"With Folded Hands": Servants, Masters, and the Will

Science-fiction writer Jack Williamson died in 2006; somewhat ironically, that's the year in which his 1947 novelette With Folded Hands was set. A half-hour Dimension X radio adaptation  was made in 1950, and is broadcast periodically on golden-age-of-radio shows.

Without giving away too many spoilers, the story is about servant-robots called Humanoids. They arrive on Earth to serve, protect, and make people happy. Their (extremely irritating) tagline is "At your service." The trouble is, they work too well. They do too much. They protect too much. If you let them in the door, they never leave. And their final method of making people happy is quite drastic.

Did I mention they're indestructible?

I'd forgotten about this story until our local golden-age show played it again this week. Over the next couple of days I kept thinking about how disturbingly close to technological reality some of that is now. But then an even better application came along: this week's chapter from Ourselves.

Guard the postern, says Charlotte Mason. Examine each and every one of those ideas that are all clamouring to get into your Personsoul. Because if you do let them come in, you may end up serving them instead of the other way around. If you sit around with folded hands (without using your Will), the ideas, fads and opinions of others will leave you even more helpless.

Pray first, she says; then go to work examining the applicants, and diverting your thoughts wherever necessary. But if that whole scenario scares you, remember what else she says, and it's something else that came up in this week's Latin lesson: Horatius and his friends had to confront only one enemy at a time.

Frugal Finds and Fixes for February

We went to a fill-a-bag sale this morning. Lydia found a dress, two wallets, a bracelet, a necktie for crafting, two cups and saucers, and a pair of pink shoes that will fit her friend who has smaller feet.

 Mama Squirrel found a book, a plate with a chip that's mostly in the back, straw paper plate holders, and an angel candleholder.

In other news: Lydia won a sweater in an online giveaway. She found two pairs of $50 jeans at the mall for $10 each, and a nice sweater for $6. Mr. Fixit scored a couple of radios for half price from an antiques market vendor who was closing shop. (If you don't read here often, that's what Mr. Fixit does, restoring vintage electronics and clocks.)

The furnace started making irritable noises, but Mr. Fixit was able to pacify it with the fix the heating guy showed him last time.

This week is 99 Cent Deals at Food Basics, so we bought a few extras and good deals there. Sweet potatoes, oranges, and apples are 99 cents a pound (it's catchier than saying $2.18 a kilogram).

I froze hot cereal in muffin tins, and ate those porridge hockey pucks for several breakfasts.

That's all I can think of...February is a short month.

When friends come

CM Bookmarks downloaded from The Common Room.

Neiman-Marcus $250 Chocolate Chip Cookies

Teapot.

School plans for Friday (Lydia's Grade Eight)

Citizenship: Ourselves Book II; finish "A Way of the Will" and read "Freewill." This is the end of the "Will" section of the book.

Geography: continue the journey from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Victoria.

Mathematics: "solving for y."

English literature: the poetry of George Herbert. 

Composer study: Ralph Vaughan Williams, "Fantasia on Greensleeves"

Housecleaning: finish cleaning up the room so that Mama Squirrel can use it for a meeting tonight.

Book of Firsts: Chickadee is calling

A February thing to watch for, around here (if you don't live in the land of fresh basil and tomatoes): when I went out to get the morning paper, I heard one chickadee doing his hurry-up-spring carol.

Herbartianism Made Fun and Easy, Part Five: Don't teach bad things.

Part Four is here.

"There is a prevailing impression amongst teachers, and particularly amongst those who are connected with what is sometimes called a liberal education, that it really does not matter very much what one learns. The culture comes all the same. It is not the what, it is the how." ~~ John Adams, The Herbartian Psychology

There's a shocker for you. Adams is not agreeing with this or saying that it represents Herbartian education; he's refuting it.

Yes, CMers, you may well shake your heads over that one. Isn't that exactly what we have said that Herbartianism is? Does Adams perhaps have it wrong? Did the so-called "Herbartian" teachers miss out on something in their courses?

"In the present war of competing subjects, the main point of discussion is: Which gives the best result in culture,--which is best fitted to cultivate the mind? Classics, Science, Mathematics--each claims pre-eminence. It is left for the Herbartian to sweep aside all claims alike, and raise the preliminary question: Do any of them train the mind at all; can the mind be trained? The question resolves itself into the problem of the possibility of what is called formal education; that is, the possibility of training a mind irrespective of the materials upon which it is exercised."

