls from the city High Schools for the purpose of drilling them in Latin speech. If the experiment turns out well, to the faculty’s satisfaction, this m'ethod is to be recommended by the faculty to the State Board of Education, to be universally adopted for all the High Schools throughout the State. 1 mention this fact so that other earnest teachers may feel encouraged in the same di¬ rection. The teachers usually lack a sufficiently strong confidence in their own ability success¬ fully to Undertake such an enterprise, because they have not been professionally and prac¬ tically trained in the skill of speaking Latin With ease. I do not think, however, that the best element of our teachers lack the knowl¬ edge of the mechanism of the language; they only lack practice and example. The means I am offering to remedy this fault are both practical and adequate. The fundamental de- iciency is riot in the lack of ability, iOr oppor-. he abstract, but very largely in the is, as~ if Latin were a mere peda- gogiEfTconrrivance for “mental gymnastics” in its declensions and conjugations, and helps to “English spelling,” while the Roman au¬ thors, or some of them, called “the Classics,” are devices for translating and talking Eng¬ lish. While teachers are allowed to thrive on such programs, the-largest majority will skip along silently, and heed not the'bitter criticism of the community; the rest busies it¬ self with writing apologies and gathering argu¬ ments for proving the utility of Latin, with¬ out moving their fingers to improve their knowledge, “let the devil take the hindmost.” Since, however, even our best teachers do not in fact realize why through all these cen¬ turies all nations have retained Latin as the centre of our Roman civilization; and, since the question is rapidly approaching to a’ defin¬ ite issue, I have made up my mind to ex¬ plain the issue. In the face of the victorious swords of the Central Powers, wielded by the schoolmasters, both in England and here people are “mobil¬ izing” their resources in finance, in industries, and the war-cry of “preparedness” is being shouted in the market places. But in Eng¬ land people see more clearly that it is the schoolmaster again who is at work, and the London Times’ Educational Supplement ' for December 7th, 1915, sounds the alarm in four articles, calling for a revolution in education. One of these articles is a contribution by t Vice Chancellor of the University of Leec two others are editorials, and one is a “lett to the Editor.” The first writer seems to lose his way words while trying to point out the rive defe< of the English system of education. The fi: of these defects is “the absence of an exactii standard in the training of the mind.” good statement, to which I shall soon retui The first editorial is “Revolution on Seconda Education.” In this the main contention the writer is that “secondary” education, whi he (rightfully) preiers to call “intermediate should be nationalised , and oe made obng tory. He approves* the place of the “classic in education, but significantly adds: “B nevertheless, it is the teacher, not the wa that really matters,” and concludes: “The cm cisms aimed at our proposals convince us mo than ever that an educational revolution necessary.” The second editorial bears tl caption “Philosophy for Parents.” The writ' or the article, like everybody born in the Eni lish language, does not really mean Philo soph but the effects of training in Philosophy, shall refer to this subject presently. The co respondent, too, employs too many words 1 bring out the main thought, that there are 3t Educational Committees, and a large numb of lesser authorities controlling school matte: in England, and so responsibility is split tc much. A Minister of Public Education ougt to De invested with more sweeping, thoug not absolute, authority. To sum it up all: 1. English education lacl set standards , i. e., standards for all grades < schools, in curricula, in text-books, in qualifies tions of teachers, in preparedness of thos entering the universities, and in conferring dt grees. 2. England needs a nationalizing of her ii termediate, or middle schools. There are thri grades of schools; the elementary, the middl and high educational schools. To the fir group, in America, belond the gramnu schools; to the second, the high schools an colleges, as they are but the upper four grad* of a high school, all else in them in Americ is a usurpation and confusion of universit rights and the misunderstanding of the hiei achy of knowledge; to the third group, th.t of the high education, belong the universit and the Polytechnicum (in America als usurped in equal manner, and for the sam reason, by the university). A nation that i not indifferent towards its future, certain! it must nationalize all its schools, so that thes be subjected to the same public authorities ‘o e State, and uniform standards, set