had received his quarter's income he laid aside a portion for the poor, which he entrusted for distribution to the Curé of the parish; and had besides many pensioners of his own to whom he made a monthly allowance. His biographer records many ingenious methods which he used to stir up others to a similar liberality of alms-giving. His whole life was one effort of self-control, and his habits were very simple and frugal; but we do not read of any fasts or austerities which, measured by the standard of his own Church, could justly be called excessive. He writes to his brother, who was Sub-Prior of La Trappe, 'Everybody is not obliged to fast as you do at La Trappe, but everybody is obliged to resist the desires of concupiscence, which pride and the remains of our corruption constantly excite in us, and to expiate the sins into which we thus fall.'

Tillemont's Ecclesiastical History appeared in two unequal portions-'The History of the Emperors and other Princes who reigned in the first six ages of the Church,' in 6 vols., and the 'Ecclesiastical History,' in 16 vols. The first volume of the first portion appeared in 1690, and was followed, during the author's lifetime, by three others; the fifth was issued in 1701, the sixth not till 1738. The 'Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire ecclésiastique' were published at intervals from 1693 to 1712; but of the sixteen volumes only four appeared during the author's lifetime. The rest were edited by his faithful secretary and biographer, Tronchai. To this vast repository of the original title deeds of the Church, Gibbon resorted to fix the loose and scattered items of historical information, with perfect confidence in the author, whose 'inimitable accuracy almost assumes the character of genius.'

Tillemont died at Paris on the 10th of January, 1698. He desired to be buried at Port Royal des Champs, by the side of the eldest son of M. de Bernières, who had been his youthful companion. But the nuns prepared a grave within the cloister on the left side of the choir, where his body was religiously committed to the earth, in the blissful hope that 'the grave was only the portal to that higher temple where the worship was wholly inward and spiritual like that of angels-and like that was immutable and eternal.'

"There, being filled with God Himself, and enjoying His truth by a contemplation full of light and warmth, we shall sing His praises, not in syllables which pass away before they are heard, and words as imperfect as the faith which produces them is obscure, but in a silence worthy of His greatness. All the passions which now tear us in pieces by so many different desires, all the various created objects which give so many distractions in prayer, so many imaginations and thoughts, caused by the mobility and lightness of our spirits, all this will be silent then. Nothing will interrupt our silence; and our soul, all at one with itself, or rather with God, by a happiness which is the opposite of that outer darkness with which Jesus Christ threatens His enemies, will see only God, will hear only God, will enjoy only God, in short, will love only Gol. This is the happiness which God promises tɔ us. This is the secrecy and silence towards which faith causes the soul which it animates to aspire; and which enables it, as it were, to anticipate by continual groanings of heart.'

'Give us, O God, this inner piety which will produce in us both prayer and all other outward actions of virtue, and which will end in that eternal praise which our hearts will render to Thee in Heaven, amid the silence of all created things.'

GERMAN PEDAGOGY.

INTRODUCTION.

In the prosecution of our labors as an educational journalist we have had occasion to draw largely from the pedagogical literature of the German language, which, beyond that of any other country, is pre-eminently rich in the historical development of education, both public and individual, and in the exhaustive discussion of the principles and methods of instruction. While we must accord to Italy the merit of preserving, and to Italy and France of transmitting and enlarging the ancient civilization, and to the British Isles of sending back to the continent the torch of christian culture when its light was almost extinguished in the devastations of civil war and successive waves of barbarian invasions, we find in the nations which belong to the great German family a succession of schools and teachers, in which and by whom the work of human culture has been carried on with enthusiasm, in spite of civil war, and changing and belligerent dynasties. Since the great ecclesiastical upbreak of the sixteenth century, and particularly since the social and political agitations which grew out of the action of the French Revolution on European institutions, German writers, statesmen, and teachers have bestowed more thought on the problems and discussions of education, than have the same classes in any, or all other countries together. The results are now manifest to the world in the universality and high character of the public instruction, in the wealth of literary and scientific production, in the industrial development, and the military strength of the German people.

It is not creditable to English and American teachers and educators that a literature so rich in thorough historical research, profound speculation, and wise and varied experience from infant training to the broadest university culture, should have been so long neglected-especially when the German educational reformers were so prompt to appreciate and appropriate the broad generalizations of Bacon, and the practical common sense of Locke, as well as the suggestions of Rousseau and Pestalozzi, in this field.

The attention given in Germany to the organization and administration of schools, and the instruction and discipline of children, grows out of certain principles which are fundamental in the German ideal of the State, and its functions. These principles are very clearly set forth by Prof. Donaldson in his Lecture on the History of Education in Prussia.

