ty that, in some of its features, we believe this a book
better adapted to its intended uses--the age it is designed to meet
being that of the lowest classes in the primary schools, or say from
four to seven or eight years--than any of its predecessors. It will not,
we hope, therefore, be understood as in a captious spirit, that we take
exception to certain details.

The author is clearly right in his principle that 'The chief object of
primary education is the development of the faculties;' though doubtless
it would have been better to say, _to begin_ the development of the
faculties; but then, he recognizes, as the faculties specially active in
children, those of 'sensation, perception, observation, and simple
memory,' adding, for mature years, those of 'abstraction, the higher
powers of reason, imagination, philosophical memory, generalization,'
etc. But that any one of all these is in the true psychological sense, a
_faculty_--save, it may be, in the single instance of imagination--we
shall decidedly question; and Mr. Calkins will see by the intent of his
very lessons, that he does not contemplate any such thing as 'sensation'
or 'observation,' as being a faculty: but, on the other hand, that he is
so regarding certain individual powers of mind, by which we know in
nature Color and Form and Number and Change and so on.

We must question whether 'in the natural order of the development of the
human faculties, the mind of the child takes cognizance first of the
_forms_ of objects.' Form is a result of particular _extensions:_
evidently, extension must be known before form can be. But again,
visibly, form is revealed through kinds and degrees of light and shade;
in one word, through _color_. Evidently, then, color also must be
appreciated before visible form can be. But this 'natural order of the
development of the human faculties,' is a seductive thing. In phrase, it
is mellifluous; in idea, impressively philosophical. It would be well if
this book, while cautiously applying developing processes to the little
learner, were to _dogmatise_ less to the teacher. But when the
development-idea is carried into the titles of the sections, it becomes,
we think, yet more questionable. Thus, a section is headed, 'To develop
the idea of straight lines.' First, would not the idea of _a straight
line_ come nearer to the thing actually had in view? Again, 'To develop
the idea of right, acute, and obtuse angles.' 'The idea,' taking i