GREEK FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS. 123 
er of 
ohi- 
hu- 
ation 
»ople 
erica 
sient 
:lons 
heir 
8 of 
em 
the 
ddi- 
:ich 
the 
The 
101; 
‘ther 
ace, 
no 
she 
at a 
.osed 
slec- 
erly 
ne 
of ib 
stive 
ges 
reek 
be 
wrd, 
s NO 
fore 
and 
lof 
ad, 
be 
ne, 
tact 
position of the Stanford University, which has no set requirement for the 
Jegree of Bachelor of Arts, either after entrance or before, except in 
English. The position is intelligible, and is approved by many ; but those 
vho, not taking it, would yet give up the requirement of Greek, should 
look clearly at the inevitable issue of the step they advocate. 
(4) A fourth argument is that the essential character of what was best 
in Greek literature has passed into our modern civilization, so that we no 
.onger need to take time for the express study of it. The answer is that 
while much has indeed passed into our modern literature, it has had the 
same fate as Greek architecture, which we see all around us, in monstrous 
malformations, in the details of domestic and public architecture. What 
would a school of architecture have to say to the proposition that the 
liffusion of Greek architectural ideas is so great that we do not need to 
30 back to Greek originals for purity of form and chastened taste ? 
(5) An argument thought to have great weight is that it is an evil to 
multiply degrees. The word “evil” is in any case far too strong. The 
multiplication of degrees might conceivably go to a point at which it would 
prove to be an ‘“ inconvenience.” Up to our own time, however, this has 
not been the case. The devising of the separate degrees in law, medicine, 
theology, and arts to indicate a particular kind of training was, on the 
sontrary, a distinct convenience. The devising of the degrees of Civil 
Engineer and Mechanical Engineer was a distinct convenience. To my 
mind, the differentiation of degrees to indicate under what kind of educa- 
sional influences a man’s mind has been molded is not an evil, but a good. 
[ sympathize very much with a business friend of mine—a man who finds 
college graduates of the training of the older foundation to be, in the long 
run, the most profitable persons to employ in electrical works—who com- 
plains that you cannot nowadays tell from a man’s degree what kind of an 
education he has had. It would, to my mind, be far more convenient if we 
knew that a Bachelor of Science had a foundation mainly scientific, that a 
Bachelor of Arts had a foundation in good part in Greek and Latin, and 
that a Bachelor of Philosophy—if people will be satisfied with such a 
course—had a foundation in which Latin, looked at from the point of 
view of immediate utility, was required. Far better, then, the reasonable 
multiplication of degrees to meet new conditions, if they exist, than the 
confusing of the meaning of a degree long established. 
On the affirmative side of the question, on the other hand, the argu- 
ments seem to me not to admit of so easy an answer. The most import- 
ant are as follows : 
(1) First, there is the old argument of meum and fuwum. It is on this 
argument that the whole question really turns. People must not be 
impatient with us of the older faith. Hackneyed as the argument is, we 
cannot turn aside from it. The Decalogue is not novel, but we have not 
outgrown the need of it, and we certainly are by no means vet in a condi-