We waive that point, though, and come to the lack of discretion shown by the fox.He starts eating his way out through the boy, a messy and difficult procedure, when merely by biting an aperture in the tunic he could have emerged by the front way with ease and dispatch.And what is the final upshot of it all?The boy falls dead, with a large unsightly gap in the middle of him.Probably, too, he was a boy whose parents were raising him for their own purposes.As it is, all gnawed up in this fashion and deceased besides, he loses his attractions for everyone except the undertaker.
The fox presumably has an attack of acute indigestion.And there you are! Compare the moral of this with the moral of any one of the Old Cap Collier series, where virtue comes into its own and sanity is prevalent throughout and vice gets what it deserves, and all.
In McGuffey's Third Reader, I think it was, occurred that story about the small boy who lived in Holland among the dikes and dams, and one evening he went across the country to carry a few illustrated post cards or some equally suitable gift to a poor blind man, and on his way back home in the twilight he discovered a leak in the sea wall.If he went for help the breach might widen while he was gone and the whole structure give way, and then the sea would come roaring in, carrying death and destruction and windmills and wooden shoes and pineapple cheeses on its crest.At least, this is the inference one gathers from reading Mr. McGuffey's account of the affair.
So what does the quick-witted youngster do? He shoves his little arm in the crevice on the inner side, where already the water is trickling through, thus blocking the leak.All night long he stands there, one small, half-frozen Dutch boy holding back the entire North Atlantic.Not until centuries later, when Judge Alton B. Parker runs for president against Colonel Roosevelt and is defeated practically by acclamation is there to be presented so historic and so magnificent an example of a contest against tremendous odds.In the morning a peasant, going out to mow the tulip beds, finds the little fellow crouched at the foot of the dike and inquires what ails him.The lad, raising his weary head--but wait, I shall quote the exact language of the book:"I am hindering the sea from running in," was the simple reply of the child.
Simple? I'll say it is! Positively nothing could be simpler unless it be the stark simplicity of the mind of an author who figures that when the Atlantic Ocean starts boring its way through a crack in a sea wall you can stop it by plugging the hole on the inner side of the sea wall with a small boy's arm.Ned Buntline may never have enjoyed the vogue among parents and teachers that Mr.
McGuffey enjoyed, but I'll say this for him--he knew more about the laws of hydraulics than McGuffey ever dreamed.
And there was Peter Hurdle, the ragged lad who engaged in a long but tiresome conversation with the philanthropic and inquisitive Mr. Lenox, during the course of which it developed that Peter didn't want anything.When it came on to storm he got under a tree.When he was hungry he ate a raw turnip.Raw turnips, it would appear, grew all the year round in the fields of the favored land where Peter resided.If the chill winds of autumn blew in through one of the holes in Peter's trousers they blew right out again through another hole.And he didn't care to accept the dime which Mr. Lenox in an excess of generosity offered him, because, it seemed, he already had a dime.When it came to being plumb contented there probably never was a soul on this earth that was the equal of Master Hurdle.He even was satisfied with his name which I would regard as the ultimate test.
Likewise, there was the case of Hugh Idle and Mr. Toil.Perhaps you recall that moving story?Hugh tries to dodge work; wherever he goes he finds Mr. Toil in one guise or another but always with the same harsh voice and the same frowning eyes, bossing some job in a manner which would cost him his boss-ship right off the reel in these times when union labor is so touchy.And what is the moral to be drawn from this narrative? I know that all my life I have been trying to get away from work, feeling that I was intended for leisure, though never finding time somehow to take it up seriously.But what was the use of trying to discourage me from this agreeable idea back yonder in the formulative period of my earlier years?
In Harper's Fourth Reader, edition of 1888, I found an article entitled The Difference Between the Plants and Animals.It takes up several pages and includes some of the fanciest language the senior Mr. Harper could disinter from the Unabridged.In my own case--and I think I was no more observant than the average urchin of my age--I can scarcely remember a time when I could not readily determine certain basic distinctions between such plants and such animals as a child is likely to encounter in the temperate parts of North America.
While emerging from infancy some of my contemporaries may have fallen into the error of the little boy who came into the house with a haunted look in his eye and asked his mother if mulberries had six legs apiece and ran round in the dust of the road, and when she told him that such was not the case with mulberries he said: "Then, mother, I feel that I have made a mistake."
To the best of my recollection, I never made this mistake, or at least if I did I am sure I made no inquiry afterward which might tend further to increase my doubts; and in any event I am sure that by the time I was old enough to stumble over Mr. Harper's favorite big words I was old enough to tell the difference between an ordinary animal--say, a house cat--and any one of the commoner forms of plant life, such as, for example, the scaly-bark hickory tree, practically at a glance.I'll add this too: Nick Carter never wasted any of the golden moments which he and I spent together in elucidating for me the radical points of difference between the plants and the animals.
