is the rational course and should be followed whenever practicable. But if circumstances make this course impracticable for the entire composition, then one of the unities may be taken as the whole,the "Method whole" - with which analysis begins; only, care should be taken that the part selected is a unity and not a fragment violently wrenched from an organic whole. But, whether we begin with the absolute whole, or with the related whole, the method of procedure is essentially the same.

Now, in the wrong methods of literature teaching which were formerly all but universal, and which are too common even in these better days, little or no attention was paid to this idea of the Unities in literature. The pupil read over the lesson, generally in violation of every principle of expressive reading; he was then questioned and cross-questioned upon almost every idea or topic suggested by word or sentence. The lesson was made the occasion for the exercise of a perverse ingenuity in questioning. There were questions historical and biographical, questions geographical and archaeological, questions grammatical and philological, questions rhetorical and critical, questions definite and indefinite, continuous and discontinuous-a vast medley of questions, overwhelming memory, imagination and thought. For instance, in a published model lesson upon a paragraph containing seven lines, about eighty questions are asked; questions which have no beginning, or continuance, or ending in unity; which, in fact, aim at nothing definite, and inevitably hit the mark. What effect upon the mind must follow from such "training?" These incoherent facts will quickly vanish from consciousness and like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a trace behind. Or, if by repeated "drills," the memory retains for a time the unwelcome mass, it is at the expense of vital energy in that much-abused faculty. Certainly, by such a process there can be no acquisition of knowledge in the true sense of the word, and by consequence no increase in the mind's power of grasping relations. The memory, instead of being really strengthened, is made a sort of patient pack-horse for indigested and indigestible pabulum; while the intellect is enfeebled from inaction or misuse of function.

We may now endeavor to exemplify some of the principles thus imperfectly set forth. For this purpose, we take, what all our readers are familiar with, Huxley's famous exposition of a Liberal Education" - a Unity, well-chosen from a larger whole, and worth the student's attention alike for its matter and its style. If we were to follow the method of the model lesson previously referred to, we should first have our student read the extract, and then assail him with a rabble of questions-about a thousand-beginning with " 'suppose" and ending with "interpreter." But, assuming that this how-not-to-do-it method needs no special illustration, we proceed to indicate what bears at least some resemblance to a rational treatment.

As already suggested, if the lesson is to have any educative value for memory, thought and expression; if the educational ideas it contains are worth "organizing" into whatever knowledge of the nature of education the student already possesses - he must think the thoughts of the author after the manner of the author. In his process of "Apperception " his mind will approximately follow the order in which the thoughts occurred in the original mind. Perceiving the author's main purpose, viz., the elaboration of a complete definition of a "Liberal Education," from the special standpoint of the man of science, the student passes from this central thought through the chief divisions, the subdivisions, etc., in analytical sequence; and completes his thinking by reconstructing the logically related parts into a living Whole. Thus both acquisition of knowledge and invigorated mental power will be assured. The course to be followed in harmony with these suggestions will now be indicated.

*Lay Sermons and Addresses. See also Genungs' Rhetorical Analysis.

On attentively reading the selection, there is little difficulty in perceiving that there are four principal divisions - perfectly cohering Unities; the first forming what may be called the Introduction; the second and third, the development of the central idea of the introduction; and the fourth, the grand Conclusion to which the discussion leads.

(1) Group one, the Introduction, including paragraphs 1-4, deals with the nature and necessity of Natural education, and ends with a definition of it: it is education by means of (a) Things and their Forces, and (b) Men and their Ways.

(2) Group two, consisting of four paragraphs (5-8), is an exposition of (a) and (b), chiefly in the form of two suppositions and an an application.

(3) Group three, paragraphs 9, 10, admits the defects of Natural education, deduces the necessity of Artificial education, i. e., education through the purposed intervention of man; and ends with a partial definition of a liberal education: it is Natural education supplemented by Artificial education.

(4) Group four, the Conclusion, paragraphs 11 and 12, gives the complete definition, an animated summary of what constitutes a Liberal Education, with a glance at the happy consequences of such an education.

