secondary evidence in matters of moment, would still have profit profited by any discipline that would have made it impossible for him to print as an argument against classical studies a second or third hand statement of Franklin about the size of Renaissance editions of the classics, when ten minutes critical inquiry would have conducted him to the truth in the preface of Aldus. But I perhaps naively mistake for a flaw of logic what is only lack of interest in the subject.

Professor Shorey then points out (673) that the argument for the Modern School "could be repeated almost verbatim with the substitution of English or Chemistry as the suppressed subject".

The argument drawn from the Lincoln school belongs in short to a type which I have been in the habit of designating to myself as the "fallacy of idealizing description". The most elementary example of this is the pictures of pretty children in interesting attitudes that accompany popular expositions of the Gary or Montessori system or illustrate Dewey's "Schools of the Future". What mother can resist the emotion of conviction that the contemplation of such carefree happy infancy inspires? It is precisely the psychology of the gigantic bill-board advertisements of "milk from contented cows". How can you distrust the contents of the can when you have seen the purple cows grazing? And indeed the connection is very close between the psychology of the new education and the psychology of advertising.

A most interesting and valuable paragraph is that in which Professor Shorey argues (674) that, in proportion as the enthusiasm or personal ambition or exceptional resources at the command of some individual, especially if that individual happens also to be particularly gifted, lead to a special success with a method or a School, that very success reduces the value of the 'experiment' for education in general, since (674)

The teaching of the world is and must remain largely wholesale task work, a gigantic chore. The defects are mostly the limitations of the average man in power of sustained enthusiasm, self-sacrificing devotion and intelligence. As Chamfort said one hundred and fifty years ago, in order to reform education you must reform everything else. Impatient idealists from Plato down have expected to reform everything else by reforming education out of hand. The exceptional school that in the first flush of enthusiasm or ambition overcomes these obstacles may afford helpful hints for combating them elsewhere, but its very success in this respect invalidates its testimony to the superiority of the particular curriculum that its founders favor

Professor Shorey then insists (675) that the Modern School is not an experiment, in any proper or scientific sense of the word, and very politely, but all the more effectively, points out that the supporters of the Modern School, though their attention has repeatedly been called to this fact, "continue to employ the word 'experiment' as they do the name Lincoln, for its advertising value".

Professor Shorey then turns to consider the positive arguments for Latin (676):

The positive arguments for Latin can be stated as well in five minutes as in half an hour. There are four or five chief considerations; but for argumentative purposes it is largely a question of the burden of proof.

For nearly two thousand years some acquaintance with the Latin language and Latin civilization has been a prominent part of all liberal education above the elementary schools. From time to time since the Renaissance, protestants have arisen some of them obscurantist opponents of all study of the past, others merely protesting against the excessive and exclusive study of Latin and Greek. The relative significance of Latin has of course diminished with the development of modern languages and modern sciences. But the majority of thoughtful and cultured men in England and America have continued to believe that some acquaintance with Latin is still a desirable and in many cases a necessary constituent in the secondary and higher education of English speaking people. Their reasons broadly are: its presumptive and proved superiority as an instrument of general linguistic training; its relations to the English language; the intrinsic value of Latin literature and the impossibility of understanding European and especially English literature without it. Each of these topics would demand at least an hour for an exposition and illustration which after all would be superfluous because the work has been repeatedly done, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but adequately enough, in the aggregate. No speaker in half an hour could resumé for you the contents of the Princeton volume on "The Value of the Classics", of Livingstone's recent book, of Lord Bryce's recent article, or of my own "Case for the Classics", to say nothing of the enormous literature cited in its footnotes.

