must be discovered by looking at the grown man in civilization rather than at the child. The child has not yet developed his possibilities. The child first shows what he is truly and internally when he becomes a grown man. The child is the acorn. The acorn reveals what it is in the oak only after a thousand years. So man has revealed what he is, not in the cradle, but in the great world of human history and literature and science. He has written out his nature upon the blackboard of the universe. In order to know what there is in the human will we look into Plutarch's Parallel Lives.

To see what he has done in philosophy, we read Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz and Hegel. For science, we look to the Newtons and Darwins. We do not begin, therefore, with child-study in our school education. But next after finding these great branches. of human learning we consider the child, and how to bring him from his possibility to his reality. Then it becomes essential to study the child and his manner of evolution. We must discover which of its interests are already on the true road toward human greatness. We must likewise discover which ones conflict with the highest aims, and, especially, what interests there are that, although seemingly in conflict with the highest ends of man, are yet really tributary to human greatness, leading up to it by winding routes. All these are matters of child-study, but they all presuppose the first knowledge, namely, the knowledge of the doings of mature humanity. There can be no step made in rational childstudy without keeping in view constantly these questions of the five co-ordinate groups of study.

INFLUENCES THAT DETERMINE THE TREND OF EDUCATION.

BY DR. JNO. L. BUCHANAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.

It is gratifying to note the remarkable activity which has appeared in various forms in the field of education within the last few years. It is gratifying to note the enlarged dignity with which the subject is invested and the increased importance attached to it by the public. It is gratifying to note that its vital relations to the industrial, social and political well-being of our

country are becoming more widely and distinctly recognized. The literature pertaining to it is increasing in volume and variety. Quite recently a number of books have appeared exhibiting unusual strength, clearness and scientific precision in their treatment of various phases of the subject. Besides the numerous journals wholly devoted to it, a good many of our sober, substantial magazines and reviews deem it expedient to give it liberal space. This widespread popular interest in education is a noteworthy feature of the present age.

Says Oscar Browning: Education has always been a favorite problem with philosophers. Thoughtful, earnest men all along the ages, finding the world sadly out of joint as they saw it, have turned reformers. But seeing that reform moves slowly with adult humanity, ossified and indurated as it is, they have. turned to plastic youth in the confident hope, that, if the rising generation could be directed in the right path, the regeneration of the human race would prove a reality and not a dream.

The writer adds that experience by this time ought to have taught us that these hopes are misleading; that from one point of view education can do much, from another it can do litttle or nothing. To this remark we cannot give unqualified assent. But it is true that our estimate of what education has done, is doing or can do, depends quite largely on the point of view from which we survey it.

What is commonly understood by education, the formal instruction and training, given in school from the Kindergarten to the University is one thing. But if, as says John Stuart Mill, whatever tends to make a human being what he is, and to prevent him from being what he is not, is a part of his education, or if we take the word in the broad signficance given it by Mr. Earl Barnes, making it include all the means, conscious or unconscious, by which men have sought to lead, restrain or form the young, then it is another thing, or at least a much more comprehensive thing. For in this very broad sense it includes all the forces that fashion human character and life, except those which spring from the spectral domain of heredity.

But taking education in its usual sense, it is a question void, it may be, of practical bearing, but nevertheless a question, whether the education of any age generates and directs the social forces assumed to be behind all human institutions, or whether these social forces, be they the result of evolution, accidental con

ditions, or what not, shape and control education. Which is the cause, and which the effect? Or is there action and reaction between the two? Is individual life shaped by social instincts and tendencies and tempered by the atmosphere of the age to which it belongs? Social endowments force men to live in communities. Is there then in the social life of a people an inherent power which shapes unconsciously their institutional life, and thus in a measure determines the trend of education? Or do we consciously and of purpose form ideals and direct our efforts rationally and systematically to their realization, and is this the genesis of the controlling power in human affairs? These questions may seem rather speculative and of little practical importance, yet they are not irrelevant to the subject under consideration. Moreover there are yet other questions related to those already propounded. A prominent educator says, “Educational processes precede rather than follow the theories upon which they are based. The rational explanation comes later to modify, strengthen or defend the existing process." If this be true, what determines the processes? Does education spontaneously shape itself according to some principle floating in the "air of the age," and is the principle or theory which underlies it discoverable only after the process is partially or wholly completed?