Having analyzed the whole into these principal parts, and rethought these parts in their relations to one another, and as making up the unity of the whole, we are prepared to pass on to a similar analysis of each of the principal parts. For example, taking the first division, the Introduction, we find the following leading thoughts, (1) and (2) constituting a startling metaphor : (1) A suggested metaphor: Man's all staked on a game of chess. (2) This metaphor intensified and applied: Nature's game with

man.

(3) This tremendous thought mitigated: Opposing player a calm strong angel.

(4) Preliminary definition of Education: it is (i. e., natural education.)

(a) Knowledge of the laws of nature, i. e., of Things and their forces, and

(b) Knowledge of the laws of human nature, i. e., of

Men and their ways.

Dealing in a like manner with all the co-ordinate divisions (unities), we arrive at the following scheme of thought-relations relations of groups of thoughts, and of minor unities within the greater.

Part I: Nature and Necessity of Natural Education. Paragraphs:

1. Suggested Metaphor: Suppose man's all staked on a game of chess.

2. The Metaphor strengthened and applied: Nature's game with man-infinitely more difficult than chess.

3. The startling thought mitigated: Opposing player not a fiend, but a calm strong angel.

4. Definition of Natural Education: It is the instruction of the intellect in

(a) The laws of nature= Things and their Forces = physical phenomena and

(b) The laws of human nature Men and their ways = moral and social phenomena.

Part II: Development of Conceptions (a) and (b): Natural Education comes through Nature and Human Nature.

Paragraphs:

5. Nature educates all through things and their forces physical phenomena: Suppose an Adam suddenly placed in the world and left to himself: His education would begin at once.

6. Nature educates all through men and their ways, moral and social phenomena : suppose an Eve, etc.

11. The definition it includes trained body, disciplined intellect and stored knowledge, developed will and æsthetic and moral culture.

12. Happy results of such an education: the Harmony of Man and Nature.

It may be observed that the mind deals with each of the four parts exactly as it deals with the given whole. It analyzes each unit group into related parts, and then consciously dwells upon the relations of unity and difference, till the conception from which it started is worked over into a rieher and more definite whole. For example in Part I, we begin with a somewhat vague idea of Natural education; but after thinking upon the several parts, thinking their mutual relations, and thinking them into unity, we arrive at a much more adequate knowledge of what the conception really involves.

Of course this treatment of the several parts can be applied to every paragraph. And for complete mastery, this more explicit treatment is necessary. But if the work up to this point has been thoroughly done, this final analysis will be comparatively easy; having noticed e. g. the meaning of the first paragraph (the game of chess) and its connection with the second, we know what to expect in the second; a more difficult game; the game has players; who they are; what the chess board, the pieces, the rules of the game; the player against man; the stakes for the victor, the consequences to the loser. So in Part IV-stating the famous definition which many students, and teachers have read a dozen times, and remain, nevertheless, unable to reproduce its thought and expression: If the analysis of the whole has been fairly thorough, we shall expect to find in the definition something about the body—about intellectual power and stored knowledge, since these always go together,— about the will and the emotions. And all this we actually find. Thus, to help memory by thought, there may be the following relations of ideas:

1. The Body:

2. The Intellect: (a) Power and facility,

(b) Stored knowledge:

3.The Will and

the Emotions: Moral and æsthetic ideas.

That man has had a liberal education, who has been so trained in youth that his body is the ready servant of his will, and does with ease and pleasure all the work that, as a mechanism it is capable of.

Whose intellect is a clear, cold logic engine with all its parts of equal strength and in smooth working order; ready like a steam engine, to be turned to any kind of work, and spin the gossamers as well as forge the anchors of the mind.

Whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the great and fundamental truths of Nature and of the laws of her operations.

One who, no stunted ascetic, is full of life and fire, but whose passions are trained to come to head by a vigorous will, the servant of a tender conscience; who has learned to love all beauty, whether of Nature or of art, to hate all vileness, and to respect others as himself.

In conclusion, a few inferences and suggestions are briefly stated.