He maintains as a "somewhat fresher topic" that the study of Latin has peculiar value for American education in the present world crisis (677):

There is a dangerous and treacherous conspiracy to make this nation bi-lingual. Under American conditions the teaching of any foreign language in elementary grades will be a tool of propaganda. One of the wisest of critics has said, "No one can learn fanaticism from Cicero and Horace". Or as Ferdinand Brunetière once put it, "The study of the classics is neither professional, confessional, nor passional". The substitution for modern languages in the last years of the grades and the earlier years of the high school of even a slight study of Latin will avoid these dangers, will give in a better form the indispensable general discipline in the logic of language, will confirm the predominence and improve the quality of English in this country, will prepare the student for the readier mastery of French, Spanish, and Italian when he needs them.

The concluding pages, in which Professor Shorey makes the point that the utterances of Dr. Eliot, and others like him prove them to be in reality "without genuine feeling for any of the world's supreme classics" should be read in full.

I have put together, in this editorial, some hints of the reactions to Dr. Flexner's proposals in particular, and to the general movement of which they are a part. It is plain that the friends of the Classics, the country over, were not voiceless; they expressed themselves freely in opposition to Dr. Flexner. In all this there should be comfort and strength for the lovers of the Classics.

Another source of comfort may well be mentioned as a fitting close to this discussion. Dr. Albert Shaw, in his paper on Classic Ideals and American Life, in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 10.217-220, concluded by pointing out how much of the Classics he found in a single copy of a newspaper, published in the midst of our last Presidential campaign. This reminds me of a fine paper by Professor Kent, of which mention should have been made long ago. It is entitled Latin and Greek in the Newspapers, and appeared in the Alumni magazine published at the University of Pennsylvania, formerly known as Old Penn, but now called The Pennsylvania Gazette. See volume 15.386-390 (March 30, 1917). This paper, read at the Fourth Annual Meeting of The Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Liberal Studies, presents an astonishing array of evidence that to the writers in the Philadelphia newsnapers, at least, the Classics are not dead, and that these writers have no fear that the Classics are dead to their readers.

С. К.

We have now noted the beliefs connected with the organs of the lower and the upper trunk cavity and with the head. There remain to be discussed certain elements of our physical constitution which are common to the whole body, namely, the humors, bones, nerves, flesh, and skin.

From the time of Hippocrates the ancients believed that there were four cardinal fluids of the bodysanguis, cholera or yellow bile, melancholia or black bile, phlegma (Isidorus, Origines 4.5).

These four liquids were known as humors (humor being the Latin word for 'liquid'), and good health was thought to depend on the maintenance of a just proportion among them. The balance or commixture of the humors was known as a man's temperament, that is, his 'mixture' (L. tempero, 'to mix'), or as his complexion (from a Latin word meaning 'combination', derived from com-, 'together', and plecto, 'to weave'). Thus if a man had more blood than any other humor in his system, he was said to be of a sanguine temperament or complexion (L. sanguis, 'blood'); if more bile, of a biious temperament or complexion; if more phlegm, of a phlegmatic temperament; if more melancholy (or black bile), of a melancholy temperament. If the temperament, or balance of the humors, was greatly disturbed, the result was distempers, that is, a 'variance from the proper mixture'

54

Temper, however, which was a synonym of temperament, has taken a different course. We use it vaguely for 'disposition', but commonly associate it in some way with 'irascibility'. 'Keep your temper', 'he lost

Compare Ben Jonson, Cynthia's Revels, 2.3 A creature of a most perfect and divine temper, one in whom the humours and elements are peaceably met, without emulation of precedency. This word may be used of either physical or mental condition. Thus Shakespeare writes, II King Henry IV 3.1. 41-43:

It is but as a body yet distemper'd;
Which to his former strength may be restored
With good advice and little medicine.

Hamlet's madness is called a distemper. Compare also Tempest 4.1.145 touch'd with anger so distemper'd. So Franklin says in his Autobiography, My distemper was a pleurisy which very nearly carried me off.

The quotations are from Greenough and Kittredge, Words and their Ways in English Speech, 30-31, 32.

his temper', 'ill-tempered'55, show a trace of the old meaning; but the colloquial 'What a temper he has'!, 'He is in such a temper'l would never be referred to physiological science by one who did not know the history of the word.

