Publications of the University of Texas 
Publications Committee-: 
FREDERICK DUNCALF  C. T. GRAY­ 
KILLIS CAMPBELL  E. J. MATHEWS  
D. B. CASTEEL  C.E.ROWE  
F. W. GRAFF  A. E. TROMBLY  

The University publishes bulletins six times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue; the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example,No.1701 is the first bulletin of the year 1917.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific subjects, bulletins prepared by the Bureau of Extension and by the Bureau of Government Research, and ·other bulletins of .general educational interest. With the exception of special num­bers, any bulletin will be sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. All communications about University publi­cations should be addressed to University Publications, Aus­tin. 
9720-5450-l133-25h 
University of Texas Bulleti11 

No. 2049: September 1, 1920 

The English Bulletin 

Number 8 
PUBLISHBD BY THE UNIVERSITY SIX TIMES A MONTH. AND ENTERBD AS 
SKCOND·CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN. TEXAS. 
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24. 1912 

The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, .generally diffused through a community, .are essential to the preserv:ation of a free govern­ment. 
Sam Houston 
Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. . • • It is the only dictator that .freemen acknowl­edge and the only security that free­men desire. 
Mirabeau B. Lamar 
The English Bulletin 
Number 8 
Editors: KILLIS CAMPBELL 
L. W. PAYNE, JR. 
J. B. WHAREY 
The English Bulletin is intended as an organ for the expression of opinion by teachers of English in Texas concerning pedagogical and other problems that arise in their work. It will appear from one to three tim-es a year. 
Copies of this bulletin ~ill be sent free, on application, to any teacher of English in Texas. Address the Chairman of the Publica­tions Committee, University of Texas.. 
CONTENTS 
THE BEST BOOKS ABOUT SHAKESPEARE, by Robert Adger 
Law .................................... · 
. . . . . . . . . 5 THE FACTS OF POETRY, by Alfred Allan Kern............. 17 SHALL WE ATROPHY? by Bessie Shook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMIT­
TEE OF SEVEN, by Killis Campbell ........... : . . . . . . 24 