2. We do not begin by making a vocabulary of "unfamiliar " words. For just as the meaning of every smaller unity is made clearer by its relation to the larger; so the meaning of every word is made clearer by its connection with the unity of the sentence. There is scarcely a word or phrase in the selection, e. g., that will prove unintelligible to the student. Therefore, we have no elaborate explanations of chess-board, knight, pawn, gambit, etc.; but just a few "brief words" to make a fairly definite thought quite definite.

3. It is clear that such a method trains the fundamental activities of the mind, analysis and synthesis ; in other words it develops the Ligher thinking powers. And therefore,

4. It effectually trains the memory, and the right kind of memory. For good thinking means good memory; or as Professor James, of Harvard, has it: "He who THINKS over his experiences most and weaves them into systematic relations with one another, will be the one with the best memory."

5. In consequence of this thorough exercise of memory and thought and power of expression, the student's vocabulary are enlarged; for, it is impossible to master the ideas and their connections, without retaining a goodly number of the words, phrases, and even sentences, in which they are embodied.

6. For complete apperception and retention we shall have the student reproduce the unities in written, and especially in oral speech. For this purpose, time saved from futile questioning may be used.

7. After such analysis the student is well prepared to appreciate what rhetoric has to say upon Expression-style-the factor coordinate with Thought in the best literature.

8. Much that appears under the name of literature is, indeed, uot worth such thorough handling; it may, perhaps, be "swallowed," or even "tasted," but not "digested." But, in studying masterpieces, thoroughness should be the rule. For the power of analysis (thinking) comes from the practice of analysis; and thus the goal of attention, culture is slowly, perhaps, but surely reached — namely, ability to grasp in one act a large whole, and at the same time, to give distinctness to every part of this whole. This habit of attention once formed; the student of literature will quickly discern whether section or chapter or book is part of the "precious life-blood of a master spirit"; or, at best, "Words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart."

A Widespread Evil.,

One evil resulting from our graded system is the exclusive assosociation in school work of children of the same age. A shrewd man once told me that he wanted his children always to be in the lower of the two classes in a room. The younger children of a family generally develop more rapidly than does the oldest one. There is somewhat of ambition in the mind of a child, which makes him emulous of accomplishing the work of those next him in age or strength. I have noticed that a high school is more likely to get pupils of the eighth grade if the two departments sit in one room. Do you not remember how the little ones in the country school determine to stick to school long enough to find out what their big brothers could see in X and Y, in circles, squares or parallels? When our modern city eight-year-old is kept busy with shoe pegs, the old time boy might be listening to find out what became of Washington after he started out with Braddock. (Of course, you say, he might, and again he might be causing as much disaster to the recitation as the Indians brought to the expedition.) Zenophon tells us that one of the excellencies of the ancient system of education among the Persians was that of allowing the young pupil to spend a portion of each day in the presence of his elders, learning of them lessons of wisdom, and being by their achievements incited to heroic deeds.-A. W. RANKIN in Wis. Sch. Jour.

S

Wanted: A New School

Grammar.

S. S. PARR, St. Cloud.

OME years ago the late Richard Grant White wrote certain chapters in a couple of his books,-" Words and their Uses," and "Every-Day English,”—to establish the proposition that the English language is a grammarless tongue. Notwithstanding the whole contention rested on the fallacy of ambiguity, many wellmeaning, but weak-kneed, teachers experienced a nervous shock, and thereafter were ashamed to acknowledge that they ever had a warm side for that subject. Gail Hamilton, Colonel Francis W. Parker, Mr. Orville Bright, and other writers and speakers on educational topics took up and reiterated the dispraise of parsing and analysis. The consciousness and the conscience of these good people were but little troubled by the fact that they had nothing to set up in place of the fetish they tore down, except a thing of shreds and patches, a variegated conglomeration of 'how to do it' in letter-writing, punctuation, reproduction (whatever that might be) and the like.

