young. "The science of literature," says Suetonius (Gram. I, 1), "was in ancient times far from being in vogue at Rome; indeed it was of little use in a rude state of society, when the people were engaged in constant wars and had not much time to bestow on the cultivation of the liberal arts." The striking thing about the Roman secondary school is that the culture, which conditioned its existence, was foreign; and this has remained true of the secondary schools of all nations which have appeared in the subsequent history of Western civilization.

The culture, the introduction of which made the secondary school necessary, was that of the Greeks. That branch of culture which first took root among the Romans was not Greek art nor religion nor language, though they were more or less acquainted with these. It was Greek literature.

The more immediate and special conditions which account for the rise of the Roman secondary school were various. In the first place, the increase of wealth and leisure among the Romans had created a need for a more advanced intellectual and æsthetic culture than their own crude art and literature afforded. About the middle of the third century B. C. Livius Andronicus, a freedman, born in the Greek territory south of Rome, but thoroughly familiar through long residence among the Romans with their life and character, began to present at their religious festivals translations of the Greek tragedies. The drama, though the form of Greek literature latest to develop, was admirably adapted to make a direct and powerful appeal to a comparatively uncultivated people. Later, Livius Andronicus translated from the Greek what would be to the Romans, perhaps, the most fascinating of all poems, the Odyssey. The interest thus aroused led to a desire to know Greek literature in the original, to the employment of Greek tutors and thence to the development of secondary schools for the study of Greek grammar and literature. Ennius, another Romanized Greek poet, supplemented the work of Livius. Both taught Greek (Festus, ed. Müller, 286) language and literature, but probably as tutors and not as regular schoolmasters (Jullien, 46-47).

At the same time this interest in Greek literature was being aroused in another way. Those Romans who found ability to speak and write Greek necessary in political, commercial or social intercourse employed Greek language-teachers known as "Grammatici." As these Greeks were accustomed to use literary masterpieces as texts the attention would naturally pass from the language to the literature. Thus from being teachers of language the grammatici tended to become teachers of literature or grammar, in the widest and then usual sense of the term.

Another reason which contributed to the growth of these schools and which powerfully influenced the character of their work was the growth of interest among the Romans in the study of oratory. The Romans had always attached a high value to the art of persuasive speech. Under their republican institutions the man whose eloquence could influence the minds of others was the man who possessed political power and power was the goal of the ambition of every true Roman. Oratorical skill was also as formerly in Athens an important safeguard to life and property. Cato, it is said, had to defend himself before the courts on fifty different occasions. The Greeks having felt this need for oratorical training much earlier had already produced a system of training to meet it. (Jullien, p. 53.)

At first this rhetorical training seems to have been given in Rome in the non-professional grammar schools (Sueton. Gram., IV). Later the work was differentiated, the important preparatory literary instruction being given in the grammar school while training in oratory was given in higher schools more professional in character, called schools of rhetoric. We have then in Rome in the 1st century B. C. a hierarchy of schools consisting of three classes, the elementary, the grammar, and the rhetoric school. It is to these three schools that Apuleius refers in Florides 20, “At a repast the first cup is for thirst, the second for joy, the third for pleasure, the fourth for folly. In the feasts of the Muses, on the contrary, the first cup is poured out for us by the literator (who teaches us to read); it begins to polish the rudeness of our minds; then comes the grammarian who adorns us with a variety of knowledge, finally the rhetor puts into our hands the weapon of eloquence." (Boissier, La Fin du Pag., I, 150.)

Among the complex conditions favoring the development of secondary schools among the Romans are, in brief:

Ist. The introduction to the Romans of Greek literature upon the stage and through written translations.

2nd. The growing necessity in political, commercial and social circles of a speaking and writing knowledge of Greek. 3rd. The growth of interest in the science and art of oratory. The literature studied in these schools, it should be noted, was Greek, the system of instruction was Greek, and the teachers were, at first, Greek. They were decidedly Greek schools. "But we,' "" says Cicero, "who have all our learning from Greece, read and learn these works of theirs from our childhood; and look on this as a liberal and learned education." (Cic. Tusc. Disp., II, 11, 27.) The national pride, however, as well as the practical sense of the Romans led them soon to develop a system of literary and rhetorical training, modelled after that of the Greeks, but based

upon the study of their own somewhat meagre but rapidly developing literature. Thus side by side with the Greek there arose Latin schools which to a remarkable degree maintained an independent existence. They differed from the Greek schools not only in language but, as we should expect, in laying great emphasis upon the practical and less upon the theoretical part of the work. The situation was not unlike that which exists among us even to-day. We have schools which aim to impart a culture on the basis of the study of Latin, while other schools are organized in accordance with the belief that a more practical culture can be imparted with greater facility through the study of the literature of the mother tongue. So we have Latin high schools and English high schools. Similarly the Germans have their Gymnasia and their Realschulen, in the former of which the culture imparted is largely Græco-Roman, while in the latter the culture is that of the natural sciences and modern literatures.

