nent, can establish or justify a use of words out of the line of normal development; that the English which we ought to speak and write, derives its authority primarily, not from the dicta of grammarians and lexicographers, but from the slowly evolved will of the nation.

The fact never to be forgotten is, that the mind, while it may shift its attention, can attend to but one thing at a time. The induction and classification of the noun, verb, etc., constitute one operation; the inflection of the inflected parts, quite another. Each, homogeneous in itself, is best presented separately, without interruption. The same is true of the formation, transmutation, and logical functions of words; of the logical functions, first of phrases, then of clauses; of the principal, subordinate and independent elements of the sentence; of its classification, capitalization, punctuation, concord, order, and diction. To intermingle these topics is to violate the first principle of the economy or conduct of the understanding - that separate subjects should be made separate lessons. Hence, also, collateral essay or theme-writing is strongly objectionable; for it is a contravention of the all-pervading canon of teaching-to do one thing at a time. The finding of the matter leaves a distracted attention for the study of the manner. Something, however, may be given in outline for expansion; poetry and prose may be changed on a definite plan; sentences may be rearranged on definite principles; passages may be modernized from old English, or be turned into English idiom from literal translations of Latin and Greek, or of German and French.

Exercises are sufficiently copious and varied to insure permanency of impression and familiarity of use. They are purposely mixed, to prevent reliance, in the application of principles, upon anything but common sense and industry. In their selection, regard has been had, where practicable, not only to appositeness of form but to beauty of imagery and utility of content. The effective employment of phraseology is taught both directly, by the presentation of good models, and indirectly, by the exhibition of faulty ones. To both, as far as might be, it has been sought to lend the charm of personality. Particularly in the discussion of errors, examples which are referable to no one are apt to seem imaginary rather than real. Men of straw, set up to be knocked down, impress slightly. But when exercises to be corrected are accompanied by the name of the author quoted, they have a plain and indubitable existence.

It will be seen that the scheme herein proposed offers a two-fold advantage; to-wit, in the available knowledge it imparts, and in the mental discipline it furnishes. The latter is promoted by the inductive method of procedure, by the logical sequence of topics, by the elimination of technical jargon, by the concentration of energy upon the thought. Thus the student is not only advanced to a true mastery of his native speech, but is helped, rather than perplexed, in the acquisition of a foreign one. According as he can or can not determine the subject of 'Who steals my purse steals trash,' he will or will not be able to determine the subjective relations of abjiciet and extorquebit in the following:

Hæc nec hominis nec ad hominem vox est, qua qui apud te, C. Cæsar, utitur, suam citius abjiciet humanitatem quam extorquebit tuam.1

What teacher of Latin and Greek is not painfully aware of the difficulty with which students in general render the periods of Cicero and Thucydides into their own idiom? In very large measure the difficulty arises from an incompetent acquaintance with the links that connect an English sentence. To master the intricacies of the English, is to go, in point of reasoning power, beyond either Latin or Greek: for the English sentence is constructed upon the basis of logic; the Greek and Latin, upon the basis of verbal forms. The greater should imply the less.

Upon questions of construction in inflected languages, where everything depends upon simple verbal form, appeal is made to the sense of sight if the period is written, to that of hearing, if pronounced, and the meaning is often determined by no higher faculties than those concerned in the comparison of mere material and sensuous objects. In English, on the contrary, although we have fixed laws of position, yet, as position does by no means necessarily conform to the order of thought, and nothing in the form indicates the grammatical connection of the words, there is a constant intellectual effort to detect the purely logical relations of the constituents of the period; . . . . and hence it may be fairly said, that the construction and comprehension of an English sentence demand and suppose the exercise of higher mental powers than are required for the framing or understanding of a proposition in Latin.2

For that domain of rhetorical instruction which belongs to maturer years and a more liberal curriculum, the au

1 Cicero: Pro Q. Ligario Oratio.

2 G. P. Marsh: Lectures on the English Language.

thor hopes to make acceptable provision in the near future. Meanwhile his aim has been to produce, not an exhaustive treatise for the few, but a manual of essentials for the many; to present in compact and orderly system, the cardinal facts of the English language and the cardinal qualities of English style; to supply what the learner will be willing to read, and cannot fail to understand; to feed the mind, as well as to train it, and thus to give to the study of English no inconsiderable place in general culture.

Many books, of course, have been consulted in the preparation of this: but it is not felt that particular obligation need be acknowledged to other than Whitney's Language and Study of Language, Latham's English Language, Marsh's Lectures on the English Language, Bain's English Grammar, Morris's Historical English Grammar, Seeley and Abbott's English Lessons for English People, White's Words and Their Uses, Mathews's Words, Their Use and Abuse, Hill's Principles of Rhetoric, De Vere's Studies in English, Trench's Study of Words, Max Müller's Science of Language, and Earle's Philology of the English Tongue.

It is my pleasing duty, also, to express thanks to my friend, Dr. R. W. Stevenson, superintendent of the Columbus schools, both for his warm interest in my task and for some valuable suggestions.

COLUMBUS, OHIO,

June 21, 1884.

A. H. W.