To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I was certainly surprised at the CRIMSON editorial blaspheming the Latin or Greek reading requirements for House Candidates in English, as out-dated and worthless. The arguments used against the classical requirement are notably distorted: The defense of the requirement is not historical but based on the fact that the peculiar merits and universalities of the Latin and Greek languages are basic to the study of English. Certainly, the classics are excellent training for the serious student of English in vocabulary, Latin and Greek certainly were NOT the only non-scientific fields in the "olden-days", that time "wasted" on languages is simply a way of trying to be "fashionable." The English Dept. recommends and counts for concentration certain related courses in History, Philosophy, Fino Arts, and Social Relations. How much more leeway does one want? Notably lacking in the editorial was any acknowledgement of the very pronounced influence the Classics have had on English Literature.

The English Dept. does not discourage concentrators; it only makes those working for Honors work a little more. (Most of them have probably all had at least two years of Latin in prop school.) It is hardly worth arguing that a course saved by elimination of the classics requirement would enable an English, as all fields have certain prerequisites. Do you expect some English concentrator to study an economic, field, for example, without even having taken the basic course in economics? John E. Rexine '51