Upon the blood depended sweetness of disposition and geniality: Sanguis Latine vocatus quod suavis est, unde et homines, quibus dominatur sanguis, dulces et blandi sunt (Isidorus, Origines 4.5.6). The blood was aided and abetted by the bile in producing ill humor: Ex sanguine et felle acutae passiones nascuntur, quas Graeci ὀξέα vocant (Isidorus, 4.5.7)56.

These beliefs are reflected indirectly in English by such expressions as good humor, ill humor, in humor (obsolete), out of humor, vein of humor57.

As might be expected, passionate love is occasionally represented as having its abode in the blood; compare Aen. 4.1-2. One can compare with this Bassanio's words addressed to Portia, M. V. 3.2.178: Only my blood speaks to you in my veins.

There are still other popular notions connected with the blood. According to Pliny, N. H. 11.221, animals with abundant rich blood are irascible; those with thick blood courageous; those with thin blood intelligent; those with little or no blood timid58. Pliny adds, 11.226, that there are persons who believe that the keenness of the mind does not depend upon the thinness of the blood59. Empedocles was numbered among those who attributed acuteness or bluntness of intellect to the quality of the blood.

Pliny further informs us, N. H. 11.224, that the blood spreading over the face indicates changing mental attitudes, by depicting shame, anger, and fear through the varying degrees of pallor and redness.

So much is true, but our author adds that the redness of anger is one thing, and the blush of modesty another. According to his view, a person blushes, as we have shown before, because the cheeks are the seat of modesty.

The ancients believed that the blood was pumped through the body in veins, and that the arteries were air-ducts; sanguis per venas in omne corpus diffunditur et spiritus per arterias (Cicero, N. D. 2.138; Pliny, Ν. Η. 11.182, 218)51. Ignorance of the facts of circulation naturally caused other misconceptions. It led to the localization of the seat of modesty in the cheeks. It gave birth, likewise, to the notion that the arteries were air-passages, a mistake to which the very word artery (ἀρτηρία, Latin arteria) is a monument more enduring than bronze62.

Ancient physiology supposed that the spiritus passing through the arteries vitally influenced the processes of life.

It is in unconscious obedience to this superannuated science that we use such words and phrases as 'in high (low, good, bad) spirits', high-spirited, lowspirited, 'a spirited horse', 'a spiritless performance', and that we speak of one who is spontaneously merry as having 'a great flow of animal spirits'68.

A large body of beliefs grew up in connection with the flesh also. The view was current in antiquity that sin and many forms of weakness were due to the caro. No set of notions connected with any organ, except the heart, has left a stronger impress upon language, especially ecclesiastical literature. Even in Latin pagan works the idea of the conflict between the spirit and the flesh is well developed. The corpus or caro is regarded as the seat of the baser passions.

Seneca, Epp. 7.3.22, says of the body: 'In this hateful abode the mind dwells free; never shall this flesh drive me to fear, never to insincerity unbecoming • to a good man'. He states further, in Epp. 7.3.20, that he is too great, and born to too noble a destiny, to permit his becoming a slave to his body. Other passages in Seneca are equally significant; compare e.g. Epp. 8.73.16 Summum bonum in animo contincaNon est summa felicitatis nostrae in carne ponenda. The following sounds very much like the utterance of a Church father: Omne illi <=animo> cum gravi carne certamen est, ne abstrahatur (Consolatio ad Marciam 24).

mus.

Such usage paved the way for the expressions so common in the Latin of the New Testament and of the ecclesiastical writers. The following are typical instances from the Bible: Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus autem adversus carnem (Gal. 5.17); Spiritus quidem promptus, caro vero infirma (Mark 14. 38).

No more sweeping statement of the attitude toward the flesh can be found than in Tertullian, Resurr. 15: In carne et cum carne et per carnem agitur ab anima quod agitur in corde.

