language were ipso facto the laws of thought. The one is a mental process; the other a set of symbols, English or Greek, or what not, by which the processes and products of mind are expressed. The laws of every language, then, should be subordinate and subject to the laws of thought, but cannot be the same. The differences in lan guages lie here, that some point to more of the laws and distinctions in thought than others; the Greek, I thoroughly believe, more than any other; but all of the languages together are narrower in scope than thought itself, and all fail to express much for which we must look away from human speech to nature and science. No man is a theist who does not feel all through his soul that the universe is builded according to thought, and "he who built all things is God"; and physical and mental science sink their plummets into unsounded depths below language to find His thought. Every word of claim for Greek as training to incisive, penetrating, flexible, legitimate, subtle thought, I accept inclusively, but not exclusively. For this eminent excellence it must hold its place in the highest education forever, but not crowd science out of its place below, as having its own measure of the self-same excellence. The second exemplification, let Matthew Arnold supply. In his late lecture on Literature and Science, he said: "The instinct of beauty is set in human nature as surely as the instinct for knowledge or society. If beauty is found in Greek, we may rely on human nature for making it a part of our education. It will be the more studied as men recognize the beauty of it. Women will again study Greek as Lady Jane Grey did. [If Mr. Arnold had visited colleges beyond the Mississippi, we would have shown him, without boasting, that they do.] Even our primitive ancestor, 'a hairy quadruped, with a tail, pointed ears, and probably arboreal in his habits,' may have carried in his nature a necessity for Greek." Qualifying first that the arboreal habits, pointed ears, tail, and treading-the-campus "quadrupante" in a way to astonish Virgil, must have gone out long before the Greek vocabulary and syntax came in, this may be accepted inclusively, but not exclusively. Our ancestors must have had a necessity for science also, or evolution could never have given it to us; and science, in every nook and corner which it explores, marvelously discloses beauty. And as it must be beauty invented by and wrought out in all things according to thought, science so teaches beauty to every scholar, including the theologian, and can never be elbowed aside by Greek, its fellow-teacher of thought and beauty.

We admit all the facts of failure in both classical and scientific education. Some men who go through college can learn neither thought nor beauty from either, and some can from the one and not

from the other.

Marshal all the cases of graduates to whom either line of study was useless, and you have proved nothing more than the respective make of mind on each side. Most of the famous Harvard oration on "A College Fetich" is simply demonstration that our highest college-scholarship is unsuited to,-I will not be so unkind as to say, above and beyond, some of the Adamses. The best criticism on its argument is that of the head of a Massachusetts technical school: "The only mistake Mr. Adams made was in going to college instead of to a school of technology. The glory of the celestial is one, that of the terrestial another, and no man can stretch himself far enough to embrace both." Let the men, then, who were made for physiological research and the like, and the men who were made for physical research, part amicably and entreat each other with due honor and equity. Who can say that it is not in God's plan that there shall be as many of the one as of the other? Who shall say that it is not alike evidence of capacity and incapacity if an individual student has to join the one fold or the other?

Canon Farrar has said: "It is no epigram, but a simple fact, to say that classical education neglects all the powers of some minds, and some of the powers of all minds. In the case of the few it has a value, which, being partial, is unsatisfactory; in the case of the multitude it ends in utter and irremediable waste."

Why should a judicious advocate of the ancient classics dispute this? It is just as true of other studies, and is sufficient reason for excluding no one from its proper place. Let us teach the multitude what the multitude most needs; let us teach "some minds" what they most need, though "some" other minds do not.

If their substance and herdmen have grown so great that they can. no longer dwell together in one curriculum, let the classical Abraham and the scientific Lot come to an understanding about partition, and "let there be no strife." Indeed, the elder patriarch must have already been courteous and fair to the younger, or the Harvard orator could not have said truly that it is long since the ancient languages held the old exclusive place, nor could it be suspected that the sciences are elbowing for the most fruitful place, having chosen all the plain of Jordan and leaving a very hilly country to the ancient classical cultus. The institution which excludes either from its equitable share in the land simply votes itself out of the realm of the highest scholarship, and denies to its students the highest and best education.

1 Goldwin Smith says: "The results of a training exclusively literary have long been manifest; the results of a training exclusively scientific are already beginning to appear."— Reorganization of Oxford; p. 32.

And now for the place of Greek in preparatory education; is it to be conceded it has none, save in schools like the German Gymnasia, introductory to an after-course in which Greek is integral? The famous Berlin experiment of ten years, 1870 to 1880, - stands in bar of this. Twenty-one professors in the former year, thirty-six in the latter, unanimously testify that students from the Realschulen, who had no Greek, fell behind those from the Gymnasia who had studied all round the circle of the sciences. They were less thorough, less expert, less independent in thought; had less idealistic and scientific impulse, less devotion to science, less appreciation of phenomena, less grasp and capacity to understand and solve problems, In the end, the classical student at a German University outstrips the nonclassical. One of these Berlin scholars declares that it is "simply impossible for one who has been prepared in the Realschulen to acquire a satisfactory scientific education," and none of the chemists, physicians, or other great masters of the sciences of matter, dispute him. Dr. Hoffmann, the Berlin rector, himself a chemist of the highest rank, sums up their long and exhaustive investigation thus: "The Realschulen of the first rank, however generous acknowledg ment may be due to what it has actually accomplished, is nevertheless incapable of furnishing a preparation equal to that offered by the Gymnasium," and this, let me say, although it teaches Latin throughout, only less than the Gymnasium (in the proportion of 32 to 58), and must get its teachers from the Greek scholars of the Gymnasia. The greater part of all our scientific terms are Greek in origin, and cannot be used in a scholarly, if, indeed, in an intelligent, manner by a mere Latin or German, or French or English expert. And it will always be so; scientific men will never change this. The legitimate inference is not, however, that every one who studies science must take the Greek, and will. That were not a use, but an abuse, of the Berlin demonstration. The majority want, and will want, science for practical application, not for scholarship; and to require of them to go through a classical academy course were as great folly as to abolish such a course or reduce it to no higher study than that of German, or French, or Latin, for those who seek a really liberal education in science. Addition of Greek for these, subtraction of Greek for those, is both wisdom and necessity.

