1810. Neither Pestalozzi nor his so-called friends, neither any
individuals nor the whole community, could give me, or would give me,
what I wanted. In the methods laid down by them for teaching boys, for
the thorough education of boys as part of one great human family,--that
is, for their higher instruction,--I failed to find that
comprehensiveness which is alone sufficient to satisfy the human being.
Thus it was with natural history, natural science, German, and language
generally, with history, and above all, with religious instruction.
Pestalozzi's devotional addresses were very vague, and, as experience
showed, were only serviceable to those already in the right way.[70] I
spoke of all these things very earnestly and decidedly with Pestalozzi,
and at last I made up my mind, in 1810, to quit Yverdon along with my
pupils.

But before I continue further here, it is my duty to consider my life
and work from yet another point of view.

Amongst the various branches of education, the teaching of languages
struck me with especial force as defective, on account of its great
imperfection, its capriciousness and lifelessness. The search for a
satisfactory method for our native language occupied me in preference to
anything else. I proceeded on the following basis:--

Language is an image, a representation of our separate (subject) world,
and becomes manifest to the (object) world outside ourselves principally
through combined and ordered sounds. If, therefore, I would image forth
anything correctly, I must know the real nature of the original object.
The theme of our imagery and representation, the outside world, contains
objects, therefore I must have a definite form, a definite succession of
sounds, a definite word to express each object. The objects have