by the / ate. 4 ' “Classical” education should remain, be- use “in the’ hands of skilled teachers it •ings the scholar’s mind into direct contact ith & the genius of the great writers of great ,es.” Mark the plural! The writer meant mply the Latin and Greek Languages ? and etters, not the few so-called “classical au- iors, but all great authors of all great ages, his, precisely, is the dead line, which is re- lonsible for the decay in education in all ie world, in the English-speaking in particu- r. The unanimous agreement of the nations i preserving Latin and Greek did not aim at jelling, parsing, translating passages of a few x>ks, or at writing criticisms, dissertations on I; ne, quo minus, “cum” constructions, archa- ms, respelling' words, names of Romans, and ie like puerilities, but they aimed at the pre- jrvation of Latin speech, Latin writing, as v illustrated by the examples of men like r irchow,’ Mommsen, corresponding with their mnarch, Emperor William, in Latin ;■ or as 'sar Ferdinand of Bulgariar-greeting Emperor Villiam at Nish in Latin: “Ave Imperator, aeser & Rex, znctor & gloriosus! Ex Nissa ntiqua onincs Orientis populi tc saluiant re~ 'cmptorem f erentem oppre-ssis ■■ prosperitatem tque salutem. Vivas!” When our rulers, iplomats and statesmen cannot do this much, hen Latin is only a subterfuge and a fraud, ur teachers palming off gold brick on a credu- aus public. 5. England has not the “skilled-teachers.” Neither do we have them. Such teachers can ■e only turned' out by professional Latin and yreek training schools, which neither of us ias. Young men are appointed to teach with t, paper-qualification, i. e., a college diploma, vhich does not qualify for teaching any more lian for practicing law or medicine. Being hus unqualified, the teacher must resort to mbterfuges, evasions and philology, if he neans to hold his place. This is all the more jasy, since neither the State, nor the municipal- ty, or corporations that employ him, have ‘xpert inspectors either to look into the qual- ty of work done, or to set standards for him. While steamers; boilers, elevators, banks, etc., ire more or less controlled by inspection, :eaching of Latin and Greek is free to all, lobody is looking at the fingers, and so it is small wonder if such teaching falls in line with the adulteration of food, drugs, measures ^PHaOSOPHY FOR THE' PARENTS. All these causes of the failure of education in the. English-speaking countries are ,not the first and fundamental .ones;* they are the secondary causes, ,or consequences of the ini¬ tial ones. . The first and fundamental cause is the con¬ stitution of the English mind averse to pains¬ taking, detailed and dogged determination to study a thing in detail. The second short- coming is the lack Of dignity, whereby adults play, and play is exalted, carried on with un¬ reasoning ostentation, setting the wqist con¬ ceivable example to induce aveision fiom study. As an outgrowth of this immorality is the desire to reach a certain end without the. intervening stages, “get rich quick! Thus, students run to Gerniciny not for education, but for “degrees.” Still another cause is that all children begin schooling too late. And still another is the almost total absence of home- education, home-discipline, a monkey-love, or affectation of love, of children, depriving them of all restraint, all good example, all parental authority. When such children, which have never tasted severe study, discipline, restraint, authority, having spent a life in “ponies,” subterfuges, evasions, games, plays, “mirth” and amuse¬ ments, themselves are appointed to a ^ job, can they be expected to have acquired ski" in anything sober? He has never realized what teaching and education meanL,imtil_Jiq-. is to deliver his first “lecture.” He was never “taught,” he has only “heard lectures.” He will never teach, he will lecture, i. e., he will preach, and assign lessons. He knows no lan¬ guage, least of all Latin. W ith no home edu¬ cation, with overburdened and long dragged out primary education, with uncontrolled pri¬ vate secondary education, no nation can ex¬ pect crops of trained and “skilled” secondary teachers; and so, if a nation knows enough assuredly it will not jeopardize its destiny by leaving its secondary education to the uncer¬ tainties of private enterprise. For, unless a responsible body of experts set the standards, and prescribe the curricula, subjects, like lan¬ guages and Philosophy, where detailed knowl¬ edge is required, and no “lectures” can be sub¬ stituted, are sure to be omitted, or if they can¬ not be so omitted, as in the case of languages, philology will be smuggled in, and Latin smothered. To illustrate my .point, and to show why the Parents do not get the Philosophy the TIMES' editorial demands, I insert a letter clipped from.the New York EVENING POST: “TO THE EDITOR OF . THE . EVENING POST: “Sir: I write a few