Adams gives the example of three educated men who have specialized in different areas. He asks how they would respond to particular common questions and problems, for instance in finding a lost will (certainly something we come up against every day, no?). How would each one approach the task? Who would be the most successful? Adams, amusingly, backs the classically-educated man "because his studies have brought to him greater acquaintance with human nature," so therefore "he has a bigger and better-arranged lost-will apperception mass." For the Herbartians, those apperception masses are the key to educational success.

And then Adams' chapter on "Formal Education" takes an unexpectedly funny turn, as the question of potentially useful subject matter moves from a formal education based on, say, cricket, to Mr. Fagin's School for Young Criminals. Fagin, according to Adams, should get the teacher-of-the-year award. He's hands-on, he's concrete, he knows just how to get a lesson across, he can deal with reluctant students; and Bill Sikes knows how to present a good object-lesson too (involving a pistol). So does it really matter what the subject is, as long as the student develops his mind? Herbart, via Adams, says yes, it certainly does.

"Given the same first-class mind, we may turn out an Artful Dodger or a James Watt; given the same third-rate mind, and we may develop it into a Bill Sikes or a more than respectable artisan."

 Check this out, towards the end of the chapter:

"It is enough if it has been shown that the choice of subjects is important; that a subject must be chosen for its own sake, not for the sake of its general effect in training the mind. This is no base utilitarian conclusion...So far from opposing culture, the Herbartian theory is the strongest supporter of the fine arts and belles-lettres. The increase in intension and extension of interest is the gauge of the development of a soul. We must lose ourselves in our subjects, not seek to keep them outside of us."

So what about that idea that an education in the finer points of crime would at least serve to sharpen a child's wits, to develop perhaps an interest in chemistry or electronics, perhaps even to give him a sense of professional pride? To bring this into the current century, is it admirable to become a genius computer hacker, or to be a teacher of such?

"Crime as an educational organon is condemned, not because it fails to develop intelligence, but because it develops it in a wrong direction. We cancel Fagin's [teaching] certificate not because he is a bad teacher, but because he teaches bad things."

What's for supper? Chicken cacciatore

I know, too much slow cooker this week, but I wasn't sure when I'd be home to cook today.

So we are having:

Slow cooker Chicken Cacciatore
Pasta
Cheese
Carrot sticks

Stovetop blueberry crisp.

Herbartianism Made Fun and Easy, Part Four: If it's to be, it's up to...?

Part Three is here.

"On Froebelian principles it is certainly very irrational to hang a master because his pupil has committed a murder; but if Herbart is to be followed, the case for the master is not so clear....since the master can choose the ideas to be presented, and can modify and arrange them, there seems to be a prima facie case, for those who wish to hang the teachers of bad men." ~~ Sir John Adams, The Herbartian Psychology

A Froebelian teacher is "but a benevolent superintendent of the process of development which he allows to follow its own course." But if you want to be a Herbartian, you have to consider the idea that doing nothing for a child may be as harmful as doing something wrong. Adams goes on in this vein, saying that a teacher could be held directly responsible for the character of the adult she turns out, for either his success or failure. That's an awful burden to put on one human being.  But in fact, he says, it's virtually impossible for any adult, whether teacher or parent, to dominate a child's mind to that extent; really, you would have to be breathing down his neck 24/7, from birth to maturity.

It reminds me of a Ruth Rendell novel, The Crocodile Bird, which spends the first few chapters telling about a mother who, for reasons of her own, raises her daughter in isolation, away from all contemporary influences and media. The books they read together are all pre-twentieth-century. You might think that, farfetched as the story is, it does give an example of what Adams says is impossible: one person as "sole influence." You could quibble even with that and say that Shakespeare and the other classic authors were actually outside influences, but it doesn't matter much because even this mother's best-laid plans get thwarted. Her daughter accidentally turns on a television set in their employer's house, and it's all downhill from there.

Anyway...so, according to Adams, Herbartian educators may not shrink from their perceived responsibility for being The Ones to develop children's minds, but at least they don't want to turn out machines or monsters. Still, says, Adams, even if teachers do not play Dr. Frankenstein but just work very hard at supplying the proper ideas at the proper times, why doesn't our advanced education turn out adults who are all "honest, true, happy and clever?"

