of problems, the opinions of others instead of eliciting their own. In
the one case we should find a mind, uninformed and uncultivated, but
of a vigorous and masculine character, grasping the little knowledge
it possessed, with the power and right of a conqueror; in the other,
a memory occupied by a useless heap of notions,--without a single
opinion or idea it could call its own,--and an understanding indolent
and narrow, and, from long-indulged inactivity, almost incapable
of exertion. As the fundamental principle of the system, I would
therefore say, let the _children think for themselves_. If they arrive
at erroneous conclusions, assist them in attaining the truth; but
let them, with such assistance, arrive at it by their own exertions.
Little good will be done, if you say to a child,--_That_ is wrong,
_this_ is right, unless you enable it to perceive the error of the
one and the truth of the other. It is not only due to the child as a
rational being that you should act so, but it is essentially necessary
to the development of its intellectual faculties. It were not more
ridiculous for a master, in teaching arithmetic, to give his pupil the
problem and answer, without instructing him in the method of working
the question, than it is for a person to give a child results of
reasoning, without showing how the truth is arrived at. But some,
perhaps, will be ready to exclaim, "Surely the teacher should not
withhold the benefit of his knowledge and experience,--the child will
have time enough to examine the merits of his information when he
grows older and be more competent to do so!" To this I answer: in the
first place, nothing should be submitted to the child which it is not
fully competent to understand. To give the child tasks or subjects
too difficult for its mental powers, is a violation of nature; and as
foolish and detrimental as though you were to place a hundred pounds
weight on its shoulders when it is incapable of supporting ten. The
teacher's experience can only be of service to the child so far as it