sham and tinselry of place and condition. It can be transformed from bad to good, or from good to bad, but not without there being a corresponding change in the inner life. A new birth of the soul precedes its reformation.

age,

Conduct is the reflected image of character-a portraiture of the inner life in outward, visible action. It may be hypocritical, but if it is there is the stamp of hypocrisy upon it, and it can not be otherwise than truthful. There are those who can tell the occupation, temperament, even the nationality of a person, from his handwriting-never being deceived by the most graceful curves or artistic flourishes. Shrewd observers of conduct can also tell, from signs not patent to all, whether actions be the result of honest purpose or of mere pretense. The covert design can not be completely masked, even by the most laborious painstaking. It forms a part of every deed-for cause, effect, and end, are inseparable.

Moral power, ability to influence and govern men, depends upon character. Men jeer at and deride the most imposing presence, when it is not supported and sustained by the unseen yet essential elements of greatness. While we willingly obey him who can govern, we rebel, without remorse, against him who would, but can not. Like the frogs in the fable, we have a hearty dislike for King Log. We want to see evidences of the existence of innate force in our rulers. We may grumble at their sternness and severity, but can not avoid paying them homage. Napoleon, quelling a mob with grape and canister, commanded respect: Louis Phillippe, singing the Marsellaise to please a clamorous rabble, merited and received derision and contempt.

-Modern science teaches that heat is a shivering or tremulous motion of the molecules of matter-its intensity depending upon the rapidity of these vibrations. Matter at rest, asleep, dead, is cold. Heat, therefore, is not a substance, though it be a reality: it is matter's mode of motion. Quite similar is the relation between conduct and character. Conduct is character's mode of being. Its manifestations depend much upon temperament. In some, the current of life flows sluggishly. It may be deep and broad, but it is not swift. The influence of such will not be widespread, but it will be all-powerful among a small circle of intimate friends. Its calm, even, unruffled flow will carry them whither it pleases. We call such characters undemonstrative, and sometimes wish there was more of the dash and whirl of the torrent in them-forgetting that all great forces do their work

silently. Any flippant chatter-box could outshine Hawthorne in society; Artemus Ward can "draw" a larger crowd than Agassiz --but who would exchange the weird, strange fancies of the one, or the profound erudition of the other, for all the small talk, puns, and jests, that have been perpetrated since Adam fell.

-Though a hidden, unused wealth of innate power is desirable, out of which character is to be formed, success in professional life demands that none of it be idle. If we choose occupations which bring us in contact with mind, especially with its development, we must not live wrapped up in ourselves. Innate power must become active, creative force. This is especially true in the profession of teaching. Education is "thought kindling itself at the altar fires of living thought," says Carlyle, and truthfully. A dull, sleepy drone, cold, passionless, has no business in a school-room. The fires of thought and feeling must burn brightly on the altar of the teacher's heart, or no answering glow will illumine those of his pupils. The predominating quality of his character must be intensity. His thoughts must have a rapid, even flow; his emotions a lively play. His business is to teach immortal beings how to think rapidly and logically, and lead them to feel keenly and deeply. If he be too cold, too intellectual, too critical, he will repel instead of attracting. If he be too impulsive, too much under the control of his emotions, a morbid sentimentality will spread among his pupils, like an epidemic. Noble, manly natures grow up only under the nurturing care of nobleness and manliness.

Many engage in teaching thoughtlessly, without any previous self-examination whatever, without even questioning themselves to ascertain whether they are fitted, by nature or education, for their calling. They adopt the popular belief that almost any one can teach children. Though some give tolerable satisfaction as instructors, most of them fail as educators of the noblest elements of character, simply because they themselves are destitute of the very elements they vainly attempt to develop. They soon begin to dislike their employment, because they are all the time. haunted by a painful consciousness of incapacity for the performance of its highest duties. To such we would say, "Quit the profession at once, or by a course of rigid self-discipline develop in yourselves what you know to be wanting. All makeshifts, such as assumed dignity, pretended erudition, will avail nothing. The world has grown too shrewd to be duped long by the mere semblance of worth. Your conduct, however guarded, will unmask

THE OHIO EDUCATIONAL MONTHLY.

your character. Real worth alone commands lasting respect. The charlatan's triumph is short-lived."

Then, teacher, make the inner life pure. Suffer no unhallowed passions to lash its waters into fury with storm and tempest, nor lust and appetite to make it a receptacle of all that is base and groveling. The school-room will then become the most attractive place on earth. Its earnest, exacting duties will become mere pastime-its frets and worries mere pleasurable excitements. The consciousness of hourly doing some great good to one who ere long must use the strength and tact you impart to him in the battle of life, will compensate for many weary hours of exhausting labor; many sleepless nights of anxious thought.

