pil reads a correlation of mine, he should indicate the
relations between the words by writing in the figures 1, 2, or 3, and he
should pursue the same course with his own correlations.

3. Ofttimes "extremes" are in different planes of thought, so
occasionally three intermediates are necessary to cement them; two are
often required; but after considerable practice in making correlations
one usually suffices.

1. What is fatal to success in making correlations?
2. What do the figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate in Rule 2?
3. How many intermediates should there be?

4. A correlation is a _successive advance_, and an intermediate must not
refer back to any except its _immediate_ antecedent, never to its second
or third antecedent. A pupil wrote:--_Short steps_ ... stepson ... real
son ... more a son ... _Morrison_. Here, "more a son" refers to the
comparison between "real son" and "stepson," but the latter is the
second antecedent so the correlation is a defective one. He might have
said: _Short steps_ ... _stepson_ ... _Morrison_.

5. A word may be used twice but never three times. _Pen_ ... pensive ...
gay ... nosegay ... _Nose_. Here "gay" is properly used twice, and after
that, it is dropped and you can go on with the rest of the word, to wit,
_nose_.

6. A compound phrase including a verb is rarely allowable, since the
intermediates must be the simplest elements, either sensations or
perceptions [relations among sensations] or abstractions [relations
among relations], or one of these with either of the others, always
exemplifying either In., Ex., or Con.

7. My correlations are good for me, but they may not be so vivid to
others, especially where the concurrences are used. To fix the date of
Magna Charta (1215), the pupil could memorise this Correlation--MAGNA
CHARTA ... King John ... Jew's teeth ... DENTAL. But if the pupil did
not know _before_ that King John had granted that charter, and if he did
not also know the story about the extraction of the Jew's teeth to make
him pay the royal exaction, there would be no concurrence as to the
first word and second, or second and third, and if he learned the
Correlation it would be by mere repetition without aid from Analysis. In
such a case he would make and memorise his own Correlation, perhaps
thus: MAGNA CHARTA ... magnify ... diminish ... DWINDLE. When a pupil
makes his own Correlations, every concurrence he uses is a _real_
concurrence to him, and so with hi