THE CHARACTER of Roman SECONDARY SCHOOL WORK. The courses of the Latin and Greek schools were sufficiently alike, however, to be included in the same general description. In both the work consisted of an extensive and intensive study of literature. This was preceded by the study of grammar in our modern, narrower sense of the term. In both schools the knowledge and training thus acquired were made available for oratorical purposes through abundance of practice in writing and speaking. Some slight attention seems to have been paid to the sciences. The study of grammar was intended to cultivate correctness of speech. The study of literature, in so far as it dealt with form, would cultivate the student's sense of the beauties of literary style; in so far as it dealt with content it would develop that breadth of knowledge and of sentiment which is the necessary foundation of true elevation of thought and of language. The rhetorical exercises trained the pupil's powers of expression.

School instruction in these subjects became elaborately systematized at the hands successively of the Athenians, the Alexandrians and of the Romans themselves. So formal and elaborate was the procedure that it is impossible to examine it here in all its details. A few only of the most typical will be described.

Grammar. The work in grammar, using the word again in the restricted sense, began with the letters. They were divided into vowels and consonants and the latter again into semivowels and mutes. A comparison of the letters with the elementary sounds of the language then led up to the study of changes in the form of words. Did letters exist correspond

ing to all the sounds of the language? For instance, was the second vowel sound of "optimus" correctly represented by 'i'? What letters had more than one sound? Instances of vowel changes in words were noted, in conjugation, as, 'fallo, fefelli;' in composition, as 'cadit, excidit,' etc. Attention was paid to the changes taking place with the lapse of time. 'Alexander' was compared with the form 'Alexanter' found on ancient monuments. Similarly, 'arbor, labor, vapor' were contrasted with the obsolete forms 'arbos, labos, vapos.' Words were classified as to their function, some following Aristotle's classification into verbs, nouns and conjunctions. Varro, an emi

nent Latin grammarian divided them into those that have case, those that have tense, those that have neither and those that have both. It was noted that some nouns feminine in form were masculine as 'Muraena,' some neuter in form were feminine, also that some verbs looked like nouns as 'fraudator,' that some were used only in the third person as 'licet, piget.' A large but poorly classified collection of facts like these was made.

LITERATURE.

The study of grammar was followed by that of literature, the interpretation of the poets. The method was carefully elaborated and, notwithstanding a great variety of terminology, seems to have been in different schools essentially the same. (Jullien, 243.) It may be advantageously discussed under the following heads,-the reading, the comment, the correction, and the judgment.

Great importance was attached to Reading aloud. A Roman epitaph reads, "I have been grammarian and reader, but of those readers who please through the purity of their diction." Careful attention was paid to accent, quantity, pronunciation and also to expression. Many passages were memorized.

The purpose of the Comment was to furnish the student with apperceiving ideas and thus aid him to a more thorough appreciation of the poem. The life of the author, the circumstances of the composition of the poem, facts about persons, places and things mentioned in the text were among the points discussed. Quintilian probably has in mind the extensive knowledge which this part of the work demands of the teacher when he writes, "Nor is it sufficient to have read the poets only; every class of writers must be studied, not simply for matter, but for words, which often receive their authority from writers." (Inst. of Oratory, I, 4, 4.) Juvenal says that it was expected of the teacher that he should "read all histories, know all authors as well as his finger ends, that if questioned . . . he should be able to tell the name of Anchises' nurse, and

the name and native land of the stepmother of Anchemolus . . . also how many flagons of wine the Sicilian king gave to the Phrygians." (Sat., VII.)

The Correction dealt with the text and also with the style of the author. First there was the authenticity of the text. Is this the work as it was composed by the author? The authentic readings of the Greek writers had been quite carefully worked out by the Alexandrian scholars. Yet much trouble was caused in this age of manuscripts by careless copyists. Gellius tells of a scholar who, at great expense of time and money, hired a copy of Ennius said to have been corrected by Lampadio in order to assure himself whether the poet had written 'equus' or 'eques.' Is 'stetisses' or 'stitisses' the correct reading in Cato? Did Vergil write "Scopulo infixit acuto" or 'Inflixit?' But this correction did not confine itself to questions of authenticity. It boldly questioned the style of the poet himself. Quintilian suggests that the teacher should point out, "What words are barbarous or misapplied, or used contrary to the rules of the language." (Inst. of Orat., I, 8, 13.) For example, 'vexasse' was thought too weak a term in Vergil's line "Dulichias vexasse rates et gurgite in alto." (Ecl. VI, 76.) "Squalentem" does not harmonize in sense with the other words in "Per tunicam squalentem auro latius haurit apertum." (Enead X, 314.) Even Cicero should have used 'potestate' in the phrase "in praedonum fuisse potestatem sciatis." In the study of most poems such questions as the following would come up: 'Are these figures of speech legitimate? Are they well placed? Are they not too numerous?' Lively and even passionate controversies sometimes arose over these criticisms.

The study of an author was rounded out with the Judgment, that is the general estimate of an author. In this were involved a characterization of his style, a résumé of his chief merits and defects. Quintilian thought it the duty rather of the rhetor than of the grammaticus "to point out the beauties of authors, and if occasion ever present itself, their faults."

(Inst. of Or., 2, 5, 5.) Book 10 of Quintilian's Institutes is devoted largely to appreciations of this sort. For instance, "Simonides, though in other respects of no very high genius, may be commended for a propriety of language and a pleasing kind of sweetness; but his chief excellence is in exciting pity so that some prefer him in that particular to all other writers of the kind.' (Inst. of Or., 10, 1, 64.)

RHETORICAL EXERCISES.

The school work of the Romans culminated in the rhetorical exercises in which the student was led to utilize the literary