I have taught beginning Latin from several texts--Ecce Romani, the Oxford Latin Course, the 1990 edition of Jenney's Latin featured here, as well as the older (1979 and earlier) editions of Jenney's Latin. I can say with all confidence and experience that the newer edition (1990) fails in many areas of instruction. In an attempt to modernize itself, the Jenney series lost much of what made earlier editions great, namely its clarity and focused, appropriately challenging readings.

In this 1990 edition, the readings have been changed and often lengthened--no doubt in an attempt to guise itself as a quasi-reading method text. Unfortunately, the new readings rarely adequately enforce the grammar taught in the unit, and offer instead syntactical oddities that only baffle and frustrate even the most earnest students. The book does a good job of including photos of real antiquities, but does so often without context and in excessive detail. As thrilling as it must be for for the average high school freshman to learn the difference between statumen, rudus, and pavimentum (p. 251), it might interest him/her more to spend more time on the cultural/historical context of Roman roads (i.e., their *application*). Such details about the roads' layers would be unknown to many non-specialist Ph.Ds. We wish to emphasize LEARNING, but we want also to emphasize the thematic application of knowledge--not merely the acquisition of facts without context.

Indeed, students might LEARN Latin better if presented with a concise, yet still challenging, version of the Aeneas story (as in earlier editions), gaining confidence as they reinforce their abilities to READ Latin and are introduced to cultural topics.

Again, I have used earlier editions (1979 and previous) of the Jenney text and found them to be much more enjoyable for both teacher and student. They are no less challenging, but leave off much of the junk that many who praise the 1990 edition frequently decry in other textbooks. I would wholeheartedly recommend looking at these versions if you are considering changing texts. Consider also Ecce Romani and Oxford Latin, which are not without fault, but whose approach is consistent with their philosophy.

As I hope to begin teaching high school Latin soon, I've been busy examining several textbooks. So far, Jenney--while not perfect--stands at the top of my list. The course consists of four volumes: most of the grammar is covered in the first two books, with the third and fourth serving up selections from the usual list of authors.

The pluses are several. The books are durable, hardbound school editions (hence, incidentally, the high price). The layout is attractive, making ample use of color and graphics. The chapter lessons on Roman culture are excellent and encourage students to make comparisons with their own. They also should make good springboards for further discussion for teachers who wish to spend more time on such matters; those who don't can at least rest assured that their students won't emerge with the "Wheelock syndrome:" lots of Latin grammar and little substantive knowledge about Roman life. Not that Jenney skimps on the grammar. There is no dawdling; in fact, it sometimes seems the lessons move too quickly, given the typical student's command of English grammar. The exercises are varied, and include translation into Latin and drills with English derivatives.

One rather large problem lies in how the reading passages are constructed. Several new words are introduced in each, without definitions being included on the same page. The pedagogy behind this practice is not totally misbegotten but is more likely to frustrate students than challenge them. Some of these words appear in later lessons, some do not, and so it is hard for the teacher to decide which should be memorized. In general, the readings are longer and more difficult than those of other courses; that's not a shortcoming, in my opinion, but it does mean teachers had better be exceptionally patient and encouraging or risk seeing all their students flee for Spanish or French in the second year.

An enterprising and industrious teacher should be able to do a lot with this series; students, meanwhile, should emerge with everything to be desired from a high school education in Latin.

Publishers know that the market for Latin texts comprises Latin teachers who see shrinking enrollments and are afraid of being "downsized." In desperation to keep students, Classics departments often struggle to candy-coat Latin, making it more fun and less daunting for students. Now, I like fun as much as the next classics geek, but many teachers forget that students should have fun WHILE learning, not INSTEAD of learning. Accordingly, many modern Latin texts are simplistic, cartoon-enhanced bait designed to keep enrollment up. They are education's junk food: perhaps enjoyable, but with few lasting benefits. Jenny's is different: it does not shy away from teaching Latin in thorough detail. The lessons, cumulative, give tons of practice. The back of the book has excellent resources for forms, grammar, vocabulary and even useful Latin dicta. In addition, Jenny's has informative, interesting readings on history and culture. Gorgeous color photographs of Roman art, architecture and everyday items adorn the pages and spur imaginative discussions. This enables students to learn not only the verbs and endings but the fascinating context that made the Roman Republic and Empire what they were. My students have always enjoyed learning from this book, despite the fact that (or because?) it challenges them. I've taught Latin for ten years, for seven of which I've used this book. I myself learned from an earlier version of it in 6th grade. Earlier versions (from over ten years ago) had a vocabulary and focus much more geared towards military readings than the present incarnation, which has a better-rounded vocabulary as useful for Horace's love poems as for Caesar's Gallic War. I recommend this book strongly for serious students and instructors.

This book reveals remarkably little information that is unavailable elsewhere concerning the Cambridge Spy Ring, Philby, Burgess, McLean, Blunt and Cairncross. In fact, even the cover page alleging Modin was the controller for all five is misleading, as Modin admits he was never the controller for Philby and McLean, and in fact, only met McLean for a few minutes several years after he defected.

This book contains numerous contradictions. Modin states that the KGB files on the Five were destroyed in 1953, after McLean and Burgess defected, yet he mentions he has reviewed those files since the fall of the Soviet Union. He makes a strong point about his predecessor's negligence for meeting the agents in London pubs (lack of privacy, etc...) and claims he never ever met any of his agents in pubs. However, he later in the book mentions that he met Blunt in a pub when the art historian/spy was in the process of retiring from active duty for the KGB. Additionally, Modin and/or his editors repeatedly confuse MI5 and MI6, such that some statements he makes are difficult to comprehend because of the uncertainty of which branch of the British intelligence service is being referenced.

Modin discusses remarkably few technical details about his roll as the controller of the spy ring, mentioning only his precautions in going to a meet. He also mentions a few details about his friendships with Burgess and Philby after they defected to Moscow, but essentially, that is all the insider information that he shares. Modin does not reveal even the topics that he or Philby tought as instructors at the KGB academy. I got the very strong impression that either Modin has lost most of his memory, or has remained deliberately vague out of loyalty to the former KGB and Soviet Union.

A better set of books on this topic would be KGB: The Inside Story by Andrew and Gordievsky; Mask of Treachery by Costello; The Master Spy by Knightly; and Spycatcher by Wright.

Yuri Modin controlled most of the Cambridge Spies in England during the 50's and he gives his account of their information and personal habits. Modin's account is the only one of its kind, and definitely should be read. Despite the fact that there are so many book on the subject, this one is great and above all others. The way Modin arranged their defection to Russia is incredible. This story is a must or all interested in English and Soveit espionage during the Cold War.