principles accept gratefully this one great achievement of Herbart, that instruction must, at every step, develop character. That is good. Let us hold that fast. But the kindergarten has the same, and all good teaching for some time has had the same idea and ideal.

Herbart has taught it well. The kindergarten would acknowledge gratefully the contribution, if you choose to call it so, of Herbart to educational science, that everything that is done in instruction must be based upon the child's previous experience. All these things and several others I think the kindergarten would gratefully acknowledge, but not substitute these for the wider, higher, broader, deeper aim of education