(We Invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest. But assume no responsibility for sentiments expressed under this head.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:--

I want to answer the explanatory article of Professor Clifford H. Moore. I studied at Harvard during the "chaotic period" of which he speaks, and followed the Classics throughout, doing considerable work, with great profit and enjoyment under Professor Moore, and have had considerable to do with the Classics since graduation.

When Professor Moore told us, at the conclusion of Latin 8, about as he has explained in his present article, how we had during our four years of Latin at Harvard become acquainted at first-hand with epic, lyric, elegaic, drama, history, oratory, biography, philosophy, etc., it seemed too good to be true. The eulogy reminded me of the half-blind Irish woman who was attending her husband's funcial, and listening to the priest praise the depaited. Finally she called to her son, and asked. "Mike, are we at the right funeral?"

Now I believe in the Classics, but the work is so scrambled and illimitable that it lacks definite benefit. I believe in the Classics, but I believe they should be unscrambled and limited.

Divide the work at once into two categories, those features which could be taught to students lacking a knowledge of Greek and Latin, and those features which could not.

Some progress has been made already in de-Latinizing some courses in History, Philosophy, Fine Arts, etc., but there should be no stopping of the process. If any fact concerning the ancient Greeks or Romans is worth acquiring, it is worth acquiring equally by those who have or have not studied the languages in which the facts have been handed down.

If in the Latin courses only the Latin language were studied, then the students would know what they were asking for and getting. The courses would be of two kinds,--translating at sight, and Latin composition. The students in each sort of course would be classified into groups according to their ability at the activity which was the unique purpose of the courses.

The non-linguistic work is of two sorts, literary and factual. To the study of Latin literature apply literary, not syntactical methods.

Tacitus illustrates probably better than any other author the various view-points of classical study. His Latinity has certain stylistic features worthy of linguistic study; as literature his writings have been included in compilations of World's Best Literature; and as a source of historical facts he ranks among the foremost. But when we study Tacitus, let us agree on one viewpoint, and accomplish somewhat. R. F. PALMER '05.