practicable manner-in order that the pupil who graduates first may not be the broken-down hack of the class; and that he who does not graduate first, may be the one whose mind is dullest at perceiving principles. We do not assume that principles are not taught in our schools; but they are not taught characteristically, while details are. Much is said about cultivating individuality in pupils. But the common mode of teaching details ignores individuality. Details are acquired by the mechanical memory-a faculty differing in scope, among pupils, but by no means individualizing. The thinking power, it is, that individualizes. Principles demand thinking. So do details, when they are acquired by the philosophical memory after being classified by principles; but not as taught apart from the consideration of principles first. IF CHARACTER. the human mind were a passive recipient, its worth might be estimated by the amount and quality of its contents. But mind is active. It converts crude knowledge into power, and power is a blessing or a curse according as it is used. If individual character is properly developed, and fortified by correct habits, knowledge is beneficent and can not be too largely increased. But if character is undeveloped, or unbalanced, or perverted, every increase of knowledge serves but to increase the means and opportunities for doing evil. An honest citizen, though unlearned, is worth far more to the State and to society than the most accomplished rascal, While for personal happiness no amount of information will atone for a lack of wisdom; and wisdom depends not merely upon the amount and kind of knowledge possessed, but upon character, which insures its proper use. It is a question, therefore, whether our splendid appliances for wholesale instruction are the best possible means for the education of children. The great object sought in them—and, in fact, the only object that can be successfully attained by teaching en masse-is the dissemination of knowledge. That which is of far greater importance to the individual and to society, the formation of correct habits, the implanting of correct principles, and the rousing of generous impulses, is thrust aside, as being without the sphere of the teacher's duties. We know that it is rightfully the parent's duty to attend to this part of education. But many parents are incapable of doing it; many others are too negligent to do it; while no small proportion even of those who are capable of doing it, shirk their responsibility by sending their children to distant schools, during the entire period when they most need parental supervision, and are most susceptible to its influences. The consequence is, if this work is not done by teachers, it is rarely done at all; and where the school system largely excludes such training-as in our cities and large towns-we have multitudes of children who are smart, but are neither virtuous nor honest. So long as the development of character is sacrificed for greater development of brain, just so long will our educational system prove a disappointment; and we have but ourselves to blame for the result. IN THE YEAR. N educational affairs, radical changes are of rare occurrence. Progress is generally made by stages almost imperceptible; and at the end of a period so brief as a year, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a casual observer to detect any change. As in a forest growth, the general appearance may not be perceptibly affected, yet one who has spent the year within its shadow, may discern here the beginning of a mighty tree, or a slender twig, the promise of a thrifty branch; there, a last-year's shoot untimely withered, or dead tree fallen, while everywhere are evidences of a constant though immeasurable growth so in the wide field of education, though there may be little apparent change since the year began, we know that change has been incessant. And though cherished projects may have failed, though new evils have crept in, and old evils have been unsuccessfully assailed, we are persuaded that over all there has been progress-that the aggregate result is improvement. Would that it were greater! THE ancients educated their children not merely by talking to them, but also, and especially, by means of examples and actions; in order that what they acquired might remain in their minds, not as a science, but as a nature and custom inseparable from them-not as a thing learned, but as an inherited possession.-Montaigne. A EDITORIAL MISCELLANY. DEMONSTRATION of the following construction was given in our last number. It was received after our usual time of going to press, and hurried through with too great a reliance upon the reputed ability of the contributor and the accuracy of the proof-reader. We have in consequence to apologize for errors, typographical and other, which unfortunately escaped our notice. To construct within a Circle a Line whose Square shall Approximate to the Area of the Circle. Take the radius of the circle as the unit of measurement. Draw the radius OB at right angles to the diameter AC. From B draw the chord BD, equal to radius; bisect it at E, and, through E, draw the chord AF, which is the line required. Through E draw On, and EP at right angles to AC. Since BD=R, it is the side of an inscribed hexagon, and therefore the arc BD=60°. The following results are derived: Arc Bn=30°. Angles BOE and OEP each equal 30°. Angles EOP and OBE each equal 60°. = BE=BDR. OE=√OB2-BE2=√√√ Triangles OEP and OBE are similar... OB: BE:: OE OP... OP ов AEXEF=BEX ED=BE2=1... EF= But AE2=AO2+OE2+2A0×OP=1+1+2× √2=1++ ...AE=1.6174131827...... AF2 3.141592653 ..... area of circle. The contributor of this simple and excellent demonstration justly says: "So nearly does the result approximate to T, as obtained by the usual methods, that the question is well put, whether this construction would not give us the exact value of π, if only the value of √3 could be ascertained; in other words, whether the square constructed on chord AF is not really equal to the area of the circle." MR. EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE. R. EDITOR-Some time ago you spoke of exposing