hasty notes on the letter of your correspondent, Jo- 4 — seph Dick, Herscbel’s discource is easily procured. See the ‘Principles of Science,’ by Stanley Jevons. Watt’s ‘Logic’ I have read here in Latin. The copy is in the Columbia College Li¬ brary. De Morgan’s ‘Formal Logic’ is rare. There is a copy in the Mer¬ cantile Library. Dr. Whewell’s works, I think, can be obtained from Leary & Stewart, Ninth and Market Streets, Philadelphia. Spencer Baynes pub¬ lished a translation of the ‘Port Royal Logic. I have not been able to obtain it. See his ‘Essay on the Quantifica¬ tion of the Predicate,’ London, circa 1835, and Sir W. Hamilton’s works. If I might advise, your correspondent will find much to interest him in Wundt’s ‘Logic;’ ‘Sigwart,' translated by Miss Dendy; in Whately and Je¬ vons. Logic, I fear, is ill taught in our schools. PAUL BARTHOLOW, New York, December 10 (1915).’’ When such is the scarcity of little essays on Logic, one can rightfully fear that Logic is not only “ill taught,” but that it is not taught at alj , because it does not yield to preaching, lt~must be known. But this is not all. I have to add, that in all the world’s English litera¬ ture there does not exist a text-book of formal Philosophy, and, consequently, no formal Phil¬ osophy is taught in all the English-speaking world! What must one then think of the degree of “Doctor Philosophiae ?” A doctorate of Phil¬ osophy, with Philosophy left out ! We are answered, of course, that Philosophy is being taught in all colleges and universities. They mean that something is being taught about Philosophy, i. e., philosophical (metaphysical) speculations of some German authors, the teachers thinking in all earnest that that is Philosophy, for they have never seen a text¬ book of Philosophy, not knowing Latin, and there being none in English. The difference between formal Philosophy and what they now call Philosophy is the same as between lec¬ tures on Byzantine, Gothic, Greek architecture and teaching how to build. A very decided difference. Why the English Parents lack" Philosophy, now it must be clear. It is a “hard study,” the subject does not lend itself to “preaching,” as do philosophical speculations, which are nothing else than “preaching” with¬ out beginning or end, undemonstrable, requir¬ ing no knowledge, giving no professional quali¬ fication, teaching nothing. Fancy now whole nations so educated,, with¬ out the knowledge of, any language Tom a President, through the diplomats, Secretaries of State, Governors, Senators, presidents of colleges, editors, professors, ,down to track¬ walkers. Why is it so? Because the schools are not “nationalized,” without prescribed cur¬ ricula, set standard, expert inspection, a free, uncontrolled education, in which all the “hard” studies are evaded, and counterfeits are freely substituted, such as philology for Latin, lec¬ tures on Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc., in the place of formal and painstaking teaching and exer¬ cising Philosophy, for the teaching of which Latin has been preserved as its vehicle. WHAT FOLLOWS FROM THE LACK 01 PHILOSOPHY. Those who do not know Latin in the prope sense, are not familiar with the scholasti< Latin traditions, and, as a consequence, do no understand scholastic terms, such as univer sity, college, art, liberal arts, humanities, de grees, etc., nor with scholastic etiquette, func tions of schools, classification of knowledge what are school-subjects, and the like. Let m put to test some of these terms. 1 . UNIVERSITY.—Webster’s Collegia! Dictionary defines it: “(L. universitas, whol< universe, a body corporate or society, corpora tion, fr. universus, universal). 1. An assock iton, society, guild, or corporation. ( Obs. 2 . An institution organized and incorporate for the purpose of imparting instruction, e> amining students, etc., in the higher branches c literature, science, art, etc., and empowered t confer degrees. A university may exist with out having any college connected with it.” The first striking feature of this definition i that the compiling or revising “classical” pr( fessors, unfamiliar with practical Latin an scholasticism, are seeking to read into this ol Roman word a meaning and idea of more tha a thousand years’ later origin! Otherwise tl definition clearly shows that neither the at thor. nor the revisers, had any idea what tl word means, or what a university is; the simply cannot define either- the word, or th thing. If they do not know either, they ce: tainly cannot know the functions of a un yersity; if they did know the function spheres of ditties of a university, they eoul easily define it. Since England is everlastingly quoted i America, as a kind of ultima ratio, and a arbitra in all matters, let me consider wheth< English, schoolmen know these things bett< than Americans. I take again the Education < Supplement of the London TIMES- In, r third y^ar, (Feb,. 