The discussion was in part a mere play upon words. It took advantage of ambiguity in the meaning of the term 'grammar.' In everything that these and other critics said against the existence of English grammar, they covertly assumed that grammar is equivalent to declensions, conjugations and comparisons, moods, tenses and voices, a fixed order of subject and predicate and a well defined set of forms. In this sense, English has no grammar; nor has Chinese, nor Choctaw, nor any other tongue which does not possess many inflections. The absurdity of this becomes clear by examining good books on general philology, by which one readily se es that competent students of language regard every tongue as possessed of a grammar.

Few sane persons would deny that those critics who have a fever Theirs is a real against the teaching of grammar have a case. cause of action. Undoubtedly school grammar has been a great stupefier of wits, as well as a useless subject. It applies to but little except imitation and verbal memory. English parsing and analysis are the pale ghosts of Greek and Latin grammar. They entirely miss the genius of structure which underlies Anglo-Saxon speech.

The authors of school language-books are generally imcompeten. Whitney's grammar is the only one in general use which is, in whole or part, the product of a finished scholar. It has not escaped the shafts of unfriendly criticism, chief of which is the charge that it is not a practical book. This is an old, old rebuff to scholarship. The counter observation of course is that the teacher is not prac tical enough to use scholarly appliances, and that more and better learning would supply the missing link. From the definition of the subject as a whole, downward to that of obscure mood, or degree of comparison, definitions are wanting in consistency and organization. The Spartan-like brevity of statement is accompanied by no corresponding pointedness of insight. There is a wholesale way of disposing of words and phrases, very refreshing to the haze of half-knowledge, but decidedly wearisome to those who know better. And, too, one may doubt the possibility of cleaving the English sentence into quarters and rounds, on the summary block of procrustean analysis.

One need not base his indictment on generalizations alone. Let us examine in detail some features of this class of text-books. Taking the first half-dozen grammars that offer themselves to one's hand, we may inquire how they view their subject-matter as a whole, what proficiency in classification and definition they show, what grasp of idiom, what incisiveness in their analysis, and what the general effect their treatment is likely to have on the pupil's

mind. Those selected are chosen not for the sake of pillorying their idiosyncracies, but because they are representative and convenient.

First, how do they define their subject?

Southworth and Goddard's Elements of Composition and Grammar: "Grammar shows how words are made, how their forms are changed and how they are put together in sentences according to their kinds."

This is a modern statement of the earliest definition now generally known-that of John Lilly (or Lyly), who in his Latin grammar, one edition of which bears date of 1621, defines grammar thus: Grammatica est rectè scribendi atque loquendi ars. This almost literally becomes: "Grammar is the art of writing and speaking correctly."

California State Grammar: "The study of grammar is designed to teach us, (1) to understand the language; (2) to use it well."

Conklin's English Grammar and Composition: "English grammar teaches how to speak, to write and to read the English language correctly." Why not add to think to these particularizations ?

Reed & Kellogg's Higher Lessons in English: "English grammar is the science which teaches the forms, uses and relations of the words of the English language."

Harvey's English Grammar: "English grammar teaches how to speak and write the English language correctly. English grammar is divided into four parts,-orthography, etymology, syntax and prosody."

Longman's School Grammar does not define the subject.

Those given are but one or another form of Lilly's Latin definition. For substance of doctrine, they rely on regarding the subject One as the art of speaking and writing the language correctly. cannot bat think that the definition of the subject as a whole is loosely tacked on to their treatment of it. If it were an active limitation of the subject-matter, our authors would feel impelled to be ruled by it, and what its terms and implications demand, they would bring within the scope of their treatment. But such is clearly not the case.

That is a rare grammar, indeed, which does not define its subject as the art of writing and speaking correctly, or as the science of language. But this is not, as previously pointed out, meant seriously. If an author intended to write a text-book for the first of those ends, he would need to put into it all those things that contribute to correct speaking. These are pronunciation, spelling, punctuation, rhetoric and the arts of invention, elocution, prosody, etymology and syntax. He would need to make his volume a universal hand-book of speech, and add logic to it besides. But no one ever did this, and no one is likely, between now and Gabriel's trumpet, to attempt it. So much the worse, then, for our definitions! Either their users do not understand their meaning, or the ideas they express have no determining force in shaping their subjects. In any event we need a new definition.