in your Monthly some of the absurdities taught in our schools. From what you said at that time, I supposed that you had in course of preparation a series of articles on that subject. If some person would begin with the Primary school, and set in the light the stupidity of teachers there; and follow on through the Intermediate and Grammar departments to the academies and colleges of the land, much good might be done for the public, and the interests of the pupils would be well served. Because the articles to which you referred have not appeared, I now speak. I am not on the course. I am too old to go down to the fight, but by the light of past experience (I have lived longer than the time allotted to one generation), I may be able to see the bearing and results of some plans that may not be apparent to the more youthful. It is absurd to despise the English language. This is done by nearly all classes of people in this country-by teachers in our public schools and academies, and by professors in higher institutions. The boys and girls that compose the great majority of our schools have not time to learn the dead languages; yet if they expect to maintain a re spectable standing, they must devote a large share of their precious time to acquiring what to them will be absolutely valueless. According to the present state of public opinion, a year or two of Latin will atone for ig norance of the English language, miserable penmanship, ignorance of ordinary business transactions, ignorance of Latin itself, and, in short, for general stupidity. One who has taken his "course" in Latin and Greek is thought to be master of great mysteries, however superficial his knowledge of these languages may be. His pedantry is encouraged, though he cannot correctly translate a line not previously taught him. This ignorance is more common than most people suppose. I care not how extended a course of study may be, if, when completed, the pupil have not a thorough and exact knowledge of the English language in regard to reading (as but few can now read), spelling, grammar, rhetoric, English classics, and history, and unless he have power to write his thoughts, as well as to give oral expression to them, in proper words, such a course is not fit to be recommended to American youth. Do not understand that I object to the study of any or all languages except our own. Not so. But nine-tenths of those who commence the study of Latin and Greek would receive much greater benefit by devoting their time to the study of natural history, practical business transactions, and the English language as it is not taught in our public schools, academies, and colleges. One word on the Teachers' Association at Geneva. Your criticism is severe. I will not say it is unjust. But you use the names of two ladies, who stand high as teachers of elocution, rather too lightly. I cannot think their readings were out of place at an association of teachers, though such exercises should not form "the main attraction." The responsibility for lack of vigor in the association lies with the officers who had immediate charge of its meetings, though they cannot justly be charged with intentional wrong. The local committee and the people of Geneva were very kind; and I think they must have been amused and amazed at the display of capacity for entertainment by the teachers. The officers of the association, at the outset, should have given all to understand that the teachers had met for the transaction of business, according to programme; and the very kind attentions of those who would divert the association from its proper course, should have been politely declined. Many of the teachers saw the lack of proper management with mortification. Some who very much desired to speak on the few practical questions presented, could not do so for want of time; and at least one important topic on the programme was passed by for the same alleged reason. We hope for better things next year at Auburn. I hope you will go, even if you take your ax along, and have but a psalm or song to edify or amuse. Very respectfully, T. O. GARFOOTE. MR R. EDITOR-The ill-tempered letter of F. S. J., in the November number of the Monthly, reminds one of the homely proverb concerning the impropriety of stone-throwing on the part of those who live in glass houses. He fails to see that the invectives which he hurls at your critic and his supposed theory of grammar, may and do rebound to the destruction of his own theory. Caring little for Clark's Grammar, and still less for most others, I am interested in this controversy only so far as it affords an excellent illustration of the general inefficiency of grammatical teaching. The critic's assertion that it does not make good practical grammarians, or, in other words, that it does not enable pupils to speak and write the English language with elegance and propriety, is strictly true. But, protests F. S. J., assuming that the charge is made especially against his favorite system, "Nine-tenths of the current teaching of grammar is the product of systems and text-books that have been from time immemorial (!) utterly oblivious of the analysis it (the review) condemns; and the defect, therefore, is not due to the existence or influence of Clark's Grammar." Evidently, the reviewer did not mean to say that it is due to Clark's Grammar; he merely stated, generally, the fact which F. S. J. tacitly admits to be nine-tenths true. Now, is there any good reason for excepting the other tenth? Are the disciples of Clark remarkable for the use of correct, elegant, idiomatic English? The pedantic style of the champion of Clark's system certainly does not afford much reason for attributing any peculiar excellence to its influence. So perfect is his command of the school-boy militant style, that one might almost be justified in supposing that he had acquired his knowledge of English composition entirely from the study of the essays of "juniors," with, perhaps, a slight acquaintance with the letters of "Junius." The truth is, both F. S. J. and your critic are wrong. They assume that "English grammar teaches the proper use of the English language," |