lessons, are all equally preposterous, and yet we
do nothing to mend them. It seems as if we
believed in some wholesome influence of mental
pain. As though, by making knowledge especially
difficult we made it especially valuable,
and planted the seeds effectually, in proportion
to the anguish of the operation!

There are four things which may be taken
as the cardinal points of education — grammar,
arithmetic, history, and geography; four names
of torture to the young, but which, under any
rational system of teaching, might be made
four sources of pleasure and interest. As for
grammar, which is the only one of the four to
be touched on here, one might think that some
intellectual Herod had been the compiler of
most of the published treatises; and that his
object was the hopeless bewildering of youthful
brains, and the final snuffing out of youthful
intellectual light. Yet even grammar might
be made full of what artists call colour, if we
chose to study the best way of setting it forth.
Certainly that way is not to be found in Lindley
Murray; with his dull rules rattling against
the mind, like dry bones; without a morsel of
flesh to cover their anatomy; nor yet is the way
to be found in some of the modern issues, which
are even more pedantic than Lindley Murray,
and infinitely more bewildering. Here are two
instances of modern grammar-writing. In one
little work, otherwise sensible, the following
classification of adverbs is commended to the
young learner: "Adverbs of quality, of
affirmation, of contingency, of negation, of
explaining, of separation, of conjunction, of
interrogation, of pre-eminence, of defect, of preference,
of equality, of inequality, of gradation, of in a
place, of to a place, of toward a place, of from
a place, of time present, of time past, of time
fiiture, of time indefinitely, of time definitely,
of order, and of quantity."* Another author
of a practical grammar, divides adverbs into
nine classes, and conjunctions into sixteen.
Among these, are adverbs that express manner
by quality, manner by degree, and manner by
affirmation whatever these terms may mean.
Among the conjunctions, are conjunctions of
purpose, of condition, of concession, and so on.
When teachers attempt to cram such
indigestible material as this into the tender brains
of youth, who can wonder if those brains
obstinately and vehemently refuse to be fed upon
the husks and chaff offered them for food?
Who can expect any other than the general
result of ordinary schooling, which is, that boys
and girls will do their best to forget all that
their masters and mistresses have made believe
to teach them, and that the real education
begins when the "scholastic courses" end?

* Quoted from a lecture (What is and What
may be Meant by Teaching English), by J. M. D.
Meiklejohn, M.A.

Almost all grammar-writers have a great dislike
to short words instead of long words, and to
Saxon words instead of Latin words. You must
"accumulate," not "heap up," if you would
please them; you must "exclude," not "shut
out;" you must "commence," not "begin;"
you must "be profound," rather than "deep;"
and you must be very particular to be "implicated
in a certain transaction," instead of
"mixed up in some matter." One grammarian
sets his face against "by dint of argument,"
"not a whit better," " the tables are turned,"
&c., as wanting in that vague virtue called
purity of style; another advises, as a more
elegant mode of diction, "I prefer mercy to
sacrifice," instead of " I will have mercy and not
sacrifice;" and thinks "he violated his pro-
mise," infinitely better style than "he broke
his word." "The devouring element" is high-
polite for "fire;" "he gave utterance to a
sentiment," is far before the plain "he said;" "to
signify assent," beats the sturdy "Yes" all to
nothing. Even a great preacher — great in
eloquence, great in goodness, great in mind—
maundered once into "the source of light dis-
persing its rays," when all he wanted to say
was simply "the sunshine."

Grammar-writers, and the teachers of grammar,
do even more than this. Not content
with taking all the pith and marrow out of
the English language, and making it a mere
anglicised Latin (so far as they are able), they
still further perplex the youthful learner by the
gnarled and hopeless subject of their themes.
"Which do you prefer, a classical or commercial
education? State your reasons." This is one
of the questions calmly put to the boy of twelve
or fourteen for whom this grammar is written.
"What inferences are you entitled to draw
from the extension of railways to all parts of
the country?" is another question. " Prove a
future state of rewards and punishments," is a
third tickler. "The first request is an impos-
sible one," says Mr. Meiklejohn, from whom
these extracts are quote; the second is absurd
and senseless; and the third is surely beyond
the powers of most grown-up people. Answers
are likewise expected to such questions as
these: "Is Law or Physic more advantageous?"
"Is Agriculture or Commerce preferable?"
Considering the experience of fourteen
years of age, these questions are certainly
occasions for the exercise of some imagination.

But to go back to grammar, pure and simple.
We all know what utter weariness of spirit,
what headaches, confusion of mind, moral pros-
tration, and personal disgrace, what rivulets of
tears, and dire punishments of various kinds,
have marked the path of those Juggernauts of
the school-room — the makers of grammars
written not to be understood. And yet this
most painful of all the dry sticks given to the
young to transform into a flowering branch,
might be made interesting if treated as it ought
to be treated; that is, in connexion with history
and other matters having some relation to
human life. Any one who has taught intelligently,
or seen intelligent teaching, in a school,
must remember with what delight children
receive lessons which are made dramatic or
pictorial. The dullest fact, if helped out with