teacher, and that his whole time and attention should be given to one who maliciously disturbs the school? He believed it wholly wrong. The evil effects of whipping, too, are very much exaggerated by those who know nothing practically of the matter. Do we not all know that if it is properly and skillfully applied, the boy is in most cases happier as well as better after it?

Mr. FROST, of Waltham, did not believe in fixing the limit for the use of corporal punishment at different ages for boys and girls. We all know that some girls are younger at fifteen than some boys are at ten. We know, too, that some boys are far more refined-ladylike, if we may use the expression-than some girls. His own experience had taught him that we find ten ugly boys where we find one ugly girl, but that the girl, when found, is worse than the whole ten boys.

Mr. COLLAR, of Roxbury, thought that the discussion was more for the public than for teachers. Among those who are obliged to do the work of training large bodies of children, there is scarcely any difference of opinion upon the subject.

Mr. HAGAR, of the Salem Normal School, said that were the question put to him, "Are you in favor of corporal punishment?" he should unhesitatingly answer, yes. If, however, he were asked, if he favored the frequent resort to it, he should answer, as promptly, no. In whatever he might say, he wished to be understood as opposed to its common use. He was obliged, in the discharge of his official duty, to express his opinion upon the subject. His instruction amounted, generally, to this. It may be proper for you to use force. If, however, you find yourself obliged to resort to it frequently, you may well question your fitness for the profession. Use it only in extreme cases. If it comes to a question of obedience with the rod, or disobedience without it, choose the former. It is a common notion that corporal punishment is of necessity disgraceful. He did not consider it so. What is it? The infliction of bodily pain as the penalty of wrong doing. Let us take a lesson from the methods of Providence. If we eat twice as much as we should, we suffer physical pain-are corporally punished by Providence. So if we put our hand in the fire. No one, however, considers the punishment disgraceful. It is merely a warning to us not to commit the same indiscretion again. So with a child in school: by inflicting pain upon him, we simply warn him not to repeat the offense. The only difference seems to be that in one case we see who does it, and in the other we do not. The real degradation

is in the sense of having done wrong, not in the fact of being punished. He remembered, when a boy, being punished wrongfully. He knew, however, that he experienced no feeling of disgrace. It is very easy, and very beautiful to theorize about managing entirely by love; but the real question is, Is it practicable? In the course of twenty-five years of teaching, he had resorted to corporal punishment three times. He often doubted, however, whether he should not have done better if he had used it oftener. He should mention also, that he had taught mostly in High Schools, where the scholars were of advanced age, and required less forcing. In a school composed, as some schools were, mostly of boys of low character, he saw not how it was possible to do away with it. Mr. H. then reiterated his statement, that he did not believe the frequent use of it ever to be necessary.

Mr. BROWN, of Boston (Bowdoin School), said that he had recently listened to a discussion of this subject in the city of Boston, where every opponent of corporal punishment, and among them a member of the Cambridge School Committee, admitted that it was sometimes necessary. In imaginary schools, or in a theoretical world, it may be dispensed with, but in schools as they are, and in the world as it is, it must, he thought, be sometimes resorted to. Young teachers are generally obliged to resort to it frequently; older ones less often. While, however, we are obliged to manage so many dispositions, and accomplish so much in so short a time, it seems impossible, except in those rare cases where the teachers are almost angels, to maintain proper discipline without it. He formerly taught in Cambridge, and while there, was obliged to punish very often. He had a very large number of scholars all in one room, and when cases of disorder occurred, was obliged to take the quickest way of settling them. In his present school, he had only five cases reported in the past three months, and those not inflicted by him. His best teacher had reported one case, but had remarked at the time, “I ought to have reported 'six.'" She then explained, that she had several girls who had been badly brought up; who were almost insensible to other influences, and to whom it would, in her opinion, be a positive benefit. She was unwilling, however, to have her name associated with those of the indiscriminate advocates of corporal punishment. If such is the state of things in a girls' school, not unfavorably located, it was easy to imagine what it must be in some of our boys' schools, where the scholars are

nearly all from the lowest class of society. He then referred to a school in which the master, in deference to the wishes of the Chairman of his Committee, forbade his teachers using corporal punishment without consulting him. The effect upon the school, which was composed mostly of foreigners, was such that in a short time the disorder was almost unbearable, and the teacher upon whom the care of the school devolved, in the temporary absence of the master, was obliged to use a great deal of force in bringing the school again to order. He found that in some of the rooms the boys ran out and in almost at will; the books were torn, and the room defaced. It is frequently said that whipping should be always the last resort. He thought, however, that a skillful teacher might sometimes use it profitably without waiting to try everything else. He was glad, for his part, to see the discussion which had arisen upon the subject. He thought it would be productive of good in rendering teachers more careful not to use force on slight occasions. He was satisfied that we were running too much towards the other extreme.