Oh. Well, says Adams, teachers don't always know the proper ideas or the proper times. We can believe in the theory without being, as he puts it, omniscient. Besides (and this takes up a good part of the chapter), what about the problem that some students are just smarter than others? Or is that just a fallacy? And are they born with intelligence, or is it environment? You've heard it all before, but the Adams/Herbart answer may surprise you.

"Tastes, dispositions, and will being eliminated, it is clear that what is left may be called, in a popular sense at least, pure intellect. That this intellect, considered apart from all the other elements of the soul, is equal among all men can hardly be denied, is hardly worth denying. When the process of elimination has been completed, we find that the intellect we have left does not amount to very much; to no more, indeed, than the simple undifferentiated being which represents the soul of the Herbartian Psychology."

And again:

"The conclusion of the whole matter is that we do not know whether all souls are equal at birth, and that after all it does not matter; for by the time the pupil makes his appearance in school, his soul is different from the other souls in his class. On the other hand, there is a sort of common lowest level of thinking. So far as we can reduce thinking to what is described in the old-fashioned Formal Logic Books, our minds may be regarded as equal." 

The first quote may leave us thinking that Herbart, via Adams, really doesn't think much of children's innate abilities (the Froebelian educator quoted in Part One said that too). You might even read it to say that we're all rather stupid until the teacher gets her hands on us. But the second quote says that, first, we do all have something unique that we're born with or that develops in the first few years of life; but that our learning processes, fast or slow, all follow the same patterns, and it really doesn't matter if you read early or late, or whether you take a long time to learn the times tables. This supports the idea of mastery learning: you get an "A" when you've completed the work or learned the skill, no matter how many times you have to try or how long it takes. But here is the point: that the same actual experience of learning will apply to everyone, whether we're slow in one area or quick in another. Though we may disagree about how much influence and indoctrination is acceptable, we can at least see how the principles of teaching and learning are true for each child; and that education means working with the way humans are made, not against it.

And on that point, Johann Friedrich Herbart and Charlotte Mason agree.

Part Five is here.

What's for supper? Slow food movement

Tonight's dinner menu:

In the little slow cooker: beef with orange-ginger sauce and mushrooms.
In the big slow cooker: basmati rice.
In the toaster oven: frozen mini samosas.
On the stove: mixed veggies.

Chilling for dessert: canned pineapple.  And yesterday's raisin-date bars.

Herbartianism Made Fun and Easy, Part Three: Like a surgeon

Part One is here. Part Two is here.

After his previous zinger about the omniscience and omnipotence of the teacher, Adams continues:

"It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this view from the teacher's standpoint. If the mind must wait till the right idea comes along, what an enormous importance must be attached to the theory of apperception masses. If the idea that the soul ought to choose is not there to choose, what can the soul do but choose amiss? Here Herbartianism appears to great advantage. During the process of education when the soul happens to be on the lookout for a certain idea, the teacher, knowing what is going on in the soul, and the laws according to which its mechanism work, can readily increase the presentative activity of the idea in question and send it right up to the dome..."

Do you notice any, perhaps, slightly fuzzy logic in that paragraph? This is what strikes me: that there is one and only one idea out there today, or at this minute, that you are supposed to grab onto. Like a surgeon asking for a particular retractor or Mr. Fixit asking for a certain size of drill bit, there is one and only one choice, with implied disaster if the tool is missing or you take the wrong one. You've missed your chance at the brass ring; your life will never be the same.

In response, I will quote Colonel Potter:

"Pony Pucks."

Learning is not a midway game of Lucky Duck, where you either win a prize or go home with nothing. And doesn't it make it sound like your chances are even slimmer if it all depends on whether a teacher is standing by, ready to fire the right idea at you at just the right second?

Charlotte Mason suggested that education should put the focus on the student rather than the teacher, the learning rather than the teaching. That is, not in the above sense where the hypothetical teacher seems to hover like an anxious ICU nurse, attention fixated on the student's mental vital signs; but in the sense of letting the child take what he needs from the feast that is spread. Yes, you can say with Herbart that what he ingests may join his apperception masses and head up to the top of the dome. But the point is that there are many good ideas, many opportunities to learn, and most of them won't come around just once. If you choose an apple instead of a banana for lunch today, you probably haven't missed your only chance ever to taste bananas.

Photo of antique surgical tools found here.

Part Four is here.