SHALL GREEK PREPARATION BE DROPPED?

FRIEND WHITE: Your suggestion in the November Monthly in regard to a change in the studies required to enter college, seems entirely practical; and many other things, I think, can be said in favor of it.

First, it would greatly increase the number of students in all our colleges. Second, as many more of these than now do, would go directly from our free schools, the standard of effort and education in them would be materially raised. For, if these schools may become the gate-ways to our highest institutions of learning, there will soon be an imperative demand for teachers who can keep them open and make them available. Besides, the teachers, knowing that their pupils will be brought under the eye of their superiors, and into competition with many more from similar schools, will naturally be prompted to greater interest and pains-taking in their work. Nor will this competition stop with the teachers: the pupils will feel its influences direct and indirect, and will do more and better work for them. Moreover, there can be no doubt that, other things being equal, one who has had the classic training necessary to an instructor in Latin, is more competent to teach other branches of learning, and thus we have another source of improvement in all the studies of the high school,-an influence which would soon be felt as a strong attractive power, drawing, to higher attainments, the teachers and pupils of every other department of the school.

A third argument in favor of your proposition is, that it will be a benefit to our colleges. Certainly, in the increased attendance which may be safely assumed, and quite as certainly, in the immediate interest and connection which it will create between the school and the college. It will make the step into college the next, and, consequently, natural and expected. This is a great gain. One great hindrance to the usefulness of our colleges, arises from the want of this immediate interest and connection. This hindrance is the gratuitous and false assumption, that a college is an aristocratic institution to which only the more favored may aspire. Now, let the school-room door open into the college, and this assumption will be seen to be, as it is, groundless. The talented and aspiring youth of our schools will see the beautiful form and gentle mien of science and the Muses beckoning them upward to higher seats in the fair temple of knowledge; and they will press forward to fill them. The nearer we can bring the school up to the college-for this must not be lowered the more the college will be benefited.

But will not this movement lower the standard of college education? I think not, but quite the contrary. We raise things by putting more under them. Hence my fourth argument, in favor of your suggestion, is, that under its operation college instruction will be made more efficient, and can be carried further. This appears from the following considerations: 1st. The standard of attainment in Latin required to enter college may and should be raised, and that in Mathematics or the Natural Sciences (or both -better both), must be, in carrying out the proposed measure. Thus there will be, at once, more general information and higher discipline in the entering class, and although there will be fewer new studies, there will be one in the department of language entirely new, which now, ordinarily, has no new study. The advantage of this will be seen, I think, by every one experienced in college life. There is now very little elementary instruction and drill in the department of language in our colleges--it being assumed that this work has already been done, and so that minute study, which is necessary to correct information and thorough discipline, is greatly neglected. Now, if this minute drill were continued in college (as it necessarily would be by the newness of Greek), the student, from previous discipline, would be more competent to receive its benefit, and besides there would be a more competent, thorough and experienced teacher to direct it. The stimulating power of such instruction would be felt by both

professors and students, not only in Greek, but in all the other studies as well, and so, I doubt not, greater progress would be made in all. The value of the habit of minute study, with the fact that it is of slow and difficult growth, and is easily dropped, must, I think, give weight to this argument. A very learned and thoughtful professor in one of our best colleges said to me recently: "After a course of preparation at the Phillip's Academy, I found the study of language in college a mere farce, and was disgusted with the whole thing." His explanation was, that "no thorough work was required or done in that department." The college referred to, stands second to none in all the land in any respect; yet here, certainly, is something in it to be improved. Would your suggestion help it? I hope we shall hear from others on this important subject.

W. C. T.

P. S. Since writing the above, I have received a catalogue of Western Reserve College, which says: "Additional Mathematics will be accepted as a substitute for a portion of the Greek." This is a movement, from a high source, in the right direction. W.C.T.

SKETCH OF AN ELEMENTARY COURSE OF MATHEMATICS FOR OUR HIGH SCHOOLS.

BY T. E. SULIOT.

II. When the scholar has, for his years and opportunities, become a tolerably expert arithmetician and algebraist, not by having been drilled to work by rote, but trained to discover for himself the law or rationale of each operation, he is ready for geometry.

Geometry should form a part of every boy's and girl's education, provided they have capacity for it. It should not be the exclusive privilege of colleges or of the upper classes in our high schools. But, in order to compass this beautiful study within the narrow limits of time at our disposal, without slurring over or mere memory-work, we must put aside such elaborate treatises as Davies' Legendre, or Loomis's, or even Tappan's elegant work. I have had already occasion to recommend for our common schools Evans' Geometry, which, under a small bulk and in a very inviting form, presents the essentials of the subject, logically