him in it. Instead of coming in between the pupil and the author to keep them apart with matter of its own, it should come only to introduce the one to the other, and to put the one on the best possible footing with the other. It has no right to substitute, for what the author has written, something which another has said about his writings, and call the study of this the study of English literature. It has no right to tax the memory of the pupil in the learning of this, and omit calling his judgment into vigorous exercise by a careful study of the authors themselves.

The text-book may map out literature by dividing it into the periods into which it naturally falls; some account of the great events which have helped to shape the literature of each period it may give; the continuity of the literary stream through all these changes in its channel may be traced; the influence of his surroundings upon an author and his reaction upon them may be indicated; the productions of each writer should be named; a more ample description of this and that great representative of his period may be given; and even a critical estimate of some works may be made that the pupil through the glasses thus furnished may see what his unaided vision could not detect: but all this, be it remembered, the book should offer the pupil, not as the end of his study, but only as a means to place him in a better attitude for forming his own opinions, and to enable him to judge more accurately because of the light thus added. Let this also be remembered-that what the author of the text-book or the critics whom he quotes may say of these writings is not to be received and retailed without question, but is to be passed upon by the pupil himself, and ratified or amended according to his findings in the extracts given or the works referred to for study in the preparation of his lesson, and for reading in the classroom. Only by making the pupils witnesses to give the evidence, advocates to arrange and present it, and the jury to weigh it and decide upon it, will the study be made interesting

and profitable in the highest degree. Only thus can a cultivated taste and a sound judgment be formed to guide pupils in their after-reading, and a key be placed in their hands to unlock the treasures of literature-the study of which will be to most of them the best, perhaps the only, means with which to continue the life-long work of education.

HOW THIS WORK IS TO BE STUDIED.-We wish here to point out more in detail how this work should be studied—to younger teachers the experience of an elder may be useful. The questions below are framed for all except the eight historical Lessons, which introduce the periods of our literature. Some of these questions may seem trifling, others may be too difficult. The teacher will take into account the age and ability of his class, and the rank of the author under discussion. He will take counsel from his experience and from his use of methods-David could not fight in the armor of another. Remembering that he cannot shift from himself the responsibility for his work, he will use his best discretion in conducting it. But if the line here traced is followed, we ask that these questions shall not be put in detail. They are grouped under headings, such as classification and diction. Let each pupil take the heading assigned him, and answer the questions under it without interrogation from the teacher or interruption from any one. The recitation is his work and his only. The direction of the whole, correction of what is amiss, and expansion of what is only suggested will give the teacher all needed occupation. If any heading is too comprehensive for a single pupil, he may share it with another, with others. The questions under classification relate to the text; those under the heads which follow relate to the author's writings. Insist that the pupil, in answering these, shall put his finger upon the words or passages from which he claims to derive his opinion. His answers, when he has ended, will provoke question and objection, and furnish matter for profitable debate.

I. CLASSIFICATION.-In what period is the writer placed? What great

men are representative of it, and what is their exact date? Who were his contemporaries? To what class* of prose writers or of poets does he belong? What are his works? What is said of him? Of them? Have his productions become classic?

II. DICTION.-As a whole, are his words long or short? Simple or abstruse? Native in origin or foreign? Does he use words with precision, or is he careless of their exact meanings? Does he handle them with ease? Has he a copious vocabulary? Judged by our standard, is he always grammatically correct?

III. SENTENCES.-Does he affect long sentences or short? Are they diffuse or epigrammatic? Are they sonorous, or are they written with slight regard to the ear? Are they mainly simple? Compound? Complex? Are his complex sentences involved and intricate, or is the connection of clauses obvious? In the arrangement of parts, does he incline to the natural order or to the transposed? Are any of his sentences climaxes, the parts growing in importance as the sentence proceeds? Are any periods, keeping the meaning in suspense till the close? Are any loose sentences, containing each at least one point before the end at which the sense is complete, the part following not making complete sense? Does he abound in parentheses? Is he happy in grouping his sentences into paragraphs?

IV. STYLE. 1. PERSPICUITY.--Is the author always clear? If so, to what is his perspicuity owing? If not, is his obscurity due to imperfect mastery of his subject? To an inexact use of words? To the use of strange words-technical, obsolete, foreign, or newly-coined? To excess of words-tautology or verbosity? To the omission of needed words? To expression too condensed? To a careless use of personal pronouns? To a faulty arrangement of words, phrases, or clauses? To an overloading of the sentence that destroys unity?