THE BEST BOOKS ABOUT SHAKESPEARE* 

BY ROBERT ADGER LAW, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
To list a number of the best books about Shakespeare and comment definitely on each in a brief article is from the out-. set almost a hopeless task. The most exhaustive recent bib­liographies on the subject are disappointingly incomplete, and briefer lists of helpful books contain certain names that many of us would regard as useless to intelligent general readers. So the list that follows must be colored strongly by individual preference and by limitatinns of knowledge, as well. 
I. EDI'l'IONS OF SHAKESPEARE 
1. One Volume: 
The Globe Shakespeare, ed. Clark and Vv..,1·ight. London and New .York, Macmillan, 1864, many times reprinted. Glossary, but no introduction. The stand­ard text, more generally accepted than any other, even to the line numbering. 
The Leopold Shakespeare, from text of Delius, con­taining The Tivo Noble Kinsmen and Edivard III besides tlie canonical plays, introduction by Furni­vall, and illustrations. London, Petter, Galpin, 1883. Important for Furnivall's elucidation of "verse tests." 
The Oxford Shakespeare, ed. Craig, with Glossary. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1892, and many reprints. New and independent text. 
*See the English Bulletin, No. 5, for articles on "The Best Books about Milton," "The Best Books about Tennysnn," and "The Best Books about Browning"; and the English Bullet·in, No. 7, for articles on "Some Books on Recent English and American Literature" and "The Best Books about the Essay." 
The Cambridge Poets Shakespeare, ed. Neilson, with biographical sketch, introduction to each play, and glossary. Boston, •Houghton, Mifflin, 1906. New, independent text, modern punctuation, chro­nological order of plays, larger print than the Globe. Most readable one-volume edition. 
2. Complete Sets, Annotated: · The Cambridge Shakespeare, ed. Clark and Wright, with a few textual notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 9 vols. or 40 vols., 1863-66, and many times later. Follows general plan of the Globe with much more pleasing typography. Friendly or Rolfe Edition, ed. Rolfe, with copious introductions, critical notes, and expurgated text for school use. New York, Harpers (now American Book Co.), 40 vols., 1877, etc.; revised by Rolfe, 1904. Harvard or Hudson Edition, ed. Hudson, with in­troductions, notes, abundance of critical comment, and expurgated text. Boston, Ginn, Heath (now Ginn), 20 vols., 1881, etc. ; select plays, revised by Black, New Hudson Edition, 1911, in progress. The Temple Shakespeare, ed. Gollancz, with glos­saries, brief introductions and a few notes, mainly textual. London, Dent, 40 vols., 1894-96, frequently reprinted by Dent, and by various American pub­lishers without the name of Temple. Frankly, I question the ranking of either the Hudson or the Temple among the best editions of Shakespeare, but they certainly belong among the "best sellers." Eversley Shakespeare, ed. Herford, with good in­troductions and ·brief explanatory notes, without glossary. London, Macmillan, 10 vols., 1899-190it Attractive edition for one's own library. 
Tudor Shakespeare, general editors, Neilson and Thorndike, each volume edited by a different .4-meri­can scholar, based on Neilson text, with full intro­ductions, few notes, and glossaries. New York, Macmillan, 40 vols., including The Facts about Shake­
speare, noticed below, 1911-13. Widely advertised as "the ideal Shakespeare," and may be so for gen­eral readers. But most of the special editors have taken their task too lightly to make this edition the most helpful to the mature student or the teacher. 
Yale Shakespeare, ed. Cross and other members of the English faculty of Yale, with critical notes and appendices covering sources and history. New Ha­ven, Yale University Pre·ss, about 20 vols. issued, 1917, etc. Except for a slightly fuller discussion of sources and history, much of the criticism passed upon the Tudor applies here. 
8. 	Select Plays and Poems, Annotated: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Fur­ness and son, with notes of various editors and com­plete accounts of textual history, acting, sources, and criticism of each play. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 19 vols. issued, others to follow, 1871, etc. Easily the greatest monument to Shakespeare ever undertaken, and a source of pride to every American scholar. One reg·rets that COID:pletion of the task under present plan of publication can not reasonably be expected, since father and son have finished only half the plays in about fifty years. Text follows First Folio almost invariably and leaves out of account modern variants like those proposed by Craig or Neilson. But to the · Furnesses all modern editors of Shakespeare owe their largest debt. Th-e Principal Plays of Shakespeare, ed. Brooke, Cunliffe, MacCracken, with introductions and notes. New York, Century, 1914. Probably the best single­volume edition of selected plays for college classes. 
Contains twenty plays, ·with satisfactory notes and introductions, all in clear type and serviceable bind­
•
Ing. Dowden Shakespeare, ed. Dowden, Craig, and other English scholars of standing, each play having a spe­
University of Te:t~as Bulletin 
cial editor. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 32 vols., 1899, etc. London, ·Methuen; known in England as the Arden Edition, but not to be confused with the Arden Shakespeare of Heath. An excellent edition for libraries or college classes. 
The Clarendon Press Series, ed. Clark and Wright, Oxford, Clarendon Press, .17 plays, 1868, etc. ; and the Pitt Pr·ess Shakespeare, ed. Verity, Cambridge University Press, 13 plays, 1894, etc., are adapted for the use of English schools and competently edited. 
Among many good American school and college texts are the A rden Shakespeare, general editor, Her­ford, Boston, Heath, 20 plays so far issued, 1895, etc.; Longmans' E)nglish Classics, general editor, Carpen­ter_, New York, Longmans, 7 plays, 1896, etc. ; River­side L1:terature Series, various editors, Boston, Hough­ton, Mifflin, 10 plays, 1896, etc.; English Readings for Schools, general editor, Cross, New York, Holt, 5 plays, 1914, etc. 
The Sonnets of Shakespeare, ed. Alden, with va­riorum readings and commentary. Boston, Hough­ton. Mifflin, 1916. Similar in appearance and in editorial plan to the Furness Variorum edition of the plays, but not connected with it. The standard edi­tion of the Sonnets. 