There are two probable explanations of these beliefs. The ancients regarded the human body as composed of four elements, air in the breath, fire in the heat, moisture in the blood, earth in the flesh. As in the physical universe the basest element is earth, so in the body the flesh is regarded as the basest part, and hence is a fit abode for the passions.

The other explanation carries us back to a time when the function and the existence of nerves were unknown. Since pleasures and pains are felt locally, it was concluded that the seat of sensation is in the flesh 64. Hence we say that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

It was the opinion of some in antiquity that a thick skin indicated stupidity (compare English 'thick-skinned', 'thick-skulled'), a view that Pliny, Ν. Η. 11.226-227, refutes to his own satisfaction by citing the cunning of the crocodile and the intelligence of the hippopotamus and the elephant65.

The custom of embracing the knees is due, according to Pliny, N. H. 11.250, to a strange notion:

'Suppliants clasp the knees, they stretch their hands to them, they adore them as they do altars, perhaps because the knees are the seat of vitality. For exactly at the front of either knee, right as well as left, there is a kind of opening like that of a mouth. From this, if pierced, the vital spirit escapes as from a throat'.

The knees were consecrated to misericordia, just as the ear was to memory (Servius, on Vergil, Ecl. 6.3). Several ideas were associated by the ancients with the marrow. Perhaps they thought it exercised a profound influence on life since Nature took such pains to enclose it in a hard casing. In the oldest tradition it was a seat of life, as we see from Od. 3.455.

Among the Romans the seat of life is not assigned to the marrow, but some of the deeper and more vital manifestations of emotional life are placed in it. Thus we find in Cicero, Phil. 1.36, in medullis populi Romani ac visceribus haerebant. Compare Ovid, Trist. 1.5.9 Haec mihi semper erunt imis infixa medullis.

Vergil makes the marrow the seat of some of the deeper feelings, as love, fury, grief and fear. Thus the flame of love eats at the marrow of Dido: Aen. 4.66; 1.660. In another instance, Aen. 4. 101, when Dido is represented as madly in love, she arouses fury in her bones. Great grief burns in the bones of Gyas: Aen. 5.172. So, too, fear may be felt in the bones: Aen. 6.55-56.

Harpers' Dictionary regards the secondary uses of medulla as tropes. But few of them, it seems to me, are to be taken as such, in the ordinary sense of the

Aristotle regarded the flesh as the seat of feeling. See Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy, 203. 65 Compare the English use of 'pachyderm' as applied to dullards. term trope. I believe that an orator is called 'the marrow of eloquence'66, not because of any similarity between eloquence and marrow, but because the marrow was supposed to be the seat of some of the deeper feelings which he succeeded in arousing.

Popular fancy seems to have played but little part in attributing functions to the nerves as such, for the simple reason that the existence of the nerves was not generally known among the laity. Even the Egyptian story already quoted from Gellius to the effect that rings are worn on the finger next to the smallest one, because there is a delicate nerve connecting it with the heart, is a matter for antiquarian research. Aristotle is said to have been unaware of their presence in the human body 67. Hippocrates, however, knew of nerves as distinguished from tendons and ligaments68. There are, nevertheless, popular uses of the word nervi in the sense of 'sinews'.

When Cicero, Phil. 5.2.5, speaks of money as the sinews of war, nervi belli pecunia, it is clear that this use of nervi is a trope. When, however, he says, Verr. 2.3.56, omnibus nervis mihi contendendum est69, I question whether the use is, historically speaking, tropical, as the dictionaries regard it. It seems preferable to believe that such usage is due to the feeling that in the nervi lies strength. Thus Persius says (1.45) Decipe nervos, 'Cheat your nerves (sinews)', which means, 'Cheat yourself into believing that you are sound and strong'.