2. IMAGERY.-Does he use imagery? Does he use an excess of it? Is his imagery helpful to the thought? Are any of his figures of speech used only for ornament? What class of figures does he prefer? Do his figures contain allusions? From what sources are his figures drawn? Are any faulty?

3. ENERGY.-Is the writer distinguished for strength? If so, is it due to vigor of thought? To strong feeling? To the use of specific words? To conciseness of expression? To the transposed order of arrangement? To rapidity of movement? To striking imagery? To idiomatic expression? To apt quotations? To the use of the climax? To the use of

* For explanation of this and of other points in this Lesson, see Kellogg's Rhetoric.

the period? To variety in the structure of his sentences? To variety in the kinds of sentences used?

X4 and 5. WIT AND PATHOS.-Is the author witty? If so, does he prefer wit with malice in it? Or that without hostility-humor? Has he pathetic passages?

6. ELEGANCE.-Is the production remarkable for beauty? If so, is the beauty in the thought? Is it secured by the choice of euphonious words? By beautiful imagery? By long and flowing sentences? By sentences harmonious and symmetrical, with parts nicely balanced?

For what quality of style is the author chiefly distinguished? Is the style as a whole attractive to you? Would further study of it be profitable to you? Is it adapted to the thought? Does it lend value to the thought? Does the author show a mastery of the art of expression? Are you curious to see more of his writings?

V. THOUGHT.-Is the author's grasp of his thought firm? Is the selection crowded with thought? Does he make fine distinctions in his thinking? Is his thought profound or superficial? Original or commonplace? True or erroneous? Does he deal with facts only, or is he highly imaginative? Is he dogmatic? Is he controversial? What is the topic of the extract, and what is the gist of his thought upon it? Is he didactic? Is he aiming mainly to please? Is he persuasive? Had he observed much? Had he read widely? Was he a man of great learning? Had he digested and assimilated his knowledge? If argumentative, is his reasoning easily followed? Does he cling closely to his subject, or does he digress? Is his reasoning open to any criticism? Do his paragraphs develop each a topic or sub-topic of the subject? Is the transition from one paragraph to another easy and natural? Is the connection between them close?

XVI. FEELING.-Is the author's heart in his writings or only his intellect? If the writing is colored by sentiment, what feelings of the reader are principally appealed to? What in a subordinate degree? Does the thought predominate over the feeling, or the feeling over the thought? Is the author hopeful and inspiring? Is he genial and delightful? If so, because of what? Is he in love with his kind, or is he cynical? Is he in love with external nature? If so, with what phase or department of it? Is he sincere or affected? What else would you infer of his disposition and character? Do you feel after reading him that you know him? Does further acquaintance with him seem desirable?

The questions asked above apply to Prose. But, omitting those under the headings Sentences and Energy, some of those under Perspicuity, and those under Thought which relate to argumentative writing, they apply

to Poetry also. Make much of Feeling in relation to poetry. A few questions, peculiar to poetry, may be set down under the head of

FORM. 1. RHYTHM.—What foot prevails in the poem? Is it dissyllabic or trisyllabic? What other feet, if any, are substituted for this, and where? In the scansion, is elision, or slurring, anywhere resorted to? Can you scan the poem?

2. METRE.-How many feet are there in the standard, or prevailing, line? And so, in what metre is the poem written? What is the metre of those lines varying from the standard?

3. RHYME.-Do the lines rhyme, or is the poem in blank-verse?

FURTHER REMARKS.-On some productions, questions, in addition to those above, will be asked, or suggestions will be made. Characteristic specimens from only the principal authors, and not from all of these, can, in a work of this kind, be given or referred to for study. How many authors shall be studied in this way and how long they shall be studied are questions difficult to answer. Much depends upon the attainments and maturity of the class, and much upon the time allowed for the work. There are those who insist that but a few even of the best should be taken up, and that the pupil should tarry with these until his acquaintance has ripened into real intimacy. But such intimacy with a few, even if attainable when the material for comparison and contrast is scanty, must be paid for by total ignorance of literature as a whole. There is danger, too, that it would nourish in the. pupil that conceit of knowledge" which "is the arrest of progress." It would not cultivate breadth of view or catholicity of taste. It is at issue with the aim of all other education in the preparatory school and in college, which is to open up to the pupil many departments of study and to enter him a little way in each, without attempting to make him a proficient in any. Better a taste of the characteristic flavor of many authors, a taste that will crave feeding when school days are over, than a long and relishable feast upon a few which shall leave the pupil without appetite for more food of the same, or of a different, kind. The man of many books

66