The Shakespeare Apocrypha, ed. Brooke. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1908. Convenient and inexpensive annotated text of fourteen plays once attributed to Shakespeare. 
II. BIOGRAPHIES 
Lee, S., A Life of William Shakespeare. London and New York, Macmillan, 1898; latest rev1s1on, 1~16. The standard biography, amplified from the same author's article on Shakespeare in the D·iction­ary ·ot National Biography, Vol. 51 (1897). Shows prodigious research, though on some controverted 
The English Bulletin 
points Lee plays the advocate rather than the judge. 
Chambers, E. K., article on Shakespeare in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 24, 1916; to which is appended an illuminating account of Shakespeare's portraits by Spielmann, M. H. Briefer and more readable than Lee's biography. 
Dowden, E., A Shakspere Primer. New York, Har­pers (now American Book Co.), 1877, and frequently reprinted. Sketches briefly the life and the various kinds of evidence regarding chronology of the works, and comments on each play and poem in turn. 
Neilson, W. A., and Thorndike, A. H., The Facts about Shakespeare. New York,-Macmillan, 1913 (sold separately or with the Tudor Shakespeare, no­ticed above). Gives in readable and compendious form the latest results of research into the poet's biography, contemporary life, and growth of his fame, but offers no comment upon separate works. 
Masefield, J., William Shakespeare. New York, 
• 
Holt, "Home University Library," 1911. Life and times sketched briefly. Tonic criticism of plays and poems in clear language by one of the great poets of this generation. 
III. CRITICISM 
Arbitrarily limited to a few modern commentaries. 
Dowden, E., Shakspere: His Mind and Art. New York, Harpers, 1874, many times reprinted. Fresh and delightful after almost fifty years of printed form. 
Moulton, R. G., Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1885, several reprints. Less intensive studies than Dowden's, but helpful to the beginner in analysis of plots. 
Bradley, A. · C. Shakespearean ·Tragedy. New York, Macmillan, 1904. Masterly . comment on 
Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. One of the few great books of criticism. 
Baker, G. P., The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist. New York, Macmillan, 1907. Sketchy treatment of certain formative influences in the com­position and stagecraft of the earlier plays. For a brief essay on the same general subject see Wendell, W., "The Growth of Shakespeare" in A Memorial Volume to Shakespeare and Harvey. Austin, Uni­versity of Texas, 1916. 
MacCallum, M. W., Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background. London, Macmillan, 1910. Scholarly study .of a difficult group of plays. 
Manly, J. M., "Shakespeare Himself," in A Memo­rial Volume to Shakespeare and Harvey. ~ustin, University of Texas, 1916. A striking attempt to reconstruct the dramatist's personality through care­ful reading of a.II his works. 
. See also Masefield, Willi<;im Shakespeare, under biographies. . 
IV. SOURCES OF THE PLAYS 
Anders, H. R. D., Shakespeare's Books. London, Nutt, 1904. "Dissertations on Shakespeare's read­ing and the immediate sources of his works." Super­sedes previous treatments. · 
Gollancz, I., · gen. ed., The Shakespeare Classics, with introductions and notes by special editors to each volume. New York, Duffield, 7 vols., 1907, etc. Covers much the same ground as the Collier-Hazlitt Shakespeare's Library, now out of print, in reprint­ing the tales, poems, and plays used by Shakespeare. Several of these sources are also reprinted, in cheaper form, in Cassell's National Library. 
Boswell-Stone, W. G., ed. Shakespeare's Holinshed. New York, Duffield, 1896; reissued, 1907. Various excerpts from Holinshed's · History suggestive of 
The English Bulletin 
thoughts or language in Shakespeare's historical dramas are quoted in full, with mention of corre­sponding passages in Shakespeare. 
V. SHAKESPEARE'S BACKGROUND 
1. 	Drama,tic History: Creizenach, W., The English Drama in the Time of Shakespeare; translated by Hugon,_ C., and Schus­ter, A. F., from Geschichte des neueren Dramas, Halle, 1909, Vol. IV, Books 1-8. Philadelphia, Lip­pincott, 1916. A new and much desired English version of an authoritative work. Ward, A. W., A History of English Dramatic Lit­erature to the Death of Queen Anne. London, Mac­millan, 2 vols., 1875; 3 vols., 1899. Best :Known ref­erence book for the period covered. Plays discussed separately according to authors and dates. Schelling, F. E., Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642. Bo~ton, Houghton, Mifflin, 2 vols., 1908. More happy in style than Ward's, but less dependable as a ref­erence book. Plays arranged according to type with little discussion of their authors. Valuable bibliogra­phies and a convenient finding list of plays. Brooke, C. F. T., The Tudor Drama, "a history of English national drama to. the retirement of Shake­speare." Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1911. Concise discussions emphasizing the lesser dramatists rather than Shakespeare. Specially useful for the . conve­nient classifications of its bibliographies. Chambers, E. K., The Mediaeval Stage. Oxford,. Clarendon Press, 2 vols., 1903. Authority for the earlier period. 
Other valuable matter in Cambridge History of English Literature, Vols. V and VI (1910). 
2. 	·Texts of Contemporary Plays: Neilson, W. A., ed., The Chief Elizabethan Dram­
University of Texas Bulletin 
atists, with biographies, bibliographies, and a few notes. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1911. Useful one­volume anthology of thirty non-Shakespearean plays. 
Manly, J. M., ed., Specimens of the Pre-Shake­spearean Drama. Boston, Ginn, 2 vols., 1897-1900. Scholarly edition of the unrevised text of about forty early plays. The non-appearance of the long prom­ised third volume, containing Manly's notes and ap­pendices, is one of the mysteries of the profession. 
Gayley, C. M., editor, Representative English Com­edies, with introductory essays, notes, and mono­graphs by various writers. New York, Macmillan, 3 vols., 1903-14; other volumes promised. An excel­lent collection. 
