is this true of country girls brought up without the excitements of society.

The late Dr. E. H. Clarke, of Boston, was of the opinion that our system of public school education was ruining the health of vast numbers of young women, by compelling them to study to excess, particularly at the monthly period. His opinion was vigorously stated in a little book, published a few years since, entitled "Sex in Education." Equally vigorous counter-statements were made in the books called "Sex and Education,' "No Sex in Education,' "The Education of American Girls," and in other places; and quite a salutary storm arose, which has resulted, it may be hoped, in leaving the public impressed with the importance of the subject, if nothing more.

I would here refer the reader to two of the following chapters-that on Amount of Study and that on Exercise. It seems to me fair to say that the growing girl would not generally suffer from her studies if they were restricted within the limits hereafter suggested, and if her physical development were cared for properly. A healthy girl-such as nine out of ten ought to be-need not suffer in health from regular attendance on school for three or four or five hours a day, if she is protected from "society" and given a fair chance to grow strong. The harm is done when a girl goes to the theatre or concert, and

appears the next morning in school with a worn and tired look and two great circles around her eyes. The harm, indeed, is done long before, when she first comes to live in a city where public parks are thought unsafe for her to walk in, and where play in the open air (except for "children"—that is, very small girls) is an impossible or a forbidden thing. It begins with that substitution of artificial for natural enjoyments, of society and its excitements for sports, of adult for childish interests, which is characteristic of city life. Many such girls are thought to be overworked if they lose their color, while studying four or five hours a day, at the age of fifteen.

E

CHAPTER V.

AMOUNT OF STUDY.

XCESS of mental application is any amount which interferes with the vegetative functions, i. e., anything which, by its intensity or long continuance, or by any peculiarity of its own, interferes with digestion, sleep, nutrition, repair, or development.

As the reader is perfectly aware, the cell-structure called brain is in need of constant repair, equally with other structures; and this repair is effected by processes termed "vegetative."

Muscles, stomach, and brain equally require vegetative activity in order to keep them in condition ; and each may suffer from over-activity without impairing the health of the others. But, in general, overwork of one tells disadvantageously upon all, and an unsound or overburdened mind is apt to act like a burden upon the body.

The amount of work to be assigned must be determined empirically, and we have no right to say of a given person, in advance of experience, that he is capable of doing a certain amount of work. But we

can, as the result of experience, give an approximate statement of the amount which is suitable to the average person at a given age.

As has been said before, children can be aroused by modern methods to a great spontaneous activity of mind, which contrasts strongly with the listless and reluctant attention of old-fashioned schools. The effect is obtained by adapting the instruction to the child's capacity and nature. The kindergarten system is one of the most striking instances of this. I do not mention it either for praise or blame, but simply in order to point out the fact that, under the most favorable circumstances-cheerfulness, pleasant and varied tasks, sympathy, and wholesome surroundings-a child at the kindergarten age has not the power to bear more than two or three hours of these tasks in a day consistently with health. If pursued longer, the work becomes too exciting.

The late Mr. Edwin Chadwick, of England, is the chief authority for a definite statement of the number of hours that a child should be allowed to do school-work. His statements are based on long and patient observation, and numerous inquiries made of teachers whose attention was especially called to the point; and I do not think that any one has seriously attempted to refute his views, which were published a number of years ago.

In the first place, he points out the obvious inabil

ity of the little child to pay attention for a length of time consecutively. The mind, like the body, must be in a continual change; the efforts made must resemble play in spontaneity, rapidity, and variety. Sedentary occupation is an enforced necessity with most adults, to some extent; but it is always to be considered as involving possible danger, and for a little child is almost out of the question. His brain is imperfectly developed; the power of attention is perfect, but incapable of sustained efforts; the mind refuses to work long in one direction, as the body refuses to stand or sit still. There are certain classes of work which are utterly beyond his power; and yet there is no doubt at all that a little child learns as much, if not more, in a year as an adult student. But he learns it in his own way, and it is not book knowledge.

Let the adult reader try to attend to a new subject; let him take, for example, a treatise on metaphysics, or anatomy, or vital statistics, or a "Student's Gibbon," or some other work which demands close attention; let the work be unfamiliar, not beyond his comprehension, not too interesting, and let him see how soon his mind begins to flag in the effort to master the text, as if it were a lesson to be recited. He will find, perhaps, at the end of an hour, not that the subject is merely uninteresting, but that his mind does not take hold of it as sharply as when he began;