NOTES: ORTHOEPICAL, ORTHOGRAPHICAL, ETYMOLOGICAL, AND SYNTACTICAL.-No. 12.

BY W. D. HENKLE, SALEM, OHIO.

74. "C. W. P." asks whether Maynard is "accented on the first or last syllable?" Webster's new dictionary pronounces it mā'-näR', the primary accent being on the last syllable. I am under the impression that Maynard, of Tennessee, pronounces his name ma'-nard. I can not, however, speak positively upon the subject.

75. The following sentence and critical remarks are found on p. 74, vol. ii. of Blair's Rhetoric, 8th edition, London, 1801. It is in Lecture xx, entitled "Critical examination of the Style of Mr. Addison, in No. 411 of the Spectator":

"There are, indeed, but very few who know how to be idle and innocent, or have a relish of any pleasures that are not criminal; every diversion they take is at the expence of some one virtue or another, and their very first step out of business is into vice or folly.

"Nothing can be more elegant, or more finely turned, than this sentence. It is neat, clear, and musical. We could hardly alter one word, or disarrange one member, without spoiling it. Few sentences are to be found more finished,, or more happy."

66

I can not with Blair in this opinion. "But" adds very agree little meaning to "very few," and detracts from the music of the sentence. Who should have been inserted before "have" to prevent its being taken as an infinitive, unless the meaning intended was or who know how to have a relish." For should have been used after relish instead of "of." Smart says, "A relish of is actual taste; a relish for is disposition to taste." Addison himself says "a relish for faction" and "any relish for fine writing." Macaulay has "A relish for whatever was excellent in arts or letters."

The great blunder, however, in this sentence is in the omission of the intended antecedent of "they." As it is, "they" can refer only to the "very few who know how to be idle and innocent, etc.," and this select class are declared to take every diversion at the expense of some virtue, etc. Now Addison meant to declare this of all except this small class. "Some one virtue or another" might have been more harmoniously expressed by some virtue without omitting any essential meaning.

76. During. I began these notes more than a year ago with this word, and I now close them with a reference to a ridiculous use of it in the August issue of the New York Teacher, p. 342 : "The deceased [Charles Anthon, LL.D.] was a native of New York, having been born here during the year 1797."

This is the most prolonged case of being born that I have ever read of. It will do as an offset to being born "at Cape Cod and all along the shore." If the writer meant that Anthon was born in the year 1797, why did he use the longer word during?

"INSTRUCTION IN LANGUAGE."

KENT, O., Sept. 18, 1867.

HON. E. E. WHITE-Dear Sir: Having carefully read your article on "Instruction in Language" in the September number of the MONTHLY, I can not forbear expressing to you my appreciation of the soundness of your views on that subject. I have no word of dissent to offer in regard to any position there taken. Indeed, I am thoroughly convinced that the course marked out by you, intelligently pursued, would produce correct speakers and writers so much more readily than our present methods,

that it would almost revolutionize our entire system of instruction.

Permit me to submit one or two suggestions in the same direction. First, with reference to the first steps in the course marked out in your article. Were I responsible for the management of the schools of the State, I would insist that the primary teacher be a person who had paid definite attention to vocal culture, and though I would have nothing said to the small pupil about "radicals" or "vanishes," "concretes" or "discretes," "median," "thorough" or "compound stress," "waves" or "tremors," I would have special pains taken to develop the child's power to produce them all, and use them in his conversation. From the very beginning of the child's education, the most scrupulous care should be exercised over his habits of speech. He should be taught in the outset, to recognize that accurate adjustment of quantity of syllables and those qualities and modulations of voice, on which depend the expression of nice shades of thought and sentiment, and which make oral language beautiful music. In my experience I have found it easy to cultivate the voice of the child, but very difficult to bring the older pupil to attempt with confidence even very simple modulations. The neglect of early attention to culture of this kind, will readily account for the harsh jangle of sounds produced in the speech of the American people. When I attended the readings of Fanny Kemble Butler, I wished all the young ladies in the land could hear her, that they might learn how exquisitely beautiful the speech of a cultivated woman could be made. That careful vocal training in childhood would make all persons such readers as Murdock or Fanny Kemble Butler, I do not suppose, but I feel sure it would produce better results than any one now conceives.

Passing from that point, however, I would observe, in the second place, that when the pupil has so far advanced as to take up the study of technical grammar, he should have a book furnished him, in which language is treated from the stand point of the sentence-builder, not of the person parsing, or writing a lexicon. The one process presumes the language already constructed, and the pupil is expected to take it apart; the other presumes the language to be apart, and expects him to construct it.

The one

makes a glib parser; the other a fluent, correct speaker and a ready writer. The one makes "parsing" the object of grammatical study; the other makes it a mere exercise by which we ascertain whether the pupil can determine the principles and