Other useful texts of various authors are in the Malone Society Reprints, with original spelling with­out notes, Oxford, some forty vols., in progress, 1906, etc.; in the B_elles Lettres Series, annotated, Boston, Heath, 1902, etc.; in the Mermaid Series, modernized, 'Yith introductions but not notes, New York, Scrib­ners, 1887, etc.; and in Everyman's Library, modern­ized, with brief "introductions, New York, Dutton, 1903, etc. 
3. 	The Elizabethan Theater: Thorndike, A. H., Shakespeare's Theater. New 
. 
York, Macmillan, 1916. Detailed and thorough sur­vey of all available information in regard to the thea­ter of Shakespeare's time, with numerous. cuts and complete bibliographies. 
Murray, J. T., English Dramatic Co1npanies, 1558­1642. London, Constable, 2 vols., 1910. Minute ex­amination of all documentary and printed evidence concerning membership and history of the actors' companies. Superseding Fleay's work, it is now the one authority in its field for the special student. 
Other material for investigators in the Collections of the Malone Society, Series I and II, in progress; 
The English Bulletin 
in articles contributed to Vols. V and VI of the CatnJ.­bridge History of English Literature; to the Shake­speare Jahrbuch; to the Shakespearian Studies, is­sued by Columbia University in 1916, and the similar commemorative volume, Shakespeare Studies of the University of Wisconsin, 1916; to Modern Philology, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, Modern·Language Notes (Baltimore), Stud­ies in Philology (University of North Carolina), and Modern Language Review (Cambridge, England), passim. Within the past quarter-century this has been one of the most fertile fields of research. 
4. 	Social L·ife and Customs: Shakespeare's England: An Account of the Life and Manners ·of ·His Age, by various English schol­ars. . Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2 vols., 1917. A series of excellent monographs on the Elizabethan's daily life, his knowledge, and his social habits. Briefer accounts in Neilson and Thorndike's The Facts about Shakespeare, and in Green's A Short 
History of the English People. Chap. VII, Sec. V. New York, Harpers, 1874. 
5. 	Language: Schmidt, A., Shakespeare-Lexicon, "A complete dictionary of all the English words, phrases, and con­structions in the works of the poet." Berlin, Reimer, 1 or 2 vols., 2d ed., 1886. Slightly out of date, but still the most comprehensive work in the field. Onions, C. T., The Oxford Shakespeare Glossary. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1911. A conveniently brief volume, founded largely on material in the New Eng­lish Dictionary. Bartlett, J., A New and Complete Concordance to Shakespeare. New York, Macmillan, 1894. Indexes 
words, phrases, and passages in dramas and poems. The only complete work of its kind. 
University of Texas Bulletin 
Abbott, F. A., A Shakespearian Gramniar. New York, Macmillan, 1869, revised and reprinted fre­quently. Though somewhat superseded by later in­vestigation, this remains the only full treatment in English. Franz, W., Shakespeare-Grammatik. Heidelberg. Winter, 1898-1900, 2d ed .. , 1909. Authoritative work in German. 
The most convenient brief discussions of meter are probably those found in appendices to the volumes of the Arden Shakespeare (Heath), noticed above. 
VI. MISCELLANEOUS 
1. Dramatic Technique: 
Woodbridge, E., The Drama: Its Law and Its Technique. New York, Allyn and Bacon, 1900. The clearest presentation of Freytag's theories (Technik des Dramas, English translation by MacEwan, 1891), which sometimes push far the mechanics of an art. 
2. 	Study Outlines: Shepard, 0., Shakespeare Questions: An Outline for Study of the Leading Plays. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin, 1916. Covers eighteen plays. An unpreten­
tious book of much usefulness in directing the younger student. 
3. 	Stage History: Winter, W., Shakespeare on the Stage. New York, Moffatt, Yard, 3. vols., 1911-16. Interesting essays. by a great dramatic critic on stage presentations of all the famous plays. For detailed histories of specific plays see Studies· in English and Comparative Literature of Columbia 
University, passim. Briefer mention in introduc­tions to plays in the Principal Plays of Shakespeare: 
The English Bulletin 
(Century), and the Tudor Shakespeare (Macmillan) noticed above. · Annual lists of plays presented in Germany in the 
Shakespeare Jahrbuch, passim. 
4. Baconian Theory of Authorship: Greenwood, G., The Shakespeare Problem Rer­stated. ·London, Lane, 1908. Apparently the strong­est plea for the Baconian theory yet advanced. Like most advocates of his cause, the author is distin­guished more for legal .acumen than for__skill in lit­erary criticism. Robertson, J. M., The Baconian Heresy: A Confu­tation. London, Jenkins, 1913. An exhaustive re­ply to Greenwood et. al. 
A sane, brief discussion of the whole subject is that of Chalmers, H., appended to the article on Shake­speare in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 24, pp. 786-7. 
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHIES 
Jaggard, W., Shakespeare Bibliography. Strat­ford-on-Avon, Shakespeare Press, 1911. An attempt to cover every known issue of Shakespeare in English with all recorded comment thereon. A stupendous work of 729 pages, finely printed in double columns, but not exhaustive and not wholly reliable. 
Aldis, H. G., bibliographies for Cambridge History of English Literature, Volume V, 1910. Briefer than Jaggard's and more useful to the average student. 
Tedder, H. R., bibliographies attached to Shake­speare article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 24, 1911. Eight columns and a half of fairly solid print, grouped under twenty-one heads. 
Still briefer but altogether useful bibliographies 
are those in Neilson and Thorndike's The Facts about 
Shakespeare, Macmillan, 1913, pp. 243-263. 
University of Texas Bulletin 
Annual additions to these lists are given in the Shakespeare Jahrbuch with the thoroughness and accuracy characteristic of German scholarship; and in Studies in Philology (University of North Caro­lina). 
If in imitation of my colleague, Professor Wharey, I may for the sake of the impecunious teacher reduce this long list to its lowest conceivable terms, there will still be left ten items, viz.: 
1. 
A complete text of Shakespeare, either in one volume (preferably, Neilson's) or in a set (preferably the Eversley or the Tudor) .for the teacher's private library. 

