Now, at a second and more direct call, I arouse myself, examine carefully several back numbers of the TEACHER, and am only confirmed in my previous suppositions that all the articles were upon educational matters-I refer to the big print, I don't want to appear in small type. I contemplate the captious "Object Teaching," "Physical Exercises," "Esthetic Education," high sounding all, only having adopted as a rule of action "First have something to say and then say it," and finding in all the proposed cases that it would have no antecedent, except the very indefinite one, something, I am again brought to a stand-still.

"Nothing to say." Surely a lady can never remain long in so sad a predicament; if in no other way she will make her escape through the side-door of complaint. How wide the portal! Think of the many demands upon her time-Teachers' Journal, Teachers' Institute, Normål School, Monthly Reports, Annual Register, etc., etc. At the same time she must occupy a certain position in society, attend scientific lectures, ke p herself posted upon the leading political and educational questions of the day; read Sheldon, Holbrook, Russell, Page, and a host of others. Alas! what time remains for the sketching even of those fireside scenes so beautifully pictured by Burns. To be sure these are the halcyon days of the basbleu; thanks to Wheeler & Wilson, Grover & Baker, and other enterprises, whose inventions the lady teachers of San Francisco, with such liberal incomes, can afford to patronize.

The San Francisco teacher seems to be an epitome of the epitome of the age. Seriously, though, why should the teacher enter her class room redolent of musty parchment or fresh printers' ink— stiffened with statistical reports? Why should she carry there the reflection of yellow gas-light from her last night's rambles in those fashionable gardens with their gaudy blossoms and rank nightshades? Why not rather come among the children, to read from the rich volume of sweet life-poems culled "beneath the sunny sky and amid the pure atmosphere of home." Why not, with oxygenated air in the lungs and cheerful sunlight in the heart, bring to them something of the breezy freshness of their own hills with flowers of their native soil. Give the teacher time and she will do all this, perhaps more. To be sure she must toil through the sand to reach the foot of those hills; good exercise, to say nothing of

way-side reflections - the sea of human mind needing only the quickening ray to transform its dull particles into glistening diamonds. And then from the grass "creeping, creeping silently everywhere"-the shadows from the drifting clouds. The summit's gained the widening prospect, the distant snow-crowned hights, the boundless ocean. How many, many lessons may she learn. But I fear I am waxing-poetical or prosy; query? By the way, is poetry contraband in your pages?

To conclude; I think the something which I had to say, though not very prominent in my mind when I began, must have been "Don't trouble the ladies often for such contributions as this." Already I feel a presentiment of success, and make my exit in haste. Yours respectfully,

SAN FRANCISCO, July, 1864.

[For The California Teacher.] PHYSICAL CULTURE.

BY AN EASTERN TEACHER.

MR. EDITOR: Will you oblige a reader of your valuable journal by affording space for a few words suggested by a leading article, under the above title, that appeared in your May number? The animus of the said article is undoubtedly good. Much of the reasoning, and many of the illustrations are truly excellent. As a critique, however, of the division of "Watson's Hand-Book of Calisthenics and Gymnastics," entitled "Vocal Gymnastics," I think that it may be regarded as a failure.

6

It concedes that "the vocal exercises to be practiced with calisthenics are useful, and the breathing exercises good." It says, further: "With much to commend, we find some things to criticise. For instance, on page 29, four Special Rules' are given, not a single one of which, in our opinion, is correct.' Rule 1.-The word A, when not emphatic, should be pronounced ă (a in at); as, 'Is not calm and serious study ǎ refuge, ǎ hope, ǎ field within the reach of all of us?' In the example given, and in all similar cases, a has simply the obscure sound and never the short sound."

This positive, unequivocal language is evidently employed by the critic under the impression that the term obscure, applied to the elements represented by the vowels, indicates a certain kind of sound. This, however, is a mistake. Dr. Worcester, for example, marks the first a in plantation as obscure, the sound actually represented being what is usually called short a. Again, the second a in dastard is marked as obscure-a very different sound. Indeed, Dr. Worcester, in the introduction to his dictionary, employs the following explicit language: "It must be observed that vowels marked as obscure indicate a slight stress of voice in pronunciation, rather than any particular quality of sound." So far as my observation extends, I think the rule criticised is perfectly correct. George Vanderhoff, the well-known elocutionist, in a work published in London, entitled "The Art of Elocution," says: "The indefinite article should never have the sound of the vowel as heard in ale, but the sound as in at. It is exceedingly bad, at the same time very common, to say ā man, a book." The rule is not only in accordance with good authority and usage, but it agrees with analogy. As a is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon, an (one), it is very natural to pronounce it as heard in that word.

