and to study the whole grammar inductively. Such reading cannot be fruitful. Let us hear two German schoolmen on this question. Director Jäger of Cologne said in the 41st Conference of the German Philologians and Educators (Munich, 1891): "The reading of the authors should remain the principal object of the classical training, but it must be an intelligent reading, reading that is understood because of solid grammatical training imparted previously. Only thus can the study of a language become a means of scientific knowledge. Therefore, sufficient time must be devoted to the grammatical training." Professor Seeliger makes the following very timely observations: "One point in the linguistic training must not be lost sight of: namely, that the understanding of the authors must be solid; but a solid appreciation of the authors can be built only on the foundation of a knowledge of grammar. Teachers now-a-days try too much to keep this end out of sight for fear of public opinion; some weakly yield to the Zeitgeist and hush it up altogether, to proclaim the more loudly that the reading of the authors is the only object of classical instruction. But I think grammatical discipline is very salutary, even for the youth of the present age, indeed, a remedy against many dangers of our time. And any one of us teachers who conscientiously endeavors to make instruction effective should fearlessly profess to be a grammaticus, and act according to this profession."[1]
The Ratio Studiorum prescribes the authors to be studied in the various classes, and in Jouvancy's commentary and similar documents, other authors are mentioned which may be read alongside or instead of
- ↑ Neue Jahrbücher, 1898, vol. II, p. 83.