2. 
Select annotated texts for the classroom (preferably, from the Doivden, Pitt Press, Arden, or Longmans' series). 


3. Lee's l..1ife of Shakespeare. 
4. Dowden's Shakspere Pr~mer. 
5. Masefield's William Shakespeare. 
6. Neilson and Thorndike's The Facts about Shakespeare (unless one already has the complete Tudor). 
7. Dowden's Shakspere: His Mind and Art. 
. 
8. 
Moulton's Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. 

9. 
Bradley's Shakespearean Tragedy. 

10. 
The Oxford Shakespeare Glossary. 


But the real student of Shakespeare will never rest sat­isfied with the possession of merely these ten books. 
THE FACTS OF POETRY 

BY ALFRED ALLAN KERN, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, RANDOLPH-MACON WOMAN'S COLLEGE 
Poetry hath her facts no less than prose. They may be divided into facts about poetry and facts of poetry. My ex~ perience with college classes has led me to believe that in many of our schools too many facts. about poetry and too few facts of poetry are taught. The majority of freshmen seem to have an ineradicable instinct towards memorizing the date of the poet's birth, the name of the little English village in which he was born or of the particular college at Oxford which he attended, the circumstances under which the poem was written, and any striking incidents in the poet's life, such as divorce, suicide, or sudden death. But even the simplest fact of poetry-the allegory that under­lies "Comus," the theme of Gray's "Elegy," the romanti­cism in "The Cotter's Saturday Night," or the degeneration of the character of Lucifer in "Paradise Lost"-even when explained fully and clearly by the text-book is, like "the play, the insight, and the stretch" of Raphael to Andrea del Sarto, "out of them, out of them." The exact place and date of Langland's birth are carefully stored away in their minds, which are, however, as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard of any understanding of the spirit of Langland's works or of his relation to his age. 
Part of this apparent inability to learn the facts of poetry is due to mental laziness, to an unwillingness to do real thinking. Furthermore, poetry lends itself only too easily to the delusion that it is to be read and enjoyed but not to be worked over-as if there were any inherent or necessary contradiction between enjoyment and work. The study of mathematics or ·of Greek is synonymous in the student's mind with work, but to work over Shelley's "Skylark"­why, the idea is as preposterous to the student as work would ·be to the bird itself! He reads the poem over once and goes to class with a mind at peace with all below and a 
University of Texas Bulletin 
mental conscience void of offence, feeling that he has done his whole duty to the poem, the professor, and himself. The common or garden variety of freshman looks on a poem much as Peter Bell looked upon a primrose: 
"A primrose by the river's brim 
A yellow primrose was to him, 
And it was nothing more." 
.A poem is a poem, in which statement is, so far as he is concerned, both the beginning and the end of wisdom. In­deed, if the truth were told, poetry delights not him ; no, nor prose neither. Poetry to him is not in the role of ordinary literature; it is beyond the pale of plain, every-day English, which he admits must make sense and have a meaning. Poetry belongs to a sort of irresponsible, non compos ·mentis class of literature which may or may not have any clear meaning. If it have a meaning, why so much the better for it; but if it have not, like the mad Hamlet in ·England, it will not be n<:>ticed there. 
... Now, if this attitude to poetry were limited to the sub­merged tenth in our classes, we should probably have to seek no farther for the cause; but it will, I think, be found equally prevalent among the best students in the class. If this be so, then we can not accept mental inertia as a suffi­cient explanation. I believe that the chief reason why neither high-school nor college students like poetry is that they have not bee~ taught to understand it; they have not been taught the facts of poetry. The remedy for this in­ability to realize that poetry has as much meaning as prose lies in the high school. It is a well-known fact that unless a freshman learns his algebra and grammar before coming to college, he is not likely ever to get a firm grip upon them. To a large extent this is also true of the attempt to change a student's attitude to poetry; it can be done best either when he begins the study of poetry or after he has attempt­ed to teach it.. 
The high-school pupil must be taught that poetry means something, that it means intensely and means good, and that to find its meaning is the main purpose of his study of it. 
-
There are several ways in which this may be brought about. In the first place, the teacher should emulate both Chaucer's Clerk and his Parson: 
"And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." 
"Cristes lore and his apostles twelve 
He taughte, but first he folwed it himselve." A love of poetry, or at least a liking for it, must precede and be an integral part of the teaching of it; also, unless the teacher understands the poem fully, he can not explain its meaning to the class. He must not only understand it, but he must also understand the importance of having the class understand it. It must be drilled into the class day after day that the poems have a meaning and that they must find it. To prevent their reading poetry hastily, they should be required to give the meaning of single lines or of passages in the poem, and should understand that they are supposed to work over a poem until they can give the meaning of every line in it. 
So far from spoiling the pupil's appreciation of a poen1, such a study will almost invariably make him like it the better. It is the simplest sort of psychology that we take an increased interest in anything when we understand it, whether it be a football game, an automobile, or the plan of a battle. Nor is the study of the poem at all at variance with the appreciation or "feeling" of the poem; rather is it in harmony with it. Before we can feel the poem, we must see it-and if we are ever to like poetry, we must feel it. Poetry appeals to the heart through the mind. If our liking of poetry is based on no more solid foundation than the pleasant sensation of its rhythm, mingled with a vague and indefinite conception of its meaning, it will never amount to much in our lives. 
It is high time that it be burnt into the consciousness of 
both teacher and pupil that no one will like poetry until it 
has a meaning for him. This is not only the conclusion of 
the whole matter, but the introduction and the body of the 
discourse as well. 
SHALL WE ATROPHY? 

