the complete analysis of the sentence, with principal and subordinate parts
in their proper relations. It is only by the aid of such a map, or picture,
that the pupil can, at a single view, see the sentence as an organic whole
made up of many parts performing various functions and standing in various
relations. Without such map he must labor under the disadvantage of seeing
all these things by piecemeal or in succession.

But if for any reason the teacher prefers not to use these diagrams, they
may be omitted without causing the slightest break in the work. The plan of
this book is in no way dependent on the use of the diagrams.

+The Objections to the Diagram+.--The fact that the pictorial diagram
groups the parts of a sentence according to their offices and relations,
and not in the order of speech, has been spoken of as a fault. It is, on
the contrary, a merit, for it teaches the pupil to look through the
literary order and discover the logical order. He thus learns what the
literary order really is, and sees that this may be varied indefinitely, so
long as the logical relations are kept clear.

The assertion that correct diagrams can be made mechanically is not borne
out by the facts. It is easier to avoid precision in oral analysis than in
written. The diagram drives the pupil to a most searching examination of
the sentence, brings him face to face with every difficulty, and compels a
decision on every point.

+The Abuse of the Diagram+.--Analysis by diagram often becomes so
interesting and so helpful that, like other good things, it is liable to be
overdone. There is danger of requiring too much written analysis. When the
ordinary constructions have been made clear, diagrams should be used only
for the more difficult sentences, or, if the sentences are long, only for