Quote for the day: C.S. Lewis on Rhetoric and Poetry

"I do not think that Rhetoric and Poetry are distinguished by manipulation of an audience in the one and, in the other, a pure self-expression, regarded as its own end, and indifferent to any audience. Both these acts, in my opinion, definitely aim at doing something to an audience and both do it by using language to control what already exists in our minds." ~~ C.S. Lewis, Preface to Paradise Lost; quoted in C.S. Lewis Then and Now, by Wesley A. Kort (2001)

Herbartianism Made Fun and Easy, Part Two: Let's talk about a sheep

Part One is here.

In the Part One post, I mentioned that Sir John Adams (the author of The Herbartian Psychology) saw Froebelian education as the opposite of Herbartian. He says that Froebel brought education as far as recognizing the importance of the individual learner; but that his theory lacked any real means of explaining or working with that individuality, that it didn't go far enough. "Almost every teacher thinks that when he has shown a thing to his class, he has done the highest, the best, the ultimate, in teaching....[but] the average child does not see what the master is showing him...[it] does not ensure that teacher and pupil shall speak of the same idea, when they talk of a sheep."

Adams says, "[Froebelian theory] suggests the immense importance of knowing [the student]; which is much, [but] It leaves to others the task of supplying this knowledge." (emphasis mine)  Yes, we see that each child is unique, that each one learns a little differently; but we aren't given much help in knowing what to do about that.

So here we have a problem set up, with Adams' assumption that Herbart found an answer or at least came closer to it. Adams says that so far "we have failed to explain ideas by the mind; how about explaining the mind by ideas?" What if the ideas are like critters we should be hunting down, and the mind (or soul, in Herbart's terms) is more like a ranch or a zoo where they can be corralled?

Herbart said that ideas "have a vitality all their own"; that they are the only thing that can affect the soul (mind); and that when "a soul has reacted upon an idea, it can no longer be the same soul that it was before." "The ideas really make up the mind," in the same way as it is the writing that holds the meaning, not the paper or the computer screen. But if Herbart (via Adams) was looking for practical results rather than theory, what might these ideas suggest to the teacher? Is the teacher then a sort of cowpoke, rounding up and organizing all the stray little dogies? A question that doesn't seem to bother Adams, at this point, is asking who really owns the "critters," or has final say over which ones come in or where they belong.

Adams' interpretation of Herbart in response to this is a little different from what CMers might assume. "The popular notion is that knowledge has to be carefully prepared beforehand by the teacher, and then judiciously stuffed into a suitable place in the pupil's mind, a sort of mental left-luggage office, there to be left till called for." If that is our only understanding of Hebartianism, and it might well be, then according to Adams we have missed something. One of my reasons for writing these posts is to try and be fair to Herbart; he wasn't always wrong.

But though Adams is a most genial guide to Herbart, he occasionally throws in a jaw-dropping pronouncement and then moves on. One such is this (page 73):

"On this view, the function of the teacher becomes clear; for, unlike most Psychologies, Herbart's has an obvious and immediate bearing upon education. The soul is in the teacher's hands, inasmuch as the apperception masses can be made and modified by the teacher....Every idea in that little head is a force with which the teacher must reckon. His first duty is obviously to discover as much as possible about the contents of John's soul. Only so far as he succeeds in this is he able to understand the reaction of John's soul upon any given idea. The very inevitableness of the soul's reaction is the teacher's chief aid. Here he finds the fulcrum for his lever. The rest of his work is actual building up, edification."

It's at that point where we start to see the true gap between Herbart and Charlotte Mason. Do we want to let even a well-intentioned teacher pry into our heads? CM is about not only recognizing that we have our own thoughts, but that they are between us and God; that we have the right and the responsibility to corral our own critters.

Part Three is here.

What's for supper? Invented casserole

Tonight's dinner menu:

Chicken-vegetable casserole
Baked potatoes

Pears baked with dates and a little honey

Chicken Vegetable Casserole I Just Invented

Ingredients:

2 cups leftover cooked ground chicken with taco seasonings
1 cup frozen corn
1 cup frozen broccoli, more if you love broccoli
1 cup chicken broth
1 cup sour cream
1 egg
1 cup shredded cheese (I used a Tex-Mex blend with jalapenos)
Whole wheat bread crumbs mixed with a little olive oil, enough to cover the top

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a greased 8-inch square pan or casserole dish, combine leftover chicken and vegetables. Combine broth, sour cream and egg, and pour over vegetables. Cover top of casserole with cheese, then crumbs moistened with olive oil. Bake at 350 degrees until set. I took it out after 45 minutes and let it sit 10 minutes before cutting.