BY BESSIE SHOOK, M.A., ASSOCIA·TE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, THE NORTH TEXAS NORMAL COLLEGE, DENTON, TEXAS 
I have been asked by the editor of the English Bulletin twice within the last nine months if I would not contribute something to the columns of the Bulletin. He has suggested that possibly there is something growing out of my ex­perience as a teacher that would interest other teachers, especially other English teachers. 
I replied to the editor's first letter that we had our prob­lems, but that I felt they were so intimately associated with our individual school plant that what I might write would be of no interest or value to other teachers. But as the months have gone by, and as I have seen myself become more and more walled in by freshman themes, by the endeavor to make Chaucer, Shakespeare, Addison, and Tennyson live again in the minds of immature boys and girls, and by the routine of committee and class-room work, I have come to realize that what I have seen happen in others may be re­enacted in me; and it is to sound a warning to myself as well as to others that I submit this paper to the Bulletin. 
How many of us feel as we turn from the academic halls that have known us as students that "The world is our oyster," that the book we have planned will be forthcoming, that the research work we have dreamed of will be accom­plished almost by the morrow? And how many of us, teachers, I mean, have settled down in some high school or college, settled down to routine duty-and oblivion; the book not only not finished, but not so much as begun, the research work not started, the poem not sung, not even the tune selected! Why should this inhibition, whether volun­tary or not, of powers we have once felt ours take place? Why. should "mute, inglorious Milton" mark our headstones when the race is over? 
When I taught in' the high school, I knew that I was· a 
. 
grind. I realized that my life was largely a schedule of 
just so much time as health demanded devoted to eating and 
sleeping, all other time being devoted to classes, study halJ• 
and papers; and if by reason of strength I could do more, 
I gave that time and talent, save the mark!) to the Mothers' 
Club and to Sunday School. The reading that I did had a 
professional savor or an English aroma, and while I grant 
that the latter was cultural, usually, it was not so extensive 
as I needed to make it. But always there was "no time," 
and always I hoped to "catch up" ; then I ~ould live in all 
· the faculties of the soul in a true Emersonian fashion, and 

