Dr. Postgate deserves well of the miserable critics who are doomed to pass opinion on educational works dealing with Greek or Latin and on editions of works in the said tongues. The Latin primer before us, manifestly inspired by a more beneficent power than those to which most of the countless elementary grammars owe their origin, refreshes the wearied reviewer by an aroma of novelty and by lucid exposition and orderly arrangement, thus raising the hope that it may annihilate many of the loathly brood aforesaid and check their baneful production in the future.To affirm that a primer is excellent is, of course, easy, but the proof of such an affirmation is so difficult and tedious a task that we should prefer, were it feasible, to recommend teachers to test our verdict for themselves.... We would, in case our reasons as stated should not appear sufficiently cogent, remind our readers of the judge whose judgments were always sound, but his reasons seldom convincing.In view of Dr. Postgate's distinguished position as a student an professor of comparative philology the judicious suppression of that science, which at present affords indifferent nutriment for babes, is perhaps the first thing to jump into the sea e when we set ourselves to weigh the merits of the work. For example, the - i - declension is not, as such, distinguished from the consonantal declension, with the admirable practical result that the varieties of the third declension are clearly set forth in remarkably few words, so that beginners are saved much toil and bewilderment. Nor is the excellence of the compact and easy memorial verses to be left out of account; nor yet, again, the use of the word "base" instead of stem - a small matter, but not proportionately light. But on the whole the most important improvement is this, that an exceptionally simple diction and terminology have been achieved without sacrificing precision or lucidity. A signal instance of felicitous innovation in this department is furnished by the phrase "subjunctive of imagination," instead of "potential conjunctive." The general treatment of the subjunctive approximates to the views on that mood and the optative which have for years been inculcated in these columns. But neither this seductive trait nor our general approbation blinds us to a few slight blemishes. For instance, the definition of syllable, p. 2, is clearly faulty: "Syllables are the smallest portions of words which can be pronounced separately." The example is "ho-mo." But the second o can be pronounced separately; while in regéna it must be puzzling to a beginner at any rate to determine how the division into "smallest portions" is to be made. The objectionable phrase "complete (its) sense" is still applied to the equally objectionable "complement." If "complement" is associated with "complete," the presence of more than one complement in a clause seems perplexingly superfluous. This is a point to which we have already called attention. It is unnecessary, if not absolutely incorrect, to say that it is "by a metaphor" that the accusative is used of extent of time (p. 77).To return, however, to our main contention: the oratio obliqua has offered ample scope for the display of original method and luminous explanation, and the professor is to be congratulated on having adequately disposed of this knotty, thorny topic in less than five pages. It should be clearly understood that while the 'New Latin Primer' is decidedly new in substance as well as in age, the reforms which it embodies are cautious and moderate. The compiler evidently agrees with us in thinking that the time for a sweeping revolution in our methods of treating elementary grammar has not yet arrived. Indeed, some venerable notions are, as we have pointed out in one instance, treated with too much reverence.