o solve in common some problem, proceeding according to the
necessary forms of reason. But in this we can make a distinction. One
speaker may be superior to the rest, may hold in his own hand the thread
of the conversation and may guide it himself; or, those who mingle in it
may be perfectly equal in intellect and culture, and may each take part
in the development with equal independence. In this latter case, this
true reciprocity gives us the proper dramatic dialogue, which contains
in itself all forms of exposition, and may pass from narration,
description, and analysis, through satire and irony, to veritable humor.
When it does this, the dialogue is the loftiest result of intelligence
and the means of its purest enjoyment.

--This alternate teaching, in which the one who has been taught takes
the teacher's place, can be used only where there is a content which
admits of a mechanical treatment. The Hindoos made use of it in very
ancient times. Bell and Lancaster have transplanted it for the teaching
of poor children in Europe and America. For the teaching of the
conventionalities--reading, writing, and arithmetic--as well as for the
learning by heart of names, sentences, &c., it suffices, but not for any
scientific culture. Where we have large numbers to instruct, the giving
of the fully developed statement (the first form) is necessary, since
the dialogue, though it may be elsewhere suitable, allows only a few to
take part in it. And if we take the second form, we must, if we have a
large number of pupils, make use of the catechetical method only. What
is known as the conversational method has been sometimes suggested for
our university instruction. Diesterweg in Berlin insists upon it. Here
and there the attempt has been made, but without any result. In the
university, the lecture of the teacher as a self-developing whole is
contrasted with the scientific discussion of the students, in which they
as equals work over with perfect freedom what they have heard.
Diesterweg was wrong in considering the lecture-system as the principal
cause of the lack of scientific interest which he thought he perceived
in our universities. Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Schleiermacher, Wolf,
Niebuhr, &c., taught by lectures and awakened the liveliest enthusiasm.
But Diesterweg is quite right in saying that the students should not be
degraded to writing-machines. But this is generally conceded, and a
pedantic amount of copying more and more beg