The ancient Greeks and Romans had a stronger consciousness of the claims of society than of those of the individual. They saw that society lived for ever. The individual members died, but the society, the community, was ever renewed and ever continued. And the individual members derived their blessings and privileges from society. It was therefore the bounden duty of every individual to think first of the good of the community, to sacrifice his own wishes and pleasures for its welfare, and to submit to all restrictions which the general weal, the commonwealth, might impose. Existence in a State demands unselfishness. This ancient idea the Prussians have retained. The nation is a unity; the rulers are its head, its brains; and their work is to accomplish, through the machinery of the State, all that is best accomplished through that machinery. Education is one of these things. It is an object that owes its success to organization. A good teacher can not be extemporized. He must be systematically trained, and he must look on his profession as the work of his life. A good school must be supported by a regular and permanent source of income. Variability in this matter tends to defeat educational efforts; and if a whole people is to be educated, ample provision must be made for them in the matter of schools and teachers. If a nation, therefore, is to have good teachers, good schools, and a sufficient number of them, it must begin the preparation of the teachers, and the erection of the schools, long before they will pay, and it must organize the whole into a unity. For these and many other reasons education can not be satisfactorily given to a whole community except with a complete public organization. This the Prussians have always acknowledged. They have always regarded education as specially the duty of the State. Proofs of this could be given innumerable. I shall quote from three writers. Beneke says: The right of the State in respect of the school has been disputed by no one. It can not be a matter of indifference to it in what way its future citizens are trained. As all other far-stretching interests, so also those connected with education and instruction are concentrated in it; and as it has the duty to provide for the satisfaction of these, so must it also have the right of the chief establishment and superintendence of all institutions of education and instruction.' 'I understand,' says Paul de Lagarde, a famous scholar and theologian of Göttingen, in a pamphlet on the relation of Church and State, published 1873-'I understand by the State the institution which seeks, at the expense of all, and with means presented by all, to attain to ends necessary for all, or even only desirable to all, but not attainable through the efforts of one or several individuals. Herewith it is granted that the State has to accomplish nothing which the individual or individuals can accomplish; that it has to accomplish only what is necessary for all, and what by its nature can be accomplished only through the common effort of all; that its right, might, and duty go only so far as the universal necessity of the ends which it places for itself. The State ought to give the money of the nation intrusted to it only when it is convinced that that for which it gives out the money is, or can be, the common property of tho nation. It is entitled, for instance, to give out money for the army, for schools, for canals, for roads, for forests, because all these objects are necessary to the national life; but a single member, or an association of single members, of it, can not take care of these at all, or only imperfectly, and are also not bound to procure by private means what is for the good of all.' In like manner Eduard Zeller, in his lectures at Berlin, 1873, remarks, 'Society alone can form the institutions and provide for the means which all higher instruction requires, all the more the further science advances and spreads out into a mutiplicity of single departments. From it alone can a suitable connected organization and

direction of the whole of education proceed. Its power alone is in a position to overcome the hindrances which the indifference, the folly, the selfishness of many parents put in the way of universal and vigorous education of youth. It is bound and entitled to make use of this power by regard to itself as well as to all belonging to it. . . . The State is bound, in looking after her own future, to secure her permanence and prosperity by instruction and education.' You will notice that all these writers have in their minds the entire education of the country, the universities and Gymnasien as well as the people's schools, and this may be said to be nearly the unanimous opinion of all German thinkers.

The Prussian State has fully apprehended its duty in this matter. From the time of Frederick's father to the present day the rulers have sought to bring all the wisdom they could get to bear on this problem, limiting their action by only one consideration, the maintenance of loyalty to themselves. In fact this I consider to be one chief element in the success of the Prussian system, that the rulers have always sought for the men best skilled in the science and art of education to guide them in all educational legislation. And whatever else may be said of Prussian schemes of instruction, they bear on their face the fact that they have been formed by men practically and theoretically acquainted with education, and are eminently wise. Let me illustrate the action of the rulers according to this principle. Shortly before the time of Frederick the Great's father, a religious movement, what we should call a revival movement, broke out in Prussia. Spener was its leader. He had a pupil of the name of Francke. The Church at that time was sunk in a cold orthodoxy. It was the greatest sin not to believe every tittle of the creed, but it was no sin not to feel the love of God. Moral death hates life, and when the revival movement came it was met by stern opposition. Francke suffered persecution from the men of orthodoxy, simply because he had life in him, for in reality he was as orthodox as they were. But this Francke had the love of God in him, and the love of the poor, and the love of children, and so he established a school for the poor, and then a seminary for teachers, and various other institutions. The king, Friedrich Wilhelm I., saw that he was doing a good and great work for his people. He gave him substantial aid, and consulted him when he issued laws for education. Francke thus became the real founder of the modern people's school. Francke had a pupil called Hecker, as pietistic and orthodox as himself, and as intent on doing great work. Frederick the Great was neither orthodox nor pietist. He had no belief in the great truths of Christianity, but he believed in Hecker. Hecker knew about education; Hecker was in earnest about education; and Frederick gave him full swing. He employed Hecker to organize education. It was Hecker that drew up his educational acts for him. These educational acts are really the foundation of the Prussian success. Hecker inserted compulsory clauses, though this was not new, as the doctrine had always existed in the Prussian mind. He insisted on teachers being trained for their profession. He tried to get the whole country interested in the maintenance of the teachers. He instituted seminaries for teachers, and he and Semler were the originators of the Real-schule. Frederick went so far as to allow Hecker to introduce his pietism into the act. The decree of the skeptical Frederick contains this clause: As far as the work of the school is concerned, sacristans and schoolmasters are earnestly reminded above every thing to prepare themselves for teaching by a heartfelt prayer for themselves, and to ask from the Giver of all good gifts wisdom and patience that their exertions and labors may be blessed. In particular they are to pray the Lord that he would grant them a heart paternally inclined and tempered with love and seriousness toward the children intrusted to them, that they may discharge all the duties lying on them as teachers willingly and without grudge, remembering that they can accomplish nothing, not even gain the hearts of the children, without the divine aid of Jesus, the friend of children, and of His spirit.'