The other horn of this dilemma is to call grammar the science of language. This conception is as much too broad as the one we have just looked at. The science of language is philology, of which grammar is not the double, but a part, coordinate with etymology, phonology, spelling and like subjects. No doubt that before the days of Scaliger, Bopp, the brothers Grimm, Sir William Jones, Max Mueller and our own William Dwight Whitney, grammar was the all-inclusive science which loose definition now sometimes wrongly claims it to be. But that day is passed, and we need a new conception to be used, among various purposes, as a working basis on which to construct a practical school-grammar. In another article, we hope to examine what must be included in this, and attempt to draw a defensible line between the reflective subject of grammar and the imitative and memoriter subject of languagelessons, or instruction in the proprieties of English speech.

METNOS

The Editors will be pleased to receive contributions for this Depart ment.

Decimals.

By WM. M. GIFFIN, Vice-Principal Cook County Normal School.

two, five, but it is the large cube then its .125 or 1 layer, 2 rows and 5 little cubes. To understand just what I mean, test a class that has been fed on the pure symbols, and made to manipulate them, by asking the following question:

I had a large pie, of which this is a picture (drawing a circle, "life size," on the blackboard) and I gave a little four-year-old boy so much of it .98765 i. e, (reading the number) ninety eight thousand seven hundred sixty five hundredths of thousands of it, how many think he could take it in one mouthful? Do not be surprised if 90% think he could. Then erase all but the first figure to the left, thus:.9 and let them see they were going to have the little fellow take over nine tenths of it at once!

Tell why your last answer is right.
Because .1 of .5 .5 and .5 = 5 X .05 or .25

FIFTH EXERCISE.

Questions.

One row is what part?

One little cube is what part?

Answers. .01

.001

.1

.1 of .01

.001

.002

.003

SIXTH EXERCISE.

.4.04 ? .4.04 .40 .04 10.

NOTE. These are examples in division. Get then, the dividend and divisor to the same name. Divisions of decimals are thus made easy. These are first lessons. And when understood, the common rules found in most arithmetics may first be written by the pupils in their own language, after which if the teacher thinks best, the words of the book may be given. But never begin by giving any of the rules first. As Dr. E. E. White so well puts it, "The old method of teaching arithmetical processes by requiring pupils, first, to commit to memory a formal rule, and then to solve the problem according to rule, and with constant reference to it, was long since discarded by the most successful teachers. Experience has shown that the rule is not only useless as a means of teaching numerical processes, but that it is an actual hindrance. It has also shown that knowledge of the process is essential to the proper teaching of the rule. Hence, 'processes before rules' and 'rules through processes' have been generally accepted as wise maxims for the teaching of elementary arithmetic."

T

Plastering, Carpeting, Etc.

By J. K. ELLWOOD.

O find the cost of plastering, carpeting, or papering a room is a very practical problem which every pupil should understand thoroughly. In this country it is not customary for teachers to walk up and down the groves or fields as they give instruction to their pupils. Since the days of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school there have been wonderful changes in everything connected with the education of children. No teacher, no convenience, no building is now too good. The school-room is made as attractive and home-like as possible. Consequently, in teaching practical measurements like those mentioned above the teacher need not

worry and waste time in constructing "models." The large majority of teachers and pupils are in "model" rooms, whose sides and ceilings obviate the difficulties under which the Peripatetics would have labored, had they been computing the cost of plastering an imaginary room.

When ready to take up the subject of plastering, let it be supposed that the school-room is to be plastered. Have pupils measure the length, width, and height of the room. If they have no means of finding the height, let it be estimated. Let the class compute the area of the ceiling and of each side separately. They will not need to be told that the sum of these areas is the total area of the surfaces to be plastered. Have them measure the windows and doors and find their area. It will not be necessary for the teacher to tell the class to deduct the area of the openings. In fact, she need not make a single statement from first to last; a few judicious questions will lead the pupils to a perfect understanding of the entire process.

