thing analogous to his production ever had existence in either of those countries; and yet it is set forth on purpose to convey the idea that such a system “now predominates” in the schools of both. (See Pref., p. 5.) The infidel Neef, whose new method of education has been tried in our country, and with its promulgator forgot, was an accredited disciple of this boasted “productive school;” a zealous coadjutor with Pestalozzi himself, from whose halls he emanated to “teach the offspring of a free people”—­to teach them the nature of things sensible, and a contempt for all the wisdom of books.  And what similarity is there between his method of teaching and that of Roswell C. Smith, except their pretence to a common parentage, and that both are worthless?

24.  The success of Smith’s Inductive and Productive Grammars, and the fame perhaps of a certain “Grammar in Familiar Lectures,” produced in 1836 a rival work from the hands of a gentleman in New Hampshire, entitled, “An Analytical Grammar of the English Language, embracing the Inductive and Productive Methods of Teaching, with Familiar Explanations in the Lecture Style” &c.  This is a fair-looking duodecimo volume of three hundred pages, the character and pretensions of which, if they could be clearly stated, would throw further light upon the two fallacious schemes of teaching mentioned above.  For the writer says, “This grammar professes to combine both the Inductive and Productive methods of imparting instruction, of which much has been said within a few years past”—­Preface, p. iv.  And again:  “The inductive and productive methods of instruction contain the essence of modern improvements.”—­Gram., p. 139.  In what these modern improvements consist, he does not inform us; but, it will be seen, that he himself claims the copyright of all the improvements which he allows to English grammar since the appearance of Murray in 1795.  More than two hundred pretenders to such improvements, appear however within the time; nor is the grammarian of Holdgate the least positive of the claimants.  This new purveyor for the public taste, dislikes the catering of his predecessor, who poached in the fields of Murray; and, with a tacit censure upon his productions, has honestly bought the rareties which he has served up.  In this he has the advantage.  He is a better writer too than some who make grammars; though no adept at composition, and a total stranger to method.  To call his work a “system” is a palpable misnomer; to tell what it is, an impossibility.  It is a grammatical chaos, bearing such a resemblance to Smith’s or Kirkham’s as one mass of confusion naturally bears to an other, yet differing from both in almost every thing that looks like order in any of the three.