9, 1912) No. 18. page 14, publication is reviewed, “The' Meaning of 5 University,” an inaugural address delivered to the students of University College Aberystwith, by Sir Walter Raleigh. Amongst the praises by the reviewer we read: ‘‘The Professor is not to be lured aside into any morass of ver¬ bal definitions. ‘We cannot define familiar no¬ tions.’ Universities, he reminds us, are one of the great bequests of the Middle Ages,” etc. Had the Professor been /steeped in Latin, as every decent Latinist is expected to be, that “morass” would have been his very element, and he would have plunged into it like a duck, entirely unsolicited. Finally, I could not quote a higher English authority on this subject than ALEX. HILL, Dr. Med., F. R. C. S., Secretary of the Con¬ gress of Universities of the British Empire, numbering 53 in all, who in August, 1912, de¬ livered a lecture at Cambridge on “What Is a University?” This lecture was published in the October number of ARENA, now defunct. This learned man has abundantly explained what a University was not, not a building, not a curriculum, not a body of men, but just zvhat it was, he did not state. Perhaps, after all, the various boards of education, of trustees, directors, regents, over¬ seers, iaculties, even if not able to define what a university may be, they do know by experi¬ ence and practice what it is, as suggested above. If so, how does it happen that no university in all the English-speaking world has a set and definite curriculum, course, or program? For whenever the daily papers happen to bring be¬ fore the community any new fad, some of the so-called universities (and colleges) are promptly in the market offering “courses” in the respective fads. Some of these institutions have already as many as 280 “courses,” which is far in excess over all branches of human knowledge. This one well-known fact is a sufficient evidence that our schoolmen do not know what they are doing. 2. COLLEGE.—Webster’s definition: “F. college, L. collegium, fr. collega, colleague). 2. A society of scholars or friends of learning incorporated for study or instruction, especially in the higher branches of knowledge.” Whether the Roman word collegium is de¬ rived from collega, as the German lexicog¬ rapher Freund has it. whence this etymology is copied word for word, that I leave for the German doctors to discuss; the fact is, that the word College, as a mediaeval institution, has nothing in common with that question. This fact again proves that the definers and revisers are entirely unfamiliar either with the word or with the thing, or rather both. That a college is net “a society of scholars,” whether the term be applied to the trustees, or to the teachers, is well known; but the Roman etymology had to be met. Neither is the material definition correct. For already the university is credited with “imparting instruc¬ tion in the higher branches of literature, science, art, etc.” Is then the college identical with the university, since it is “incorporated for study or instruction, especially in the higher branches of knowledge?” We are, moreover, told that a university can be without a col¬ lege. If so, then the college can stand alone without the university; why then should it be with a university? In this case, what does the^ term “college department” mean? Is- a col¬ lege a “department” of a university? If so, are the teachers of a college “Professors” of the university, with the power of conferring degrees? When not so joined, are the same teachers also “Professors,” with the same rights? If not, wby not? The fact is that colleges do confer “honorary” degrees in Phil¬ osophy (of course without Philosophy), and of Law (without a faculty of jurisprudence), and medical colleges regularly confer the degree of doctorate in medicine, as though “Doctor” meant “a physician.” So much will suffice to show 7 what an amount of confusion exists in the minds of our school¬ men concerning schools-and their—Fespeetfve- functions. They simply had no Latin educa¬ tion, all is English, without the vaguest idea of formal Philosophy, consequently there is a crying need of “Revolution in Education.” “THE HIGHER BRANCHES OF KNOWL¬ EDGE.” 3. As the university is “imparting instruc¬ tion—in the higher branches of literature, science, art, etc.,” while the college imparts in¬ struction, especially in' the “higher branches of knowledge,” the natural inference must be that the college is a higher institution than the university, for literature and arts would seem to be less than the “higher branches of knowl- • edge;” for, in reality, “higher” in this con¬ nection means the “highest,” there being no counter-part to the comparative employed. If this is not the case, then, not only the etymol- ogy is mistaken with the general idea, but also ■ the functions of the respective schools. , In order to unravel this tangle, I have to resort to further definitions, and find out what. at least art means. a. —Webster: ART (F. fr. L. ars, artis, orig. skill in joining or fitting.) 