of working out new ideas by the help of marks and rude lines. The use of dolls by children also testifies to the value of an objective support in the construction of mental images. The doll serves as a kind of skeleton for the child to clothe with fantastic attributes, and the less individuality the doll has the more it is appreciated by the child, who can the better utilize it as a lay figure in many different characters. The art of strengthening visual as well as every other form of memory lies in multiplying associations; the healthiest memory being that in which all associations are logical, and towards which all the senses concur in their due proportions. It is wonderful how much the vividness of a recollection is increased when two or more lines of associa tion are simultaneously excited.

It is a mistake to suppose that a powerful exercise of the will can vivify a faint image. The action of the will is negative, being limited to the suppression of what is not wanted and would be in the way. It cannot create thought, but it can prevent thoughts from establishing themselves which lead in a false direction; so it keeps the course clear for a logical sequence of them. But if appropriate ideas do not come of their own accord, the will is powerless to evoke them. Thus, when we forget a familiar name, it is impossible to recall it by force of will. The only plan in such cases is to think of other things, till some chance association suggests the name. The mind may be seriously dulled by over-concentration, and will only recover its freshness by such change of scene and occupation as will encourage freedom and discursiveness in the flow of the ideas.

A

All that remains to be said refers to the utility of the visualizing faculty, and may be compressed into a few words. visual image is the most perfect form of mental representation, wherever the shape, position, and relations of objects in space are concerned. It is of importance in every handicraft and profession where design is required, because workmen ought to visualize the whole of what they propose to do before they take a tool in their hands. Thus the village smith and the carpenter who are employed on odd jobs require it no less for their work than the mechanician, the engineer, and the architect. The lady's maid who arranges a new dress requires it for the same reason as the decorator employed on a palace, or the agent who lays out great estates. Strategists, artists of all denominations, physicists who contrive new experiments, and in short all who do not follow

routine, have need of it. The pleasure its use can afford is immense. I have many correspondents who say that the delight of recalling beautiful scenery and great works of art is the highest that they know. Our bookish education tends unduly to repress this valuable gift of nature. A faculty that is of importance in all technical and artistic occupations, that gives accuracy to our perceptions, and justness to our generalizations, is starved by disuse, instead of being cultivated in the way that will bring most return. I believe that a serious study of the best method of developing the faculty of visualizing is one of the many pressing desiderata in the new science of education.

JAMES A. GARFIELD

(1831-1881)

AMES A. GARFIELD, twentieth President of the United States, had literary ability of a high order, and if the Civil War had not drawn him away from his work as an educator, he might have attained the same eminence in letters he did in politics. He was born in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 19th, 1831. In 1856 he began his professional life as an instructor in Hiram College, of which he soon became president; but when the Civil War began he left the college to enter the Union army as a lieutenant-colonel of volunteers. His military career was brilliant and he was promoted to be first a brigadier and then a major-general. His ability as an orator was remarkable, and in 1863 he was elected to Congress from an Ohio district, beginning thus the brilliant career in national politics which culminated in his election to the presidency in 1880. When assassinated by Guiteau, July 2d, 1881, he had done nothing to prepare his works for the press, but his papers were edited after his death by B. A. Hinsdale, and published in two volumes in 1883.

ANCIENT LANGUAGES AND MODERN PEDANTRY

EAR the close of the fifth century we date the beginning of those Dark Ages which enveloped the whole world for a thousand years. The human race seemed stricken with intellectual paralysis. The noble language of the Cæsars, corrupted by a hundred barbarous dialects, ceased to be a living tongue long before the modern languages of Europe had been reduced to writing.

In Italy the Latin died in the tenth century, but the oldest document known to exist in Italian was not written till the year Italian did not really take its place in the family of written languages till a century later, when it was crystallized into form and made immortal by the genius of Dante and Petrarch.

I 200.

The Spanish was not a written language till the year 1200, and was scarcely known to Europe till Cervantes convulsed the world with laughter in 1605.

The Latin ceased to be spoken by the people of France in the tenth century, and French was not a written language till the beginning of the fourteenth century. Pascal, who died in 1662, is called the father of modern French prose.

The German as a literary language dates from Luther, who died in 1546. It was one of his mortal sins against Rome that he translated the Bible into the uncouth and vulgar tongue of Germany.

Our own language is also of recent origin. Richard I. of England, who died in 1199, never spoke a word of English in his life. Our mother tongue was never heard in an English court of justice till 1362. The statutes of England were not written in English till three years before Columbus landed in the New World. No philologist dates modern English further back than 1500. Sir Thomas More (the author of "Utopia "), who died in 1535, was the father of English prose.

The Dark Ages were the sleep of the world, while the languages of the modern world were being born out of chaos.

The first glimmer of dawn was in the twelfth century, when in Paris, Oxford, and other parts of Europe, universities were established. The fifteenth century was spent in saving the remnants of classic learning which had been locked up in the cells of monks; the Greek at Constantinople, and the Latin in the cloisters of Western Europe.

During the first three hundred years of the life of the older universities, it is almost literally true that no modern tongue had become a written language. The learning of Europe was in Latin and Greek. In order to study either science or literature these languages must first be learned. European writers continued to use Latin long after the modern languages were fully established. Even Milton's great "Defense of the People of England" was written in Latin,—as were also the "Principia," and other scientific works of Newton, who died in 1727.

The pride of learned corporations, the spirit of exclusiveness among learned men, and their want of sympathy with the mass of the people, united to maintain Latin as the language of learning long after its use was defensible.

Now mark the contrast between the objects and demands of education when the European universities were founded—or even when Harvard was founded- and its demands at the present time. We have a family of modern languages almost equal in

force and perfection to the classic tongues, and a modern literature, which, if less perfect in æsthetic form than the ancient, is immeasurably richer in truth, and is filled with the noblest and bravest thoughts of the world. When the universities were founded, modern science was not born. Scarcely a generation has passed since then without adding some new science to the circle of knowledge. As late as 1809 the Edinburgh Review declared that "lectures upon Political Economy would be discouraged in Oxford, probably despised, probably not permitted."

a much later date, there was no text-book in the United States on that subject. The claims of Latin and Greek to the chief place in the curriculum have been gradually growing less, and the importance of other knowledge has been constantly increasing; but the colleges have generally opposed all innovations and still cling to the old ways with stubborn conservatism. Some concessions, however, have been made to the necessities of the times, both in Europe and America. Harvard would hardly venture to enforce its law (which prevailed long after Cotton Mather's day) forbidding its students to speak English within the college limits, under any pretext whatever; and British Cantabs have had their task of composing hexameters in bad Latin reduced by a few thousand verses during the last century.

me.

It costs me a struggle to say anything on this subject which may be regarded with favor by those who would reject the classics altogether, for I have read them and taught them with a pleasure and relish which few other pursuits have ever afforded But I am persuaded that their supporters must soon submit to a readjustment of their relations to college study, or they may be driven from the course altogether. There are most weighty reasons why Latin and Greek should be retained as part of a liberal education. He who would study our own language. profoundly must not forget that nearly thirty per cent. of its words are of Latin origin,—that the study of Latin is the study of universal grammar, and renders the acquisition of any modern language an easy task, and is indispensable to the teacher of language and literature, and to other professional men.

Greek is, perhaps, the most perfect instrument of thought ever invented by man, and its literature has never been equaled in purity of style and boldness of expression. As a means of intellectual discipline its value can hardly be overestimated. To take a long and complicated sentence in Greek-to study each.