out consulting the past and the most skilful educational experts of the present, would by that very fact show his utter unfitness for such a complicated and delicate work, and would soon have reason to repent of his rashness. I am glad that the subject assigned me to treat before you, namely, "Methods of Teaching Latin in Colleges, Old and New," obliged me to a retrospect. The historical sketch which I have attempted, brief and defective as it is, shows clearly enough, I hope, that the present system of college education, as it is now used in the best colleges in England, Germany, France and the United States, has grown to its present estate with the growth of these nations, and that the changes which the methods of teaching, in their main outlines underwent, were really providential. So much and so clearly are they a natural and providential growth that we must not think of going back either to the Middle Ages or to the time of the Renaissance. Our duty is to realize clearly the present status to recognize and accept simply and cordially history and geography, mathematics, modern languages and sciences as efficient and necessary allies in the work of education; to use what prudence and light, what diligence and strength we have, to assign to each of these branches of learning its place and function, and thus to produce the best results, that is, the best developed, the highest type of men.

The church and the state feel more than ever the need of such men; they anxiously look around for them in the trying times in which we live. Neither England, nor Germany, nor the United States are, to our great satisfaction, inclined to venture on experiments; they cannot afford it. To transact the difficult national affairs, men of strong and clear minds, of fine judgment, of tact and taste, of self-control and good manners, of integrity, the best type of men, roundly, harmoniously, and thoroughly trained, are required. That such men are still more needed and in demand than the most powerful guns or menof-war, is a consoling and comforting feature of the times.

So far I have spoken only on old methods. To be true to my subject, I must add a few words at least on methods new. Between the methods of teaching Latin in use in our classical

colleges at the present time, the differences are not great. Some go a little farther in the study of Latin than others; some make use of one kind of exercise more extensively than others; but there is no substantial difference. The only method which is notably different from all the rest, I think, is that of the German gymnasia. There they spend the first two years entirely and the third year almost entirely in committing to memory words, declensions and conjugations, the irregular perfects and supines, together with a few rules of syntax. These elements they drill into the students by constantly translating and explaining short unconnected sentences from Latin into German and from German into Latin, out of a most carefully prepared exercise book. They read no classical author, it is true, at this stage of their schooling; but they prepare all the while sedulously for the reading of the classics; for the words, the expressions, and even the sentences of the exercise books are in great part taken from the authors whom in consequence of their drilling they expect to read in subsequent years more quickly and more profitably. Another distinguishing feature of their method is the persistence with which they pursue the study of grammar to the very end of their nine years' course. In the last year two hours every week are still given to grammar. It takes some courage to express anything but admiration for a method which comes to us with the immense weight and authority of the whole German Empire. However I must say that whilst reading the detailed program of the gymnasia's Latin course, I could not help remembering how uninteresting, how insipid the lessons and classes of the first years were to memorize vocabularies without end, long lists of irregular verbs, whole strings of exceptions in gender and declension. Even the translations of those innumerable exercises of detached sentences, which at every step grew bigger and more difficult, were for us students mostly memory work. We only repeated in class what we had learned from keys at home. We need not imitate our German confreres in all things. Only German boys with their unquestioning docility and implicit confidence in their superiors can stand work such as I have described. But we may and should

imitate them in the store they set by Latin. A classical course of nine years, in which they teach Latin at the rate of 8 hours. a week during 5 years, and 7 hours a week during the remaining 4. Of the total number of 9000 class hours which the whole classical course comprises, nearly one-third, 2720 hours, are gvien to Latin. This speaks more loudly and clearly than anything I could say of the educational value of Latin. They evidently consider the thorough teaching and study of Latin as the best means of training their young men for higher studies and for the higher employments in church and state, and no nation, certainly, has bestowed and continues to bestow more thought, earnestness, and zeal on the education of its future citizens.

I shall say nothing of the teacher who must however be the soul of the method and of all the work done in and out of class; I shall say nothing either of the necessity of a hearty, generous, energetic co-operation on the part of the scholar, the absence of which accounts for the failure of good methods and much able teaching; but I beg to be allowed to say in conclusion one word of earnest exhortation. In order to guard against the dangers incident to the study of thoroughly pagan literature and to secure for us and Holy Church the benefits which the Saints, whom I mentioned above, derived from it, let us frequently and fervently implore the aid of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of our Savior, Jesus Christ. This spirit of light and strength alone can reach, directly enlighten, strengthen, and guide the souls both of the teacher and the pupil, in the great and holy work of education.