You could add extra seasonings, but our chicken and cheese were already well-seasoned, so I let it be.

Herbartianism Made Fun and Easy, Part One

Here's an opening to a post which is sure to scare most people off:

Most of what I have read about Herbartian educational psychology has been through the lens of Charlotte Mason. I've posted what I know about him, and some still-useful links. I've even written an impertinent story about Herbartian teachers.  But it's only recently that I've had the chance to dig a little deeper and find out not only where CM and Herbart clashed, but where they agreed.

And you're probably wondering why you should even care about that.

Life is short. We're busy homeschooling or doing whatever else we do. Sir John Adams (1857-1934) says the same thing, at the beginning of The Herbartian Psychology Applied to Education (1899). Teachers, as he knows, don't have a lot of time. They also like practical things they can use. They may be forced to read a book on Herbartian theory as part of an education course, or maybe they are just keeners who want to be able to talk educationese, but in any case they are probably not interested in Herbart per se, they are interested in teaching and in finding out if Herbart has any useful information that applies to them. So Adams' book is the late-Victorian equivalent of a Dummies' Guide to Johann Friedrich Herbart.

In Adams' view, at the turn of the last century educators could be either Froebelian or Herbartian. He confessed to being Herbartian, not so much because Herbart converted him but because that's what his educational sense told him was true. What is the difference between them? An American (Froebelian) educator of the same period wrote this:  "The great difference between Froebel and Herbart may be found in the difference of appreciation of children and child life. Herbart's greatest mistake was his lack of recognition of the instincts and spontaneous activities of the child. To fail to understand the child is a fundamental failure.To fail to appreciate the action of the child's mind up to the school age, is a great mistake." Froebel just sounds nicer, doesn't he? Besides, he started kindergartens, and they're nice and friendly and child-centered.

So why bother with Herbart? Why did Adams find himself in that camp? What do Herbart and Adams have to offer present-day CMers?

Herbart is all about ideas: where they come from, how we access them, sort them, prioritize them; and what the best way is of acquiring more of them, or, if we're teaching, getting more of the important ones into the minds of students. He has a couple of images that he likes to use. One, familiar to those who have read Charlotte Mason's criticism, is that ideas like to form themselves into clumps, or "apperception masses." In a way, it's like "science of relations": you can make more of information that connects with something you already know, and if there is no prior connection, the idea is meaningless and sinks into oblivion. Adams suggests, as an example, "hiro." It's a nonsense word, or at least one that, to most people, seems meaningless (it's actually a Mohawk word). No connection, no reason to remember it, at least until he tells you how the word became part of the French and then the English language. After that, the word has an "'apperception mass" to hang on to. For instance, I didn't even have to go back and look that word up in Adams' book; I actually remembered it because of his explanation.

The other Herbartian image is that of your conscious mind being a sort of dome shape, with ideas, that, once they're admitted, go floating up through the air (with their proper apperception masses), jostling for position towards the top of the dome. The floor of the dome is like the threshold of your consciousness; there are many ideas below that threshold at any one time, and they go back and forth between the levels. The biggest apperception masses, and the ideas spending the most time near the top, represent your main interests. Adams, for example, had a great big apperception mass labelled "educational theory" that took up a large part of his mind space, a large part of his time.

Charlotte Mason appears to have had no big argument with the idea of ideas, even of their needing to find other compatible ideas to hang out with. She says that she thinks Herbart's mind theory is more lacking in the application of habit: you have the ideas, but what do you do with them? She also has a different and important thought about how ideas get in there in the first place, and particularly the teacher's role in that. But so far, so good?

Part Two is here.

Paraphrase of Bacon's "Of Beauty" (Lydia's Grade Eight)

This is Lydia's (uncorrected) paraphrase of "Of Beauty" (also called "Of Virtue"), by Francis Bacon.

