bered. But for them I
should often have found it difficult to understand what with them was
obvious. A singular circumstance thus brought out was the want of
exactness and precision in English terminology in this field. The most
notable instance that occurs to me was in Nelson's journal on
Trafalgar morning, "The enemy wearing in succession," when, in fact,
as a matter of manoeuvre, the hostile fleet "wore together," though
the several vessels wore "in succession;" a paradox only to be
understood at a glance by those familiar with fleet tactics under
sail. The usual version of the attack at Trafalgar has of late been
elaborately disputed by capable critics. I myself have no doubt that
they are quite mistaken; but it would be curious to investigate how
far their argument derives from inexact phraseology--as, for example,
the definition of "column" and "line" applied to ships.

These mathematical demonstrations of naval evolutions might be
considered a lapse from practicalness characteristic of the particular
officer. They took up a good deal of valuable time, and on any
drill-ground manoeuvres are less a matter of geometric precision than
of professional aptitude and eye judgment. The same mistake could
scarcely be addressed at that time to the other parts of the Academy
curriculum. Either as foundation, or as a super-structure in which it
was sought to develop professional intelligence, to inform and improve
professional action, there was little to find fault with in detail,
and less still in general principle. The previous reasonable
professional prejudice had been in favor of the practical man, the man
who can do things--who knows _how_ to do them; the new effort was to
give the "why" of the "how," and to save time in the process by giving
it systematically. In this sense--that all we learned ministered to
professional intelligence--the scholastic part was thoroughly
professional in tone; and I think I have shown that the outside
professional sentiment was also strongly felt among us. There is
always, of course, a disposition latent in educators to deny that
practical work may be sufficiently accomplished by cruder
processes--by what we call the rule of thumb--and a corresponding
inclination to represent that to be absolutely necessary which is only
an advantage; to exaggerate the necessity of mastering the "why" in
order to put the "how" into execution. An instance in point, already
quoted, is that of the professor