1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end. 2. A system of principles and rules for attain¬ ing a desired end; method of doing well some special work; distinguished from science.—. pi. Those branches of learning which are taught in the academical course of colleges. 5. Learning; study; applied knowledge {Ar¬ chaic). THE LIBERAL ARTS (artes libera¬ tes, which, among the Romans, c*nly freemen were permitted to pursue) were, in the Mid¬ dle Ages, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. In modern times the liberal arts include the sciences, philosophy, history, etc., which compose the course of academical or collegiate education. Hence, degrees in the arts; master and bache¬ lor of arts.” So, then, the college does teach arts, though not so credited in the definition, while the uni¬ versity does not, although so credited. Under No.' 5 is the true definition of art, i. e., “applied knowledge.” be it bricklaying, shoe¬ making, cooking, medicine, astronomy,* from the time of Prometheus to the present day, despite the remark of the compilers, Archaic, Mediaeval, Modern. Had the conceptions of knowledge and of art changed from “archaic” to “mediaeval,” and thence to “modern,” the compilers would have to tell us when, and by whom were they so changed. Subjective changes, as- they exist in the minds of men of Latin philosophical education, and men with- 'ouTr~5trCh edrfcatioiT,'are only one conceivable; these are truths immutable and eternal. That they are so, and the compilers are confused in their conceptions, I shall show by their own words in the following definition of their own: Under the head of MEDICINE they say: “1. The science which relates to the prevention, cure, alleviation of disease.”—Mark that they call medicine a science here. Under MEDI¬ CAL they say: “1. Of, pertaining to, or having to do with the art of healing disease, or the science, of medicine.” Medicine, then, in their own words, is a science,, and it is also an art, according to their own confession; when did then art cease to be an applied knowledge? Is then this definition “archaic?” is it “mediae¬ val?” Is art a different notion, or conception in one age, one country, with one race than with another? or the compilers' minds are confused ? If, then, art is an applied knowledge, and students in colleges study a score of “arts” which must be knowledge first, and then be applied; then I ask: Do those students apply grammar, logic, chemistry, history, Latin, Greek, mathematics, physics, the same as phy¬ sicians practice medicine? If they do pot, as they certainly do not, then several things must follow, to wit: A. That nothing a college teaches is either science or art; B. That no student can he a “master,” or a “bachelor” of any science or art; C. That “Magister,” or “Baccalaureus Scientiarum” or “Artium” is no degree at all; D. That a college has no right or authority to confer any degrees whatsoever. All that our schoolmen know about these things are mere hearsay. That artes liberates were so called, because none but free-born men could practice them in Rome, is also but a hearsay. Do we not know that Terentius and Phaedrus were slaves, but freed because of their talents? Were not all the “paedagogi” slaves ? In another definition our compilers say: “LIBERAL. 1. Free by birth; hence, befitting a freeman, or gentleman; refined; noble; in¬ dependent,” but they wrongfully add: “Not servile or mean.” From this definition of theirs, which is correct, our schoolmen are radically wrong when they think that college- studies are artes liberates. Since they nowhere mention artes illiberales, I must conclude that they have no knowledge of the existence of such things. If such were not the case, how could “liberales” exist? Then, if some artes are liberates, or “befitting gentlemen,” those others do not befit gentlemen, and if such are still practiced, such practitioners are no gentle¬ men. Hence the teaching and the practicing of certain arts creates aristocrats, the others make plebeians. What becomes of our much vaunted “democratic” education? Now let me take one more definition, that of Science, b. Webster ; “SCIENCE. 1. Knowl¬ edge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth or facts. 