their enthusiasm, and awakening their emotions? And such are the common, every-day subjects that Mr. Willson introduces into his Readers, but which Mr. Faville thinks should be excluded, as being beyond the capacities of the children in our schools! As Mr. Willson has popularized these subjects by his interesting descriptions, by the anecdotes and incidents which he has interwoven with them, by the gems of selected poetry and prose with which he has adorned them, and by the beautiful wood-cuts with which he has illustrated them, he has not only adapted all this vast amount of material to the capacities of the children, but he has also made it intensely interesting to them, as we know from abundant experience. Moreover, this plan, most ably executed, secures, by the additional aid of the miscellaneous' selections, all possible variety that can be found in any reading-books.

And here the important educational question arises, Can any knowledge of the many important subjects which Mr. Willson introduces in his Reading-Books be brought home to all the children in our schools in any other way? Certainly not. And we must continue to exclude these subjects from common-school education, as Mr. Faville advises, or we must introduce them in just the way which Mr. Willson proposes. Here we present the vastly important educational principle which our teachers are to discuss. We have Mr. Faville's policy on the one hand. It is opposed to progress- and opposed, we believe, to the best interests of the cause of education. On the other hand, Mr. Willson, and the host who advocate the principles contained in his books, propose to enlarge the means of popular education in an indefinite degree; to bring the elements of the most important of all human knowledge easily within reach of the masses in fine, to lay the foundations, broad and deep, for a higher degree of education among the people than has ever before been known.

But we must notice a wrong principle in mental philosophy, brought up in Mr. Faville's article. We are surprised at the position taken by him as an educator, that while the attention is fixed upon correctly pronouncing words, and giving proper expression to sentences, the intellect can not be taxed to comprehend scientific truth'; for he says "the mind can be intently fixed on but one thing at a time." On these supposed principles he bases an argument against Willson's Readers. Now, 'scientific truth' means, simply, the truth or facts about any subject in nature. Suppose the reading-lesson be a poem about a plant, or an animal, or a waterfall. Every fact that can be culled from the poem is a scientific truth'. Should the pupil, for

sooth, be required to read the lesson regardless of the truths it ex

6

sooth, be required to read the lesson regardless of the truths it expresses regardless of the meaning-on Mr. Faville's principle that 'the mind can be intently fixed on but one thing at a time'? In his reading-exercises must the child think of nothing but the 'correct pronunciation of the words', and the proper expression'? What is meant by expression' but expression of the meaning? And how can the child correctly express the meaning, except by mere parrotlike imitation, on Mr. Faville's principle of giving his whole attention to elocutionary expression' alone? The assumed position is an absurdity. The true principle is-let the pupil first understand what the lesson means- whether it be moral, literary, or scientific truths: then, only, will he be able to give the sentences their proper rhetorical expression. And it happens that scientific truths-that is, facts and incidents about beasts, birds, fishes, insects, flowers, etc.- the common things of every-day life- are what children most readily understand, and what they are most interested in, in their early readinglessons.

There are one or two other points in Mr. Faville's article which we intended to notice, but we have occupied sufficient space already. We commend to teachers a thorough examination of Willson's Readers, with special reference to their bearings upon the great and noble cause of Popular Education.

GALESBURG, Sept. 15, 1864.

EXAMINER.

THE GEOGRAPHIES AT Ꮃ Ꭺ Ꭱ .

ance.

Who shall decide when doctors disagree?

Familiar Quotation.

HAVING occasion not long since to look for the pronunciation of a name in two different geographies, we found their decisions at variCurious to ascertain whether this was an exceptional case, with four popular text-books by our side, we entered upon a comparison of their respective vocabularies. For the edification of the brotherhood, a few of the commonest names are herewith submitted.

The Altai mountains are accented on the first syllable by Camp and Warren; on the last by Mitchell and Monteith. Warren, indeed, does give Al-ta'-i as a second form.

That pigmy state in South America is called Oo-roo-gwi by Warren, Mitchell and Monteith; Oo-roo-gwa by Camp.

Those stupendous hills of northern Hindoostan are styled Him-ali'-a by three authors; by Mitchell, Him-aul'-i-ah.

Warren says zeel for the second syllable of the empire on the Amazon; the other three, zil.

Bo-nus-a-riz declare Monteith and Warren; Camp, Bo-no-a-riz; Mitchell, Buay-nos-i-res.

The stronghold that defied England and France so long is, according to Mitchell, Se-bas-to'-pol. The empire of which it is the southern key Camp calls Roo-she-a; Mitchell, Rush-e-a.

Of the boundary range between France and Spain three of our authors place the accent on the first syllable, but Warren on the last. Brazil's famous coffee city is given by Camp and Warren as Ri-oja-ne-ro; by Mitchell as Ree-o-jan-ay-ro.

These examples are sufficient to show the diversity that prevails. Our geographers, doubtless, get their information from various travelers, and the different pronunciations may be more or less used. Still, a uniformity is desirable. What shall be the standard?

MATHEMATICAL DEPARTMENT.

CONDUCTED BY S. H. WHITE, OF CHICAGO. (P.O. BOX 3930.)

THE WILL' PROBLEM.-" A man at his death, having a daughter in France, and a son in Russia, willed, if his daughter returned and not the son, that the widow should have four-fifths of the estate; and if the son returned and not the daughter, that the widow should receive one-fifth of the estate. Both returned, by which the widow lost, in equity, $5760 more than if only the daughter had returned. Required, the whole estate and the share of each."

Illinois Teacher, August, 1863.

Remark. Some modification of this celebrated question may be found in many different arithmetics; but the oldest book in which I have been able to find it is Robert Recorde's Arithmetic, printed in London, A.D. 1614. The first edition was printed A.D. 1540. Recorde speaks of this question as coming from elder writers'; and in his book, pp. 345 and 346, it occurs under the 'Rule of Fellowship'. Prof. George Peacock, in his History of Arithmetic, published as one of the treatises of the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, says it occurs in the Arithmetic of Paccioli, better known as Fra Lucas de Burgo, an Italian monk who died in the beginning of the sixteenth century. Peacock speaks as though he thought Paccioli the first who published the question. Paccioli's great work, entitled 'Summa de Arithmetica', etc., was published A.D. 1494, and is the first printed treatise on Arithmetic. He is little spoken of by his contemporaries, though he is the oldest writer on Algebra after the invention of printing.

First Solution. The ratio of the son's share to that of the widow, by the conditions of the will, is as to, or as 4 to 1; and the ratio of the widow's to that of the daughter is as to, or as 4 to 1; .. the son's share is to the widow's as the widow's is to the daughter's, making the widow's share a geometrical mean between the shares of her children. Three numbers having the above relation may be found as follows: Let the product of the terms of the ratio represent the proportional share of the widow,=4; divide this number (4) by 4,= 16, the son's proportional share; multiply the same numbor (4) by 1,-1, the proportional share of the daughter. Hence the respective shares of son, widow, and daughter, are as the numbers 16, 4, and 1, and their respective shares of the estate would be 1, 2, and 1.

=