Solinus, 1.7, expresses the common view: Maximam virium substantiam nervos facere certissimum est, quantoque fuerint densiores, tanto propensius augescere firmitatem. Solinus then proceeds to quote Varro. The latter marvels at the ruggedness of a Samnite who was a born gladiator, and states that many of his victories were due to the lattice-work of straight and transverse nervi on his breast. It may be noted, too, that enervare, 'to remove the sinews', means 'to weaken '70.

With advances in the science of anatomy, the word nervus modified its meaning, but the old idea which attributed strength to the nervi has left its impress upon the Romance words for 'nerve'. French nerf, Spanish nervio, and Italian nervo all mean 'strength'

or 'vigor' as well as 'nerve'. The Spanish can say, fuerte como un manojo di nervios, 'strong as a bundle of nerves'.

I believe I have now noted the main misconceptions about the seats of our physical, intellectual and psychological life. I have also called attention to their effect upon the language and the customs of the Romans. I shall add an additional group of popular notions which were committed to writing in a most perfunctory fashion by a Latin author.

Pliny, after recording with approval in the eleventh book so many popular fallacies and beliefs, hesitates to be sponsor for certain others that tax even his credulity, and so he shifts the responsibility to Aristotle and Trogus: see 11.273-276.

'I marvel not only that Aristotle believed that there are in the human body certain prognostics of life, but that he went so far as to set them down. Although I believe them worthless, and think they ought not to be published without hesitation, lest each person should anxiously seek out these indications in his own case, I shall in sp spite of all touch upon them, since SO learned a man did not reject them. He has, then, recorded as indications of a short life, a small number of teeth, abnormally long fingers, a leaden color and numerous broken lines in the palm; on the other hand he regards as signs of long life curving shoulders, one or two long unbroken lines in the hand, the presence of more than thirty-two teeth, and large ears. puts significance, I think, not in all of these signs taken together, but in the isolated occurrence of any one of them. These beliefs are foolish, if you want my opinion, yet they are widely current.

He

In a similar manner amongst us a description of character as indicated by the physiognomy has been set forth by Trogus, although he is one of the most conservative writers. I shall let him speak for himself". "When the forehead is large, it indicates a sluggish mind underneath; when small, a fickle disposition; when round, an irascible temper, a visible sin sign, as it were, of a swelling tumor beneath. Eyebrows extending in a straight line are indications of weakness; when turned down toward the nose they are a sign of austerity; when inclined toward the temples, they point to a sarcastic disposition; when they are very low, they denote envy and malice. Long eyes indicate a spiteful nature; fleshy corners of the eyes next to the nose furnish a sign of wickedness. The white of the eve when large is a sign of impudence; those who are forever working the eyelids are fickle. Large ears are a sign of loquacity and foolishness" '72.

After completing the quotation Pliny again reminds the gentle reader that it is only a quotation.

There are, of course, other instances of folk-lore in connection with ancient anatomy and physiology, but I have in general confined myself to those beliefs which mistakenly assign physical, intellectual, and psychological attributes to certain parts of the body. The article is not exhaustive even in the range to which I have limited it, but it is hoped that it will shed

"Trogus is, however, indebted to Aristotle, Historia Animaliun 1.9 ff.

Roman Craftsmen and Tradesmen of the Early Empire. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation. By Ethel Hampson Brewster. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Co. (1917). Pp. xiv + 101.

It is the writer's aim, therefore, to discuss Roman craftsmen and tradesmen as depicted by the satiric writers of the early Empire. The expression, 'satiric. writers', is adopted in order to include not only Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, but also Petronius and Martial;

In lieu of a more comprehensive term, 'craftsmen' is used to designate those whom the Romans called opifices. An attempt has been made to investigate in the authors above mentioned all passages relevant to our subject; to incorporate the information secured into a connected account, with the aid of references from other sources by way of comparison or elucidation; and finally, to use this material as a basis for determining, so far as possible, the social status of Rome's industrial population during the period in question.

