A portion of the second half year in prescribed Rhetoric is given up to lectures on standard authors. The list of authors is exceedingly good, and a study of the prescribed books would be of great interest. But we cannot but think that the list ought to be modified and changed from time to time. Moreover, the list as it stands is only a sample of what might be done in this direction. Many great writers whose works are not studied in the regular literary courses are not found in this list. If the list could be radically different for three successive years, the ground would be more thoroughly covered, and the course would soon become popular among upper classmen. Students would be induced to attend the lectures which would, in this way, become far more comprehensive than they have been in past years. The study of the authors would not be so limited, nor so cursory, if a more extended plan were pursued, than at present. Any course that attempts to give even general idea of Emerson one week, and Carlyle the next can only fail to accomplish its purpose. No cast iron list of ten writers can give any idea of their literary periods when the study of the list is to be finished in ten weeks. If the list admitted additions, the work in the Rhetoric would at once become a source of interest as aiming at a comprehensive knowledge of our prominent secondary writers. But if the list is to remain simply as an irrevocable adjunct to the more theoretical work in prescribed English, the result can only be that it will be treated as such, and that its purpose will be unattained.