1" Modern languages, which some are proposing to make almost the staple of education, are indispensable accomplishments, but they do not form a high mental training; they are often possessed in perfection by persons of very low intellectual powers. need men be brought to a University to learn modern languages; on the contrary, they are best learnt abroad."-GOLDWIN SMITH, on the Reorganization of Oxford; p. 33.

Nor

ADDITION OF ELEMENTS OF INDUSTRY.

IV. Shall we add the elements of industry to our American education in the proper place for them? For one, I answer heartily and at once, Yes. Most of the objections that are made lie against adding more than the elements, or adding them out of place. No one, I hope, would introduce them into professional schools or colleges, or the higher female seminaries, nor anywhere else introduce the trades, save into special trade-schools. As elements they belong with other elements in our elementary schools. If the public should teach any, it should teach those. We concede that the exquisite language which perfected itself at Athens is not wanted or needed by the intelligent masses; but industry is. The question, then, of public industrial education is a question of what is best for the individual, and also of what is best for the majority; perhaps more the latter than the former. For the individual, then, whoever was made for manual skill should be trained for it. As these are those who are made for physical activity, chiefly, without intellectual tasking, so these are some who seem to be made for in. tellectual activity, chiefly, without physical exertion. But these are extremes. It is a public loss, then, if the round man, who was constructed for a book-scholar or author, gets into the square hole of a technical school as he matures; or the square man, who was made for a machinist, gets into the round hole of a seminary of literature. But each of them has a physique in childhood that can be developed by industry alone, and each may have to get his bread by it, and the State must needs find out who are to be skilled laborers and superintendents of labor by teaching them all at the start in life the use of the essentials tools, the chief productions of nature, the staple ma terials, the leading processes of the great arts. Not only is the necessity for these never to pass away, but all over this land it is to immensely increase; for even the great agricultural States, with their coal and iron, are under the law affirmed by one of our oldest political economists,-" manufactures always move in every land to ward the coal measures and the iron mines." Immensely absurd as a college is with a curriculum borrowed from the middle ages,—I do not know where there is one,-it is vastly less absurd than a common school, which has nothing to do with preparing for the real occupations and life of the people at large. This is doubly so, because the Puritan common school grew out of the immediate present wants of the people. The middle ages did better than the nineteenth century hereabouts, for "from 1725 to 1745 there existed in a village of the Dauphin, France, a school where the pupils were initiated accord

ing to their tastes, ages, and dispositions, into different kinds of industrial, as well as agricultural work."-(Report of Royal Commissioners on Technical Instruction; Lond., 1882, p. 37.) And as the industrial life of the people cannot everywhere be the same, a castiron type of common school in each State and every county, preparing the working masses who depend upon it for their educational all, for just the same style of active life, would be an exquisite absurdity. It was pointed out, in a paper read for me to an Association at Marshalltown in 1878, that our large towns and cities must needs differ in type, and their high schools could not be just alike; a mining or manufacturing State requires, and in due time will compel, secondary instruction of another sort from that demanded by an agricultural commonwealth, and these differences of want and of educational matter and form will reach down into the grammar schools and somewhat below. God has not only made us of one blood, but determined also the bounds of our habitation, and thus the diversities of our mental life and work. It is not merely for the statesman, but also for the professional teacher to see that in a great and diversified land like this we cannot have any one national system were even our State organizations out of the way; our local systems, if wise, will follow the differentiations of Providence. Here and there, in the near future, we shall have a few schools like that of the Rue Tournefort in Paris, where "the children in the lowest classes have three lessons of an hour each per week of instruction in handicrafts." (Report of Royal Commissioners; p. 14.) This is the only school in France in which rudimentary trade-teaching is combined with ordinary elementary instruction. No people will need many such schools; no child should go into one who has not shown already the mechanical and constructive bias of mind. We shall have special schools, like the clock-making schools the French have, those of porcelain decoration, and of apprenticeship to the manufacture of Gobelin tapestries, but few of them; more we need like their superior elementary schools providing workshop-instruction adapted to the industries of the districts in which they are situated; more still, like more than a hundred of the primary schools of Paris, which have workshops attached and elementary manual training. St. Louis has led us all in the higher technical training. Chicago follows, with an Iowa graduate as principal of her noble special training-school. But these advanced institutions do not meet the common want, save by training a few who will appear sometime as masters in the public schools. New Haven has done better in her Dwight and Skinner schools; but Boston, best, old, cautious Boston, but wary about