All will admit that literature, dealing as it does with human life, is surcharged with practical morality, with social conduct. It is also the motive of great writers, while dealing honestly with human nature, to idealize and beautify their representations of men. Nor is it their purpose to make unworthy characters pleasing and attractive models.
It is expected, of course, that children will get clear notions and opinions of such persons as Miles Standish and John Alden, of Whittier's father and mother and others in the fireside circle of "Snow-Bound," of Antonio and Shylock in the "Merchant of Venice," of Cinderella and her sisters in the story, of Wallace and Bruce in Scott's "Tales," of Gluck and his brothers in Ruskin's story, of Scrooge in the "Christmas Carol," of Evangeline, Enoch Arden, etc.
But boys and girls are not infallible judges of character. They are apt to form erroneous or one-sided judgments from lack of insight into the author's meaning, or from carelessness. There is the same possibility of error in forming moral judgments as in forming judgments in other phases of an author's thought.
It is the province of the teacher to stimulate the children to think, and, by his superior experience and judgment, to guide them into correct thinking. It is not the function of the teacher to impose his ready-made judgments upon children, either in morals or in anything else. But it is his concern, by questions, suggestions, and criticisms, to aid in clarifying the thought, to put the children upon the right track. There is no reason why a teacher should abdicate his place of instructor because he chances to come before moral problems. Literature is full of moral situations, moral problems, and moral evolutions in character, and even of moral ideals. Is the teacher to stand dumb before these things as if he had lost his wits? Or is he to consider it the greatest opportunity of his life to prudently guide young people to the correct perception of what is beautiful and true in human life? Why, indeed, should he suppress his own enthusiasm for these ideals? Why should not his personality be free to express itself in matters of moral concern, as well as in intellectual and æsthetic judgments? So long as the teacher throws the pupils back upon their own self-activity and thinking power, there need be no danger of moral pedantry or of moral dyspepsia.
It seems to me, therefore, that the teacher should use freedom and boldness in discussing with the children candidly and thoughtfully the characters presented in good literature. Let the situations be made clear so that correct judgments of single acts can be formed. Let the weaknesses and virtues of the persons be noted. Let motives be studied and characteristic tendencies traced out. In this way children may gradually increase their insight and enlarge the range of their knowledge of social life. If these things are not legitimate, why should such materials be presented to children at all? We need not make premature moralists of children, or teach them to pass easy or flippant moral judgments upon others. But we wish their interest in these characters to be deep and genuine, their eyes wide open to the truths of life, and their intuitive moral judgments to ripen in a healthy and hearty social environment. To this end the teacher will need to use all his skill in questioning, in suggestion, in frank and candid discussion. In short, he needs just those qualities which a first-class teacher needs in any field of study.
We have gotten out of the mode of tacking a moral to a story. Ostensibly moral stories, overweighted with a moral purpose, do not please us. We wish novelists and dramatists to give us the truth of life, and leave us to pass judgment upon the characters. Our best literature presents great variety of scenes and characterizations in their natural setting in life. They specially cultivate moral judgment and insight. One of the ultimate standards which we apply to all novels and dramas is that of their fundamental moral truth. Schlegel, in his "Dramatic Art and Literature," in his criticisms of great writers, discusses again and again the moral import of the characters, and even the moral purpose of Shakespeare and the dramatists. In fact, these moral considerations lie deep and fundamental in judging the great works of literary art. The masterpieces we use in the schools bear the same relation to the children that the more difficult works bear to adults.
The clear discussion of the moral element in literature seems, therefore, natural and legitimate, while its neglect and obscuration would be a fatal defect.
11. There are two kinds of reading which should be cultivated in reading lessons, although they seem to fall a little apart from the main highway of effort. They are, first, sight reading of supplementary matter for the purpose of cultivating a quick and accurate grasp of new thought and forms. When we leave school, one of the values of reading will be the power it gives to interpret quickly and grasp firmly the ideas as they present themselves in the magazines, papers, and books we read. Good efforts in school reading will lead forward gradually to that readiness of thought and fluency of perception which will give freedom and mastery of new reading matter. To develop this ability and to regulate it into habit, we must give children a chance to read quite a little at sight. We need supplementary readers in sets which can be put into the hands of children for this purpose. The same books will answer for several classes, and may be passed from room to room of similar grade.
The reading matter we select for this purpose may be classic, and of the best quality, just as well as to be limited to information and geographical readers which are much inferior. There are first-class books of literary merit, which are entirely serviceable for this purpose and much richer in culture. They continue the line of study in classic literature, and give ground for suggestive comparisons and reviews which should not be neglected. There is a strong tendency in our time to put inferior reading matter, in the form of information readers, science primers, short history stories, geographical readers, newspapers, and specially prepared topics on current events, into reading classes. These things may do well enough in their proper place in geography, history, natural science, or general lessons, but they should appear scarcely at all in reading lessons. Preserve the reading hour for that which is choicest in our prose and verse, mainly in the form of shorter or longer masterpieces of literature.
Secondly, many books should be brought to the attention of the children which they may read outside of school. The regular reading exercises should give the children a lively and attractive introduction to some of the best authors, and a taste for the strength and beauty of their productions. But the field of literature is so wide and varied that many things can only be suggested, which will remain for the future leisure and choice of readers. Children might, however, be made acquainted with some of the best books suited to their age for which there is not school time. Many of the best books, like "Ivanhoe," "Quentin Durward," "Captains Courageous," "Swiss Family Robinson," and "Nicholas Nickleby," cannot be read in school. They should be in the school library, and the teacher should often refer to them and to others suggested by the regular reading, which give deeper and wider views into life.