Says Dr. Paulsen: "The spirit of the times, the general conformation and tendency of any given period, nowhere become so clearly discernible as in the prevailing ideal of education." So related, then, are the spirit and tendencies of any given age and the prevailing ideal of education, that changes in the former produce changes in the latter. But these changes are not always simultaneous, for often ideals have persisted after the given age has undergone material changes.

This gives rise to the struggle between educational conservatism and radicalism, the two extremes between which a class of doubters declare: "Tis a grave important question over which we vacillate." Does enlightenment enlighten and does culture cultivate?

Should we rare ones who inhabit the superior realms of thought,
Dictate to the unlightened what they oughtn't or they ought?

Or shall we abandon flatly this whole altruistic fight,

With the philosophic dictum that "whatever is, is right?"

"It is a misfortune for the individual and a serious loss to

the community when the methods of education and their practical application to actual life are at variance." Such a state of things calls loudly for a remedy. Whenever the ideal of education which controls, and it does control, its methods, processes, and its results is, or becomes, out of harmony with the social, political and religious conditions of a people, then new ideals are to be formed and ideas and methods readjusted. How far the effect of education goes in shaping or modifying human conditions are not now to be considered. But the fact is to be recognized that the world moves on in its own way; that there are forces in play in human affairs not traceable to formal education. And it is in some sense true that "the world as a whole is wiser than its wisest men."

Then if the world requires certain things and will have them, will the harmonious development theory of education hold good? If it be possible to perfectly educate a human being to secure the fullest development of body, mind and heart, and the suppression of all evil propensities, so that he attains, as the moralist puts it, the perfect realization of self, the complete satisfaction of his own being, "will he be sure to find a place for himself in the economy of things?" Such a life might be that of the contemplative philosopher but not that of a man of action.

But consider very briefly what have been some of the ideals prevailing among different peoples. In savage life, a precarious subsistence and the protection of the tribe make the hunter and the warrior, some of the ruder industries being learned by imitation. Within the pale of civilization, Hellenism presented the highest ideal of physical and intellectual perfection known in all the past ages of the world, its achievements in all the departments in which creative genius has exerted itself are the most brilliant ever made. So that their system, it has been truly said, "produced the most gifted and attractive nation that ever lived upon the earth."

The Roman ideal is conveyed in one of their usual forms of salutation, Vale, be strong. Be strong to subjugate and unify the nations of Italy; be strong to carry Rome's brazen eagles and Rome's civilization into the regions beyond; be strong to devise laws to govern conquered provinces, and shape the jurisprudence of centuries to come. And it may be added that Hellenic culture and Roman law are important factors in modern civilization.

Among the Hebrews a code of laws sanctioned by Divine

authority governed minutely in private and public affairs. It established a system of training and produced an ideal of life which stamped upon that race, living for centuries "without a country or a state," the most enduring type of character known in the history of mankind. Could the Greek, the Roman and the Hebrew ideals be united and realized in a school, "that school," as says Comenius, "might fitly be called a workshop of humanity and deservedly so, if it made men wise in spirit, clever in action and pious in heart."

In the middle ages various ideals appear. The clerical or ecclesiastic, the humanistic, realistic, naturalistic, scholastic, etc., each deriving its leading characteristics from the dominant power of church and state, and from the prevailing phase of social life from whatsoever cause evolved.

In modern states, as well as in mediaeval or ancient, the character and purposes of the ruling power are seen in the trend of education. As says an able writer: "In France the schools, at present, must try to make republicans; in Germany, monarchists; in England, imperialists. In America we still boast that we try to make the best possible men and women."

And now a word as to the forces in play in our country. Among the most remarkable phenomena of the present century is the growth of democracy, meaning by that civil liberty among the masses of the people and the right to participate in public affairs. Human worth and human rights were taught by the Man of Galilee nearly two thousand years ago, but the world has been slow to recognize them. It is but little over a century ago that men began to approach the idea that any one man has as many rights as any other man, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I am not here advocating or opposing these ideas, but mention them as fundamental in democracy. I know that some States, and individuals as well, adopt the Irishman's philosophy; said he, "Mike, and don't you know that one mon is as good as another?" "Yis," said he, "Pat, and a great sight better."

The growth of democracy in Europe during the century just closing has been quite marked, but it has reached its fullest development in our own country.

And the fact that the masses of the people have a voice in the control of public affairs, and are themselves factors in the national life, necessarily influences, in a great degree, the trend of educa