then, I thought, I might "speak out.".. 
I say I knew that my work as a high school teacher was 
monotonous enough, even though I saw boys and girls blos­
som into young manhood and young womanhood, and I 
knew that I had been of help to them. But when I cast 
my lot with a college faculty, I thought some of my dreams 
would now become realities·. I already had a book named 
and a Galsworthian preface planned, but what of it? Noth­
.
1ng. Now, my eyes are not closed; I have been looking around me. My colleagues are capable men and women, capable teachers, capable citizens; they are capable of producing something of professional, scientific, or literary value. But when we meet, we do not discuss each other's contributions to magazines or periodicals, because we have not contributed to magazines or periodicals ; we do not ask how a book is coming on, for one is not coming on. Instead of these sub­jects, we talk about the course of study and the probable r_aise in salaries-good subjects, timely subjects, but earthy. Then I retire to my four walls and study the external situation. Here is a teacher, busy with her classes the usual number of hours per week, who devotes time and energy to supervising a college publication. Here is another who meets his classes the same number of hours, but, on the outside, he is coaching the debating squ~d. I would not decry these outside activities; they are helpful, especially to the students; but if Thoreau repeats himself many· times, 
there will be no further self-improvement. Atrophy begins. 
Most of my associates, however, work as I do; that is, having spent some time in preparation, we teach a certain· number of hours; we mark papers; we read the periodicals that appeal to us, my biology friend perusing !'he Scientific Monthly, while I devote myself to The Engl·ish Journal and The Bookman. We do about the same things day after day, varying only as we go from Description to Narration, or from basketball to baseball. But do we grow? Have we grown any the past year? 
Following the lead of Clara F. Mcintyre,* I recently gave my Freshmen a questiqnnaire very similar to hers. · My re­sults were also similar to hers. While the Freshmen were as frank as I could ask them to be, they were conservative. They said they had learned to write better English and to speak better English. They added that the course had helped them to think. Instead of becoming "heady" over their an­swers, however, I reflected seriously. I was a student not long ago, and am fresh and interested just now. Will my class ten years from now get as much inspiration and help from freshman English? or shall I have become so atrophied by that time that I shall be as pessimistic as Mr. Boas in "Some Blank Misgivings" ?t and will my class not be able to receive inspiration and profit from my te~ching? 
In what I have just said, I would convey the idea that my stagnation will hurt me as a teacher, that it will probably make me less effective because I shall be ·less enthusiastic. And if this is true, will it not hurt me individually? And if it narrows my usefulness or my own enjoyment of life and self-improvement, will it not hurt all teachers who have felt the desire to spread' the wings of imagination, or felt the impulse to delve in the field of resear~h-will it not, I say, hurt all such if they inhibit those longings, and give up all their time and energ:y to hour bells and class rolls? 
*"Out of the Mouths of Freshmen." The English Journal, February, 1920. 
tThe Atlantic Monthly, December, 1917. 
Is it not possible to be both professional and academic? May not those of us who work with the undergraduate or the preparatory student have time for reflection, for study, for self-expression? Is it necessary that we sacrifice our own aspirations in order to spend all our time on our classes? Is that, in the end, . the greatest good? Could we not be more effective for a greater length of time, even if we trim the corners of some work done in the immediate p·resent, and thus keep up our enthusiasms and ambitions? Do other teachers feel as I do about this? Shall we atrophy? 
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT OF THE COM­MITTEE OF SEVEN 
BY KILLIS CAMPBELL, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, THE 
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
I do not overstate the case, I think, when I assert that no 
. . . . 
more important inv~stigation of educational conditions in Texas has yet been undertaken than that made by the "Com­mittee of Seven" appointed to enquire into conditions obtain­ing in the teaching of English in the high schools and acad­emies of the state. For years there has been much good discussion of the problems confronting the teacher of English in our schooJs; but now for the first time we are in possession of definite and reliable information as to the 
. status of the high-school instruction in English throughout the state, and we are, accordingly, for the first time in a position to proceed intelligently with the correcting of ex­isting evils. The Committee who made up this Report*­and particularly its chairman, Professor Robert Adger Law, on whose shoulders fell the ch~ef burden of the undertak­ing-are entitled to the gratitude of every family repre­sented in the high schools of Texas. 
The Committee of Seven was appointed at the meeting of the English Section ·of the State Teachers' Association at Corpus Christi in November, 1915. The chairman of the Committee set about the task imposed upon him with char­acteristic promptitude, and pushed his investigations with fin·e energy and enthusiasm. His first step was to make up, with the aid of the rest of the Committee, a questionnaire, which was printed and sent out to the high schools of the state. This questionnaire included questions as to the spe­cial preparation of the English teacher in his subject, his experience as a teacher, the amount of time given daily to 
*Published in its entirety in the English Bulletin, Number 6 (Nov­ember, 1919). 
the teaching of his subject, the average number of pupils carried, the amount of written work assigned, the average number of hours devoted toi the correcting of papers and to personal conferences, the extent of the instruction in oral English, the amount of parallel reading required, and sundry other questions as to the methods employed by the teacher.* 
Answers to the questionnaire were received from 195 teachers, representing 153 schools, or, probably, three­fourths of the better-high schools in the state.t · 
A preliminary report on the work of the Committee, based on the responses then in hand, was made before the English Section of the State Teachers' Association at its meeting in 1916; a further report was submitted at the meetings in 1917 and 1918; and the final report of the Committee was made at the Houston meeting last November. 
It develops from the report that, of the 195 teachers replying to the questionnaire, no fewer than 126 have r~­ceived either a bachelor's degree or a master's degree-a surprisingly good showing-and that the average number of years of experience is a little above seven. Disappoint­ing, however, is the revelation that ninety-six, or about half of the teachers heard from, are called on to teach one or more subjects in addition to their English; and even more disappointing· is the revelation that less than a fourth of the teachers replying were men. The average number of pu­pils carried by teachers who give instruction only in English, according to the report, is about 120 ; but it is noteworthy that fourteen of the teachers (all except one of them, how­ever, from smaller towns) carry a total of over 150 pupils each, and that three of the fourteen give instruction also in 
*The questionnaire is printed in full in the English Bulletin for report. t A list of these will be found on pages six and seven of the final November, 1916 (No. 3) . 
:j:The preliminary report made in 1917~ in \vhich the Chairman sums up and interprets the main conclusions that his investigations up to that time seemed to warrant, was published in the English Bullet·in for December, 1917 (No. 4). 
University of Texas Bulletin 
some other subject (or subjects) than English. One teacher, who carries 185 pupils in English, a member .of the staff of one of our junior colleges, gives instruction in one or more courses in Education. 
Weekly essays are required by 126 of the teachers reply­ing (a much better showing than might have been looked for); and fortnightly papers are required by 32 other teach­ers. The papers vary considerably in length, but the aver­age length appears to be about two pages. The average time spent in reading and correcting papers appears to be about ten hours a week. All except about forty of the 195 teach­ers heard from report that they are accustomed to hold personal conferences with their pupils about their written work-on _its face a fine testimony to the unselfishness of the Texas teach~r. 
In twenty-one of the 153 schools reporting, no formal instruction in English grammar is given-an extremely re­grettable showing, as every college teacher of grammar will testify. It is gratifying, however, to know that in all ex­cept nine of the schools heard from, collateral reading is required, the usual amount being from six to eight books a year. With a few schools only one book a year is de­manded, but to offset this, a book a month is required by forty-six of the schools heard from. No statistics are given in the final report as to the relative amount of time devoted to the teaching of literature proper and to drill in the bald facts of literary history, but an examination of a number of the answers received (which have been kindly put at my disposal by Professor Law) confirms me in the impression that far too much attention is paid to instruction in the his­tory of literature and far too little to actual study of lit­erature. 
Five high schools report that they have no libraries. Ninety-nine schools report that they have libraries of less than a hundred volumes each. .Only three of the schools heard from have libraries of more than four thousand vol­umes. Obviously th~ showing on the score of school libra­ries is lamentable. 
The average monthly salary paid the high~school teacher of English at ·the time thaf this survey was made, was slightly less than one hundred dollars. But this was in 1917, and conditions have improved, we may be permitted to hope, since then. The subject is one that calls for fresh investigation every year or two, if possible.* 
Thus much for the content of the Report. What are the recommendations made by the Committee on the basis of the information gathered by them? The recommendations made by the Committee-and approved unanimously by the English Section at its meeting in Houston last November -are as follows :t 
1. 
That teachers of English should ground themselves thoroughly in their subject, and should, where possible, go on to college degrees. 