According to these words of Dr. Brewster (page xiii) her dissertation should be of interest especially to two classes of students students of Roman satire, from which her material is largely drawn, and students of Roman private life and economic history, to which fields her conclusions most largely contribute.

By the familiar analytic, alphabetic method, to which we are now so accustomed in the dissertation form, the author classifies under twenty-six heads the craftsmen and tradesmen of Rome:

I Aerarii Ferrarii; II Argentarii; III Aurifices; IV Caelatores; V Caupones; VI Centonarii; VII Cerdones; VIII Coci; IX Coriarii; X Dendrophori; XI Fabri; XII Ferrarii; XIII Figuli; XIV Fullones; XV Institores; XVI Lanii; XVII Mangones; XVIII Mercatores; XIX Negotiatores; XX Pistores; XXI Praecones; XXII Sutores Cerdones; XXIII Tabernarii; XXIV Textores; XXV Tignarii Collegia Fabrum Centonariorum Dendrophorum; XXVI Tonsores.

Many of these trades run one into another. Concerning the majority the satirists give but little evidence, and usually of an inconclusive sort. Often where they pour praise or contempt upon a tradesman, it is difficult to determine whether the measure be the trade or the man or both. Guilt here, as elsewhere, is usually personal rather than occupational. Still there is the old taint of trade: the Republican prejudice continues; and noteworthy is the tradesman who through personal worth or commercial success rises

above his traditional social status. Dr. Brewster's work is very frankly a bit of special pleading for the "butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker" of Imperial Rome. She has not always succeeded in winning a favorable verdict for her client; but in more than one case she has thrown the burden of proof on the complainant by a skillful cross-examination of the principal witness.

For example, butchers and the industrial population in general have been maligned because of Livy's denunciation of C. Terentius Varro (22.25.18 f.):

Loco non humili solum sed etiam sordido ortus. Patrem lanium fuisse ferunt, ipsum institorem mercis, filioque hoc ipso in servilia eius artis ministeria usum.

But, as Dr. Brewster shows (28-29), Livy complains chiefly, not that Terentius was the son of a butcher, but that his father had, like a slave, peddled his own meats, and had compelled his son to do the same. Brewster's conclusion (29) is as follows:

Dr.

Since, therefore, the heaviest aspersions in the passage seem to be directed against a slave's occupation and a lawyer's dishonesty, they cannot fairly be cited as committing lanii and other tradesmen to the depths of social disgrace and degradation. All that is clearly proved is that butchers were of humble station.

It

Similarly, also, Dr. Brewster has rehabilitated the praeco (44-53). The principal aspersions on the auctioneer's business are based on a provision of the Lex Iulia Municipalis, with Cicero's comment thereon (49-50). How is praeconium in the law to be interpreted? Cicero's statement does not help us. seems clear from the context in which the word occurs, qui praeconium dissignationem libitinamve faciet, that the ban was placed upon praecones as attendants upon funerals, not as ordinary auctioneers. As the other two functionaries are the funeral marshal and the undertaker, so the praeco who might not hold the office of decurion in municipalities, colonies, or prefectures was the functionary whose part Phormio assumes when in Terence, Phormio 1026, he invites the audience to attend the funeral of Chremes: Exsequias Chremeti quibus est commodum ire, em! tempus

est.

The rehabilitation of Echion, commonly called 'the rag-picker', will prove interesting to students of Petronius (81-82):

Surely <he> is more than a 'rag-dealer'; interpreted as a prosperous canvas manufacturer, perchance even a member of the local fire department, this character assumes grander proportions, and we can well understand his optimism, his pride in his country and his boys, and his effervescent sense of importance.

In this connection the vexed problem of the collegia fabrum centonariorumden drophorum is well handled (86):

The collegium fabrum with its adjuncts, then, appears to have been a well-equipped and highly organized Department of Public Safety, charged with guarding gua against fires and upholding the peace. Presumably, the fabri made and manipulated the apparatus; the centonarii manufactured canvas, piecing it together to