Virtue is like a gem...better showcased in a plain ring than a distracting one. Virtue does better in a pretty person, but not a young, undignified person. And one that is dignified rather than cute and delicate. Usually perfect people have pretty much no virtue. Like nature was trying just to get the job done fast, instead of being a perfectionist. They seem pretty amazing, but they're kinda boring. And they tend to be more interested in learning how to be perfect than virtue. But not always. Augustus Caesar, Titus Vespasianus, Philip le Bel of France, Edward the Fourth of England, Alcibiades of Athens, Ismael the Sophy of Persia were all great guys, while still being very handsome. Generally peoples features matter more than the color of their skin in beauty, and gracefulness trumps features. That's the best part of beauty...because no photo can capture it. You can't see it when you first meet the person. However, no one is perfect. Everyone has flaws. Nobody can tell whether Apelles or Albert Durer was more of a perfectionist. One of them used geometrical proportions, the other one would take the best part out of everyone's faces and put the all together, to make perfect, flawless people. But these pictures only pleased the painters. They're great, but they're made wrong. If you look carefully they're weird, but altogether they're perfect. 

If it's true that beauty is mainly grace, then no wonder younger people are more beautiful than old people, because no young person can be beautiful without special reason. Beauty is like fruit...it can be corrupted...AKA it can rot. When you are young, you are not as pretty as when you grow older and more beautiful and virtuous. 

What's for supper? Tortilla night

Tonight's dinner menu, with Grandpa Squirrel here:

On the stove: Taco Lentils.
In the slow cooker: Taco Ground Chicken.
In the fridge: Leftover shredded pork.

To go with any of these: tortillas, shredded cheese, peppers, shredded broccoli, olives, and corn chips.

Dessert: Poppyseed pound cake and ginger boys, both from Giant Tiger.

Quote for Sunday: Infinity and beyond

"A former Professor of Theology at St. Andrews was asked how he treated his subject. The true spirit of the complete pedagogue is crystallized in the answer: 'I just begin wi' infeenity, and go right on.'" ~~ Sir John Adams, The Herbartian Psychology

I have to throw this one in: process vs. product in teaching

"It is true that some of the kindergarten paper work and drawings are in themselves pretty enough, in their childish way, to deserve attention on their own merits. But with regard to such objects two things must be observed. First, that the beauty of the result has no relation whatever to the value of the work which produces it. Secondly and chiefly, that a consideration of the results in themselves gives rise to a strong temptation to neglect the most profitable ways of attaining results, and to adopt easy methods of producing striking but uneducative results." ~~ Sir John Adams, The Herbartian Psychology

Take that, Ontario EQAO testing, and all the rest of your kind.

Two weeks left in the term (Lydia's Grade Eight)

We could take a quote for this coming week from "Uncle Eric": Humans are not made to be gods, they can't handle it.  It reminds me of something I read recently in a Mitford book: that it is not up to us to make everything and everyone around us perfect; that's God's job. Isn't that kind of what Charlotte Mason said too, not to interfere with the Holy Spirit's work in human souls?

School plans for the week:

Bible: already scheduled.

Christianity and art: finish chapter 4 of Seeing the Mystery.

Citizenship: A chapter from Ourselves Book II. Whatever Happened to Justice?, chapter 27, "The Fun is in the Playing."

History: concentrate on The Trial of Charles I.

Geography: the journey from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Victoria, with maps.

Composition: work in The Roar on the Other Side.

English literature: the poetry of George Herbert. Choose some memory work. Fierce Wars and Faithful Loves.

Readalouds: keep reading Perelandra. I have a feeling we're not going to get through this by the end of the term, but that's okay.

Composer study: Ralph Vaughan Williams.

Ecology: Chapter 11 of Exploring the World Around You: "Succession." How does the observable process of succession parallel the hypothetical process of evolution? This chapter refers to a Canadian film, "The Spruce Bog: An Essay in Ecology," directed by Dalton Muir in 1957. The film does not appear to be available online, but the link is to the original two-page teacher's guide.

Science biography: The Seashell on the Mountaintop.

Latin: keep working on Lesson VII of Our Roman Roots (we're about halfway through the book).

P.S. The school year is going by so quickly, way too quickly. We have two weeks left in the term, then exams, then a week's holiday, then Term Three. And if you don't think it's going to be hard not to try to stuff every very last thing into that very last term...

Quote for the day: A Double Accusative

"'Verbs of teaching govern two accusatives, one of the person, another of the thing; as, Magister Johannem Latinam docit--the master taught John Latin.'  Thus far the Latin rudiments. When the master seeks to apply the principle in real life, he finds that he can manage his double accusative only by the possession of a double knowledge; he must know Latin; and he must know John. Not so long ago...to know Latin was regarded as all-sufficient. John was either taken for granted or held to be not worth knowing." ~~ Sir John Adams, The Herbartian Psychology