2. 
That school boards and school superintendents should be urged to assign English teachers to teach English alone. 

3. 
That more stress should be laid on the application of grammatical rules and principles to the writing and speak­ing of English. 

4. 
That in courses in English composition an essay of some sort should be required of each pupil once a week or oftener, that these essays should be carefully corrected by the teacher, and that the teacher should hold personal con­ferences with each pupil concerning them. 

5. 
That the teacher of English-and especially the teacher of English composition-should not be expected to carry more than one hundred pupils. 

6. 
That in the teaching of English literature greater em­phasis should be placed upon the interpretation of literary masterpieces aild less upon the mere facts of literary history. 


*We hope to be able to publish in an early number of the English BuZletin a special article devoted to this subject. 
tThe recommendations of the Committee as formally adopted will be found on pages seven and eight of the Final Report of the Com­mittee. In summarizing these recommendations I have departed slightly fronl the order and the form adopted in the report. 
7. That provision should be mode for the accumulation of much larger and more carefully selected school libraries than our high schools at present possess. 
Each of these recommendations should, I believe, com­mand the hearty approval and the vigorous support of every teacher of English in Texas. Plainly it is of the first im­portance that our teachers should ground themselves as thoroughly as possible in their subject. A more or less specialized study of one's subject is indicated by the pos­session of the B.A. degree; and the showing for Texas teachers in this particular-nearly two-thirds of those heard from having a B.A. or better-is, as I have said, very grat­ifying. The sentiment in favor of demanding a B.A. de­gree-in some quarters, of demanding an M.A. degree­of high-school teachers is steadily growing in Texas. 
It is also plain that the English teacher should not be called on to scatter his energies, but, so far as practicable, should be asked to teach only the subject of English. This recommendation falls in with the practice of most of the Texas high schools, and with the practice of virtually all of our larger high schools and academies. If in some of the-­smaller schools it becomes necessary to ask of the English teacher that he give instruction in some other subject, it stands to reason that that subject should be some closely related subject, as Latin or history. 
It ought also to be plain that a knowledge o:fi grammar and a constant application of grammatical rules and prin­ciples to the writing and speaking of English is of prime
. . 
importance; but I am not sure that school boards and school superintendents are always disposed to take this view of the matter. At least, I have heard more than one school man, occupying a position of importance, express doubt as to the wisdom of including grammar in the high-school course of study. It would take but a few weeks of instructing in English in one of our colleges-of teaching the boys and girls that our high schools send up to the colleges-to con­vince one of the unsoundness of this view. What is needed in the high school is not so much drill in the minutire or 
The English Bulletin 
in the finer points of English grammar, but a thorough­going consideration of the principles underlying the struc­ture of the sentence. The student who is given no oppor­tunity to make such a review in the high school will most assuredly pay dearly for it in after life. 
The extraordinary importance of actual practice in writ­ing as a means of learning how to write has now come to be pretty generally recognized. Accordingly, all save a very few of the Texas high schools have made provision not only for the traditional instruction in rhetorical theory as set forth in the inevitable text-book, but also for systematic drill in writing. Some of our schools, as this report plainly shows, still lay too little stress on practice in writing; others-a good many others-provide too few teachers to make careful correction of .the written work possible. But there has been unmistakable improvement in the teaching of composition in the Texas high schools. Formerly it not infrequently happened that students came up to the University without having been called on to write · 
more than one paper in the final year of their high school~ their graduating essay; nowadays, however, we rarely hear of such cases. 
The recommendation of the Committee that the high­school teacher of English should not be called on to carry more than a hundred pupils looks in the right direction, though it surely does not go far enough. The teacher who must meet four or five or six classes a day for five days in the week, and who must read one hundred papers each week, will have little time left for preparation and little energy left for personal conferences; and he will almost of necessity examine his hundred papers imperfectly. Yet there were teachers in Texas at the time of this survey who met as many as 190 pupils daily; and the average, as 1 have shown, was 120 pupils per teacher. 
But perhaps the most serious defect in our high-schooi teaching of English is that prompted by the recommenda­tion of the Committee with respect to the teaching of Eng­