which we need as men, by making it depend on the knowledge which we need for the practical purposes of life.

Is, then, the imparting of a knowledge of nature the one purpose of nature study? To show that it is not is one of the chief purposes of Dr. Bigelow's book. He never tires of insisting upon the difference between elementary science and nature study, because the primary purpose of elementary science is the imparting of scientific knowledge, and the development of habits of scientific thinking, while the primary purpose of nature study is the development of a love of nature. Of course knowing cannot take place apart from feeling, nor feeling apart from knowing. But the cold love

teaching of science different experience

of truth, the feeling that the seeks to awaken, is a vastly from the feeling of love or of admiration for an animal, or an object,--which the teaching of nature study seeks to awaken. And the concentration of the attention upon the universal aspects or phases (the class relations) of objects, which the teaching of science seeks to bring about, is an entirely different thing from the concentration of the attention upon an object as a whole,-upon those characteristics which make it an individual,

which the teaching of nature study seeks to bring about. You may talk to a boy about the resemblances between a cat and a tiger, in the hope of developing an interest in the relations of animals; if so, you are teaching elementary science, and are trying to stimulate his love of truth. Or you may try to get him to look at a cat as an object not to be pelted with stones, but as a living thing, one that responds to affectionate treatment with affection; if so, you are teaching nature study, and are trying to develop a love of animals. You are making a certain appeal to the intellect in both cases, but in the former, you do not want the boy to consider the cat as an individual at all, for one cat will serve the purpose quite as well as another, since it is the cat as a member of a class in which you wish to interest him; in the latter, it is the cat as an individual, a being with a capacity for individual pleasures and pains, such as the boy himself is conscious of, that you wish him to have in mind. Succeed ideally in the former attempt, and he will not only be perfectly ready to dissect his cat when dead, but to vivisect it when alive, if he can learn something about it that he wishes to know; succeeded ideally in the latter, and he becomes the friend of all living things, and will

quiver with indignation at the infliction of unnecessary pain upon any animal.

Upon second thoughts, however, it is plain that this illustration suggests more than the truth. It is indeed true that elementary science aims to develop an interest in types and classes, while nature study seeks to awaken an interest in objects and individuals. It is also true that the interest which science seeks to arouse is the love of knowledge, while that which nature study would stimulate is some sort of appreciation of an object or an animal. But it is not true that an intense love of knowledge, unaccompanied by the proper development of the emotional nature, has only bad results, nor is it true that a development of the emotional nature unaccompanied by a proper development of the intellect, has only results that are good. Develop the intellect abnormally along with the love of knowledge, which is its inevitable accompaniment, and you have indeed trained a being of the temper of Spinoza, who knows no love nor hate, who responds to no enthusiasm except that which results from the contemplation of the reign of law, who is willing to eliminate all individuality from the universe, to resolve it into the expression of necessary and eternal laws,

because there is nothing in the nature of such a being which demands a world of individuals. But it is equally true that to develop the emotions abnormally, is to develop a being of the temper of Rousseau, a "weltering mass of sensibility," impelled this way to-day and to-morrow that, according as the wind of emotion blows north or south, saved, if saved at all, from debasing superstitions only because he passively accepts the results of other men's thinking. Succeed ideally with your nature study, we said above in commenting upon our cat illustration, and the boy will quiver with indignation at the infliction of unnecessary pain upon an animal. It is now clear that such a boy will never see the necessity for the infliction of pain, unless he has capacities which have not been developed by any training of his emotional nature. Manifestly what is needed is not a training either of the head or the heart by itself, but of the two in conjunction. As Pestalozzi put it, "Let not [the child] attempt to [climb the ladder leading up to Heaven] by the cold calculation of the head or the mere impulses of the heart; but let all these powers combine, and the noble enterprise will be crowned with success.'

Nevertheless, the half of the truth upon which

Dr. Bigelow insists is the one which most needs to be emphasized. I have said that the question which the leaders of educational thought are beginning to ask is, What does a man need to be? But it is not true that this question is uppermost even in the minds of most educated men when they are thinking of education; as a rule, men continue to think of themselves as means, not as ends. They look upon their physical and mental powers and capacities as tools for the accomplishment of work. They care more for education than they used to care, because they have learned that it increases their power to do things. Even in this democratic age, we do not undersand the truth upon which Sir William Hamilton used to insist, "On earth there is nothing great but man; in man there is nothing great but mind." It is ignorance of this truth which so often causes statesmen to confuse social progress with growth of wealth, spread of commerce, mere increase of population. Instead of agreeing with Aristotle that the object of the state is to promote good life, they are prone to concentrate their attention on the mere tools of life. They incline to plume themselves on their promotion of the " onward march of civilization," when they have merely promoted national devel