is given, as Albus (white) was given to the mountains,
now more euphoniously called Alps, because they were white or
snow-crowned; but Alps does not _mean_ white to the moderns. The word
now merely indicates or points out the mountains so called. A word may
survive and take a new meaning after its original meaning is no longer
ascertainable.

The _context_ helps us to know which meaning of the word was intended
when the word is spoken, and the context and spelling tell the same
thing when writing or print is used. Take the words "Hounds, Bark." Here
Bark means the cry or yelp of the dogs. But in "Tree, Bark," the Bark of
the tree is suggested. Yet the word Bark is spelled precisely the same
in both cases. The word spelled "Bark" is really used to express two
different things and the context generally tells which is meant in any
particular case.

Individual _letters_ become so strongly associated with a particular
meaning that although the vocal value is exactly the same, yet the one
spelling goes to one man and the other to a different man. "Spenser"
would never suggest to a learned man the author of the "Philosophy of
Evolution," nor would "Spencer" ever suggest the author of the "Fairie
Queen." "Mr. Mil" would never mean "John Stuart Mill," although the
words "Mil" and "Mill" are pronounced exactly alike. We sometimes cannot
recall a Proper Name, yet we feel sure that it begins or ends with S or
K or L, or that a certain other letter is in the middle of the word. We
usually find that we were right. In these cases _our clue to the entire
word was found in only one letter of it_.

Noticing that the _same letter is in common to two words_, although _all
the other letters may be different_, is one case of Inclusion by
spelling. Take an example: President John Tyler was followed by
President James K. Polk. Analyse the two names--Tyler and Polk. The
letter "l" alone is common to the two names. Here is one _letter_ found
in totally unlike contexts. If this fact is _noticed_, it cannot but
help hold those two names together. The exercise of learning the names
of the twenty-four Presidents is a good one for this purpose. It has a
_training_ value entirely apart from its practical value in that case.
And I give it for its _training_ value alone.

It is infinitely better for him to learn by analysis the _order_ of the
Presidents than to learn that order by the only other method the pupil
has heretofore known, viz., _endless