almost culpable as I thus jerked their minds "the other end to." They to give information and I to be the learner! Impossible! It took a minute for the idea to penetrate, for the hands to come out of the pockets and the legs to be drawn up, while looks of astonishment passed from one to another. Faces brightened, eyes began to sparkle, a hand here and there came up hesitatingly. I had touched the known in a place dear to the hearts of those young people. The matter of food was soon explained. Then what stories of dogs, cats, parrots, canaries, hens, rabbits, and even of a pet crow. The story of this crow's capture led to an experience, related by one of the big boys about his dog and a woodchuck killed in the stone wall, and how the little woodchucks were brought home. I was delighted; the superintendent's countenance beamed with pleasure, I saw that he was convinced, and later I was not surprised to have him write to me, "We have room for the kind of nature study which you exemplified." But the teachers were alarmed, almost excited. The eagerness of some of the children to tell experiences actually pushed them out of the seat and several steps forward, with outstretched hand. Oh, the joy of telling!

the joy of being appreciated, of being recognized as actually knowing something worth listening to! Every mind woke up, because each was appealed to individually, and every one was eager to respond. The assistant expressed volumes when she whispered to me, as I shook her hand in parting, that she "Didn't think those children knew so much."

But the principal apologetically said, "I never saw them act so badly. I'm afraid you'll think we don't have any order. I was ashamed to have two or three talking at once."

To her I said, that they had been only a little over-eager in telling me their experiences. But to you I say that I commend the young folks. I regretted that there was only one opportunity of telling; that there must be a condensation of what should have been extended.

The principal then made the remark to the superintendent, as quoted at the beginning of the chapter.

Discipline, and instruction are for your school, as a whole. Nature study is for the pupil-this one, that one-a recognition and development of individuality. Restrain and develop. Not one, but both. Not everlastingly keeping them

down, but sometimes letting, helping, encouraging, to spring up. That is why I appeal to you for informal nature. study, for the very young folks, not instruction in science, however elementary, or however dilute and interesting you may be able to make it. Think and act sometimes from the child's standpoint. That in relation to natural objects is nature study.

CHAPTER VI

WHY NO SCHEDULES FOR NATURE STUDY

What is nature study? It is a point of view. It is the acquirement of sympathy with nature, which means sympathy with what is.

As a pedagogical ideal, nature study is teaching the youth to see and to know the thing nearest at hand, to the end that his life may be fuller and richer. Primarily, nature study, as the writer conceives it, is not knowledge. He would avoid the leaflet that gives nothing but information. Nature study is not method. Of necessity each teacher will develop a method; but this method is the need of the teacher, not of the subject.

Nature study is not to be taught for the purpose of mak ing the youth a specialist or a scientist. Now and then a pupil will desire to pursue a science for the sake of the science, and he should be encouraged. But every pupil may be taught to be interested in plants and birds and insects and running brooks, and thereby his life will be the stronger. The crop of scientists will take care of itself.-Professor L. H. Bailey, Professor of Horticulture at Cornell university.

Books of natural history aim commonly to be hasty schedules, or inventories of God's property, by some clerk. They do not in the least teach the divine view of nature, but the popular view, or rather the popular method of studying nature, and make haste to conduct the persevering pupil only into that dilemma where the professors always dwell.HENRY D. THOREAU, the sage of Walden.

Professor Bailey is a prominent scientist of the present day, whose writings are chiefly scientific.

He occasionally views nature informally, as in his famous article on nature study from which the foregoing is quoted.

Henry D. Thoreau was the first and is generally accredited to be the greatest of American naturalists. He occasionally looks at nature from the scientific point of view, as is evinced by his assistance to Agassiz. Thoreau is a naturalist; Professor Bailey a scientist. These are two different points of view, although there is no opposition nor hard and fast lines. The most successful scientist must have much of the naturalist ("Nature Study") in him, and the naturalist's love leads him to more and more of scientific knowledge. It is not a question as to whether one has a naturalist's love, and his ability to see things, or whether he has a scientist's knowledge. Each man must have both qualities. The question is, of which quality has he the most? and the answer decides whether he is a scientist or a naturalist. I take these two men as typical of the two classes, notwithstanding the fact that each has much of the spirit of the other. Both Bailey and Thoreau have recognized that there is a difference between nature study and science. Here is Bailey's way of making the distinction: