est classes the pupils are to be introduced slowly into the reading of the authors, and the grammatical part must be treated more extensively. But the corresponding rules of the third class no longer mention this point. Certainly in the higher classes, particularly Freshman and Sophomore, it is an abuse to make the classics the vehicle of teaching grammar. An occasional question is, of course, not excluded, on the contrary necessary, whenever it appears from the student's translation that he does not understand the etymology, or the syntax of a phrase. But this is by no means the abuse to which we referred.
This, then, is the prelection, the most important and most characteristic point in the practical application of the Ratio Studiorum. It is scarcely necessary to add that the Society needs no apology for this part, nor has she any reason to attempt any change of it.
As this manner of explaining authors is so much in accord with sound reason, we cannot be surprised that the Ratio insists on following the same system – of course, mutatis mutandis – in the teaching of the mother-tongue. The authors in the mother-tongue should be explained in nearly the same manner as the ancient writers.[1] The very same principle is emphasized by some of the best teachers of English, as for instance by Professor Bain. This writer distinguishes two methods of teaching higher English. The one a systematic course, in which "an exemplary lesson would consist in the statement and illustration of some rhetorical point or rule of style – say, the figure of hyperbole, the quality of simplicity, or the art of expounding by example. This, however,
- ↑ Ratio Studiorum; Reg. com. 28, § 2.