2 Accumulated and established knowledge systematized and formu¬ lated with reference to the discovery of gen¬ eral truths or the operation of general laws; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge, especially when it relates to the physical world and its phoenomena.” Human knowledge has been formulated and classified by Aristoteles, and after ’ him by- Thomas Aquinas, bringing Greek and Roman thought in harmony with Hebraic thought, new to the western world, and his giant mind con¬ structed formal Philosophy, digested' by bis disciples, the Scholastics. “Comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge,” then, is a “digested, systematized knowledge” is Pilos- ophy, the one which is not studied in English- speaking countries, because it all is in Latin, and “Latin” 'here hieans translating Cicero, parsing Caesaf, spelling VirgiliuS, and speculat¬ ing about grammat and palaeography. In that System all that is known, all that is knowable, or ever caff be known, is - digested;"and pro¬ vided witlr'pigeonholes for ' future' facts and I — 7 proofs. A series of facts, a sphere of ideas or thoughts, or knowables, will be accepted as knowledge, or. “science,” when they can be demonstrated and applied as an art.- Such a demonstrated and applied science becomes a profession. Any other knowables are neither a science, nor a profession, consequently they cannot become school-subjects. To this realm belong all the conceivable disputations on sub¬ jects like the immortality of the soul, life, ^ dreams, friendship, old age, love, the German Staatsveissenschaften, or political economy, hy¬ giene, politics, government, civics, sociology, socialism, or anything the human mind can conceive, among them journalism, they are no new sciences, nor sciences at all, because they are neither systematized, nor demonstrable, nor applied as arts, consequently they are no school-subjects. But because they all are vague, for the very reason that they- cannot be dem¬ onstrated, they appeal to lecturers mightily, for they require no definite knowledge, and open an unlimited field for preaching and idle talk. They begin nowhere, they lead nowhere, they end nowhere, and after ten years of preaching or listening to such preachings, one knows nothing, and has acquired no profession. These subjects produce Kants, Fichtes, Hegels, Schopenhauers, Hartmanns, Cousins, Marxes and a swarm of “philosophers,” of which Ger¬ many is the chief hotbed. Education itself is one of these subjects, because also undemon- strable. Psychologia, physiologia and the like are somewhat different, fo.r they are sidelines in Anthropologia, therefore Metaphysica, and, as an art, in medicine; but by itself neither of them is a school-subject. When, therefore, universities and colleges make “courses” of such matter, is another evidence that our schoolmen “have heard something.” but they do not know one thing from another. 4. The sum total of all things known or knowable fall into two great groups: The Scientiae Humaniores, or Humanitates, and Aries Liberales, of course, misunderstood by our schoolmen. Webster: “HUMANITY. 3. Mental cultiva¬ tion; liberal education. 4. pi. (With the). The branches of polite or elegant learning, as lan¬ guage, rhetoric, poetry and the ancient clas¬ sics. Here the compilers leave the etymology alone, because the German classical dictionary cannot help them, and other Latin education they do not possess, and so, while we hear a good deal about “humanitievS,” but just what they are, and why they are so called, nobody knows. What they call “humanities” are not Humanitates, or Scientiae Humaniores, but dtterae umaniores or Politiores; these are not contrasted with Artes Liberales, the Humani¬ tates are. This latter group is the main sub¬ ject of high education, the former is the group called Belleslettres by the French. The humanities then are no college subjects at all, neither are the liberal arts. When this great division was accomplished by the scholastics, and knowledge became tractable, first the Collegium, then the univer¬ sity was born, but much later the artes libe¬ rales had to be taken out, and the Polytechni- cmn was born on equal rank with the univer¬ sity. The latter two high (in proper sense) schools are the institutions of high education; to them belong all science, or high knowledge; one is the seat of the humanities, the other of the liberal arts; nothing belongs to college, because it is a preparatory school for both, the complement of the pro-gymna'sium, or higli school, with a set curriculum, and no choice of “courses.” Every school-subject must be a science, whether it belongs to the group of humanities or to that of the liberal arts, i. e., all must demonstrable, and all must have two phasj One, the abstract, or pure science, wliic\ is called Metaphysica, thatj.s beyond a matter of reason alone; and an^ that is, the application of the pu+e" knowledge; these are the “learned professions.” In the liberal arts, say, architecture, or engin¬ eering, there are no doctorates, and so a Poly- technicum cannot confer any degrees; the scientific portion of these branches are com¬ prised in Metaphysica, the central portion of formal Philosophy, on one hand being Logica, the art of thinking and reasoning; on the other Ethica, the science of moral doctrines; all else being Metaphysica, k and an engineer, or archi¬ tect must study formal Philosophy, and can obtain a doctorate in Philosophy. 