The critic continues: "Rule 2.-THE, when neither emphatic nor immediately followed by a word that commences with a vowel sound, should be pronounced thu; as, the (thŭ) peace, the (thŭ) prosperity, the honor of the (thŭ) whole country are at stake.

"Wrong again. In such cases, the vowel sound is obscure or cut off, giving only the initial sound th."

A moment's reflection will suffice to prove the critic in error. No good speaker ever uttered merely the sound of th for the word the in such a connection; and, as we have seen above, obscure has no reference to a kind of sound. In the work already referred to, Vanderhoff says: "The definite article the is pronounced thŭ (u in us) before a consonant or an aspirate; and the (as in thee) before a vowel or silent h; thus we say, thu man, thu horse, the angel, etc.

In reference to the following rule, "when u long, or its alphabetical equivalent ew, is preceded by r or the sound of sh, in the same syllable, it has always the sound of o in do; as in rude, sure, shrewd," the critic says: "Perhaps we Pacific barbarians are behind New York style; but our standard of good usage will not

allow us to say shrood, even if we fail to give Dr. Holmes' Boston Shibboleth's 'view' exactly the right pucker."

Now, I, for one, am not willing to acknowledge that "we Pacific barbarians "—especially the better class of teachers are not fully up to the requirements of a rule as well established as the above. Dr. Worcester says: "When u is preceded by r in the same syllable, it has the sound of oo in fool." In "Webster's University Pronouncing Dictionary" occurs the following note: "All the English orthoepists agree that the sound of long u (u), when preceded byr in the same syllable, becomes simply oo, so that rue is pronounced roo; rule, rool; ruby, rooby, etc.

I am free to confess that there is a divided usage with reference to trilling r. The rule given in this work, however, so far as I can learn, is in accordance with the practice of all professed elocutionists from the time that Walker wrote: "There is a distinction in the sound of this letter scarcely ever noticed by any of our writers on the subject, which is, in my opinion, of no small importance; and that is the rough and the smooth r."

The critic says: "As an example of loud force, the following stanza from the Burial of Sir John Moore,' is given:

Slowly and sadly we laid him down,

From the field of his fame fresh and gōry;

We carved not a line, and we raised not a stōne,
But we left him alone in his glōry!'"

"Shades of thousands of school boys who have spoken' the piece, what do you think of it?"

I think, if the critic had understood the meaning of force, in elocution, as not applying to pitch, or key, but simply to volume of voice, he would have had "nothing to say;" for while all will agree that the above stanza should be read in a low key, it is evident that considerable volume or loudness should be employed in its delivery, and that a thin or light voice would detract much from its effective

ness.

The critic is unfortunate in the following assertion: "Many of these exercises" (calisthenic and gymnastic), "we have had the pleasure of teaching in a public school in San Francisco eight years ago-inventing a system for ourselves before Dr. Lewis' system was made known, and when not a single public school in New York or Boston practiced either gymnastic or calisthenic exercises."

The fact is, calisthenic exercises, under different forms, have been practiced in the public schools of New York City for twentyfive years. Gymnastic exercises, with apparatus, were first introduced into some of the same schools ten years ago. I am credibly informed that they are now using Prof. Watson's system with decided success. I have made these corrections and explanations because the readers of the CALIFORNIA TEACHER are no less entitled to them than the author of the work reviewed. I must heartily subscribe to the remaining positions taken by the critic, always excepting the "boxing-gloves." The manly art of self-defense, in my opinion, should not be taught in our public schools.

Although but comparatively little has been known of the practical details of gymnastics, the theoretical standing of physical culture, in any comprehensive plan of education, has been asserted by nearly all respectable writers of the present century. Our ablest educators almost universally believe that the body is as essentially the subject of educational care as the mind, requiring for its development scientific preparation, and daily conscientious and energetic practice; and that gymnastics deserve to be carefully studied, not merely, or even chiefly, for the sake of the body, but above all, in order that the mind may acquire full development and strength.

Probably the chief reason why there has been so great a divergence between theory and practice with reference to physical culture, why our modern education practically ignores the body, is an ignorance of the best methods of gymnastic practice. What we have long wanted, is a practical drill-book on physical training, containing a carefully-arranged and progressive course of exercises, both with and without apparatus, for every part of the body — a course of exercises adapted to both sexes, sufficiently extensive, varied, and beautiful, to awaken enthusiasm and insure a perpetual interest a course of exercises, arranged strictly on scientific principles, that shall recognize the difference between muscular force and vital force, making provision not less to secure rapidity and flexibility of motion than physical strength. After a careful examination, I am happy to arrive at the conclusion that “Watson's Hand-Book of Calisthenics and Gymnastics" fulfills all of these conditions. I shall therefore recommend it in an effective manner by introducing it into my school.