Now is the time to have the pupil do a little generalizing. He knows how to find the area of the sides, one by one. He must be led to combine them into one rectangle. Have him imagine the walls parted in one corner and moved around so as to form an oblong. How long is the rectangle thus formed? How does its length compare with the perimeter of the room? How does its width compare with the height of the room? How does the surface of the rectangle compare with the area of the four sides of the room? How is the area of the oblong found? Then how may the lateral surface of the room be found? Is this method shorter or more convenient than the one you first employed? Now, who can write directions for finding the amount of plastering required for a

room.

Papering may be taught in the same way, the school-room serving as the "model." A roll of wall paper is 8 yds. long and 18 ins. wide. How long must each strip be? Then how many strips can be cut from a roll? What is the distance around the room? Then how many strips will be required? How many rolls? Have class write directions for finding the number of rolls required for a

room.

We may also cover the school-room floor with carpet, say 3 feet wide. Should the strips be laid across the room or lengthwise? Let us first try laying it lengthwise. How wide is the room? Twenty-five feet. Then how many strips will be needed? 8. Can we buy of a strip (in width)? Then how many strips must be bought? Nine. How long must each strip be? Then how many yards must be bought? Ninety yards.

Now, let us try laying it crosswise. How long is the room? Thirty feet. How many strips will be needed? Ten. Each strip must be what length? 8 yards. Then how many yards must be bought? 83 yards. Why must more be bought when the strips are laid lengthwise? What is usually done with the surplus width? Now write directions for finding the number of yards to be bought for any room.

The ordinary pupil requires but little telling; he should not be "stuffed." Questions adapted to his mental strength, activity, and advancement should lead him to think correctly and in the right direction. He should never be deprived of the pleasure of discovery when it is practicable for him to obtain it. The child who would rather be told a thing than to discover it for himself is a victim of vicious methods of teaching, or of heredity.

That Bugbear: The Decimal Point.

It seems to me the following simple method for division of decimals is an effectual way of robbing "That Bugbear" of all its terrors.

When the class is ready to beginʼdivision of decimals, a thorough review drill, in multiplying a decimal by ten or a multiple of ten should be given. When the teacher is sure this step is perfectly understood the following rule may be given.

Multiply both divisor and dividend by some number- always ten or a multiple of ten, which will reduce the divisor to a whole number. Then divide and in the quotient point off as many places from the right as there are decimal places in the dividend. 17.28.0144

Multiplying both terms by 10,000 we have

172800144. = 1200.

Fractions must be taught objectively. Start with something familiar to the child. Show the meaning of the word. How many children have heard of a fractured leg or arm? Instantly some hands will go up. What does it mean? That some part of the limb has been broken. Call attention to the words fragile, easily broken; fragment, a part of something broken off. Notice that you have awakened thought, and given a new meaning to a word, which a moment before, was associated only with the idea that it meant something about figures. Now take the word itself; from frangere fractum, to break, ion, the act of; the act of breaking; therefore a fraction must be a part of something; Take two apples; cut from one a small piece; a second piece a little larger; cut the remaining portion in two. Hold up any of these pieces. What part of the apple is this? The children will be puzzled; perhaps some one will venture to say it cannot be named because the pieces are not even. Now take the second apple; cut it exactly in half, hold up one part. What is it? Now the hands go up. Cut it again into four equal parts - what is each part called? Why can we speak of the parts of the second apple as we could not those of the first? Because the second one has been cut into equal parts. Then you see, that a fraction must not only be a part of something, but in order to be named it must be an equal part.. You have now developed the definition of a fraction, and you are certain the children understand what it means.

The next step is to express and write quantities of fractions. The apple is cut into two equal pieces. Hold up one-name it. Ans. Who will express it in writing? Cut into thirds, fourths, eighths, name each piece as it is held up; write it. In this way familiarize the children with written work, and make this work mean more than bare figures. Do not attempt more than this in one lesson.