5. The degree of Doctor, just like all else, is known to our schoolmen only from hear¬ say. How else could they confer a doctorate indentistry, surgery, perhaps also in pharmacy, or in other subjects? A doctorate is but a certificate qualifying the recipient to function as a professor of his subject in a university. But a doctorate can be given only for the pure science, not the art of a profession, and that pure science is always the philosophy, or meta¬ physical portion of the science, such as lus Naturae & Gentium of Ethica, fpr Jurispru¬ dence, or Anthropologia with its subdivisions Psychologia, Physiologia, Morphologia, etc., for Medicine. As these subjects are university subjects, it must be evident that no college of Law or Medicine can confer degrees, qualify¬ ing the recipient for a professorship in a uni¬ versity. A special college or academy of - 8 Medicine, or Jurisprudence, can only issue a license for their alumni empowering them to practice the art of that respective branch, but such institutions cannot qualify them as “doc¬ tors.” When I speak with college people on this subject, they invariably tell me that the State Legislature has authorized their institution to grand degrees. My answer is: “Nemo dat quod non. habet.” Neither a Legislature, nor a Parliament, king, emperor, boards of any kind, can make me a physician if I am not one. A legislation can, and does, grant the public right to those who do possess the private, or natural right, to make use of their natural, or scholarly right. The only body of men who do enjoy this natural, scholarly right is the Respective Facility of a University, and no body of men, let alone a single indi- idual, whoever he may be. All degrees not ) conferred are null and void. Neither a university, nor a polytechnicum invade each other’s sphere of activity and Actions. Much less can either, or even a debase itself to undertake to “teach” k? illibcrales, or rncrccnarias, otherwise fes, commerce, accounting, washing, management, cooking, stenog- rapFy, "journalism, banking, salesmanship, de¬ signing, or anything else for money-earning of the pupils. A university disqualifies itself by so doing, and becomes a trade-school. So, too, when a university does not teach formal Philosophy as a department, nor the special philosophy required in each of the professions, all in Latin, of course, and if it teaches the art, or applied portion alone, it has no right to con¬ fer doctorates for such teaching, for its alumni are mere tradesmen, for the art alone is trade, not a profession. When such are the conditions of education throughout the English-speaking world, on ac¬ count of the initial failure in learning and teaching Latin, one cannot wonder at the se¬ vere words reported by a correspondent of the London TIMES’ Educational Supplements “As a nation we appear to educated French¬ men, inarticulate, illiterate, illogical, uncritical, intellectually naive, unskilled at transmuting raw facts into ideas. Our education seems ^ them to consist partly of empty verbalism, and partly of mere ‘bricabracology.’ ” PREPAREDNESS. The great European war has aroused the appetite for war also on this side of the Atlan¬ tic Ocean, just like when a boy beholds another boy eating, begins to feel hungry and casts his covetous eyes on the apple of the other boy. We, too, must be “prepared,” presumably for war, but, of course, on the same principle of “get rich quick,” pile up guns, warships, armies. A nation that is not warlike by na¬ ture, that knows no restraint and discipline from childhood; a nation wdiose mind is never occupied with arms, where every man is as good as another, where other ideals wield man’s actions, will require at least two genera¬ tions before a new education could exert its influence upon the minds and character of the multitudes. The first step, even tow r ard orderly peace, must be the overhauling public education. The clamor against the inefficiency of our schools is a generation old. Distinguished business men. like Mr. Carnegie and Mr. Schwab, have openly declared our college-education use’e^s. The former has instituted the Carnegie Foum elation for the Advancement of Teaching, do¬ nating fifteen million dollars for the purpose. Just what has been accomplished in that direc¬ tion, 1 know not; but I know that Latin has not been improved, that formal Philosophy is still not taught; that false degrees are still conferred; that our schoolmen still know things from hearsay; that still nobody has de¬ fined the scholastic terms, no teachers of Latin are being professionally trained, and this ini¬ tial ignorance is still vitiating all our education. Yet reform and revolution must come from the outside. Will the State, will the Federal au¬ thorities, or will the Carnegie Foundation ini¬ tiate the educational revolution? ARCADIVS AVELLANVS, 47 W. 52d Street, New York Citv.