DISCUSSION.

Rev. Thomas Murphy-The thought presented itself that here, as in other things, we should not be too ready to conclude that we are not doing as well as others are doing-that the methods in use in Catholic colleges and schools are not quite as good as the methods that can be learned from modern text books. Not only that, but the thought that occurred to me was that I could show you instances that would go to prove that we are doing much better. Suffice it to mention two. Some years ago two of the inspectors of the Board of

Regents of the State of New York visited one of the Catholic colleges in the State of New York, personally attending some of the lower schools in the preparatory department-the high school department of that Catholic institution. They were so much impressed by the results shown in the methods of teaching Latin there, that for four years afterward, to my knowledge, there were visitors calling from different sections of the State of New York, saying that they had been sent there by these inspectors to learn how to teach Latin, to learn how it was being taught there.

The other instance is of more recent date. A graduate of Harvard, conversing with me a short time ago in connection with securing his services to act as judge in a debate, said to me: "I am very glad to have an opportunity to visit a Catholic college. I am very much ashamed of myself, after being so long in this town, not to have visited the St. Louis University. I will tell you why I am anxious to visit your institution; it is because I have always been anxious to find out how you teach Latin. I have met with the results of your teaching, have seen them in many places, have met with the graduates of your schools and have heard from others that your teaching of Latin is something of which we have not yet found the secret," meaning by "we" those with whom he was associated as an official in educational matters, controlling high schools and non-Catholic institutions.

We have a system of teaching Latin in our schools of which we are not only proud, but those outside are very ready to admit they have a great deal to learn.

Very Rev. W. B. Rogers, S. J.-One thought which occurred to me in the teaching of Latin in our colleges was this. We spend a great deal of time in learning the grammar and the syntax very thoroughly, and after this is done, we are not so insistent upon applying it. When we start an author, we read a few pages and try to study every line, every word, every sentence-analyze the parts, construe, etc. After having seen ten or twelve pages of an author, we take up another author considerably harder. We go on in that way all through the college course-harder, harder, harder. When the student gets through, he is not aware of the fact that he could take those first authors and read them without much difficulty. It seems to me it would be better in the fourth or fifth year to read something of the easier authors of the second and third years. I think if that plan were adopted, our boys would read more easily. The outside institutions read more-more Virgil, more Cicero, more of different authors, and seem to interpret these authors better, but at the same time do not know as much Latin.

Rev. Charles B. Moulinier, S. J.-I have nothing to discuss, but

I should like to say a word in commendation of the paper, by way of personal expression of thanks to Father Schrantz for the labor, intelligence and generosity shown in the production of this paper and ia the presentation of it to the members of the Conference.

But with regard to the contents of the paper, there are two features that occurred to me that might be emphasized. The first is, the excellence of the paper in the principles enunciated as the foundation of teaching Latin and in details as far as they are put forth in the paper for the help of teaching Latin. If it be true, as I believe it is, that the principles are sound and fundamental, and the details helpful and suggestive, it follows that the paper would be at least a splendid beginning for the usual work in teaching Latin. As to the system of teaching Latin used in the Jesuit community, I think I am correct in saying that we agree almost entirely. I would say surely in regard to principle, and almost entirely in regard to other details of the teaching with this paper as a basis.

If further it be true that this is the best system in principle and in detail, it naturally and easily follows that if we were to unite on some such system as set forth in the paper, our strength in teaching Latin would be increased very much throughout the country, and in consequence our effectiveness in teaching Latin and in college work furthered more and more.

Father Moulinier moved a vote of thanks to Father Schrantz for his paper, which was carried unanimously.

The Function and Scope of Philosophy in Catholic College Course.

VERY REV. M. A. HEHIR, C. S. SP., PRESIDENT, PITTSBURG COLLEGE, PITTSBURG, PA.

The great and profound Plato defines philosophy as pistis epistemes. By this definition he seems to suggest that philosophy has for object the ideal, and is identical with wisdom. Aristotle sometimes employs philosophy in a general sense, so as to include all science, but generally he speaks of it as the science of being, as opposed to the subject matter of the special sciences. Philosophy is a study, an inquiry, a pursuit of knowledge, rather than knowledge itself. It is a study that takes all knowledge for its province, but, as in this study the human mind cannot deal with all the facts, it takes the most important, so that the aim of philosophy may be said to be to unify, or systematize, all the