The same determination to choose the best men for the Government offices pervades the Prussian system. The head of that system is the Minister of Instruction, always a man thoroughly versed in educational matters. He presides over a council of education, in which there are always two or three men who

have had large experience in practical education, and who are profoundly acquainted with the science of pedagogy. It is the business of the Minister to form a clear idea of the aims which he wishes each class of schools to have before them. And, for this purpose, he asks one of his council, who is practically conversant with the science and art of teaching, to draw up general directions as to the aims, subjects, and best methods of teaching. This document is submitted to the council. The Minister listens to all that has to be said by men well acquainted with the political and ecclesiastical affairs of the country, makes up his mind as to the advice given, and then sends his directions to all persons concerned. These documents are of great value as expositions of educational practice, and show a rare amount of wisdom. They give unity and purpose to the whole education of Prussia. But great care is taken not to interfere with details. The details are to be worked out by the various subordinate councils. The Universities are made to a large extent self-governing. The directors of Gymnasien have large powers, with much responsibility. And special work is assigned to each education board, in proportion as it is supposed capable of doing it. But no directly educational work is done by any one who is not specially prepared and fitted for it, and no board determines strictly educational matters without having the direction and advice of some one practically acquainted with education. There is always attached to the provincial board a special member called a school counselor, who is appointed for his special knowledge of the art and science of education.

The schoolmaster himself is also looked on as an official of the State. His func tion is not merely to teach reading, writing, and other arts; but to make good citizens. Accordingly, it is demanded of him that he give his life to the work. He must submit to a preliminary course of training at a seminarium or normal school; he must serve a kind of apprenticeship; he must pass certain examinations. And the boards are warned to be particularly strict in these examinations. It is thus very rare that an incompetent teacher finds his way into a school; and if such an event takes place, the board that let him pass is held responsible for the mistake, and is bound to get employment for him in some other branch of service for which he is better fitted. Once in a school he is urged to make progress in his career. A man who does not exert himself is sent to the schools where the lowest pay is given, and the mode of life is disagreeable. But if he works, he may rise to any extent. The only obstacle in his way is that many of the best educational situations are open only to those who have gone through the Gymnasien and the universities. But if he has this education, he may become the school counselor and a member of the provincial board; he may become a director of a seminary; he may become a member of the chief board; he may become the Minister of Instruction himself. All the offices lie open to merit and loyalty. He is also secured a fixed salary and certain privileges. He may have a retiring allowance at a certain stage, and his widow and children will be cared for after his death. In fact, there is every inducement for him to apply his whole heart to his special work, to continue improving himself to the last, and to be loyal to a Government which, in no ordinary degree, sympathizes with him in his somewhat hard and difficult vocation.

If the State is thus careful in providing for instruction, it expects the people to take it. Every child must be educated. No excuse is admissible, except the guarantee that the child is being instructed properly elsewhere. There are two essential duties which all owe to the State-service in war and attendance at school. The service in war is of recent date, owing its existence to the mind of Scharnhorst and the ravages of Napoleon. But the idea of compulsory attendance at school is found at all periods of Prussian history. 'I hold,' says Luther, that the authorities are bound to compel their subjects to keep their children at school.' We find compulsion laid down in the educational decrees of 1717 and 1736. In the laws of Frederick the Great more precise directions are given. The parents and guardians are to pay the school-fees to the schoolmaster (double the school-fees in Silesia), just as if the children had been sent to school; and if all warnings fail to make them do their duty, the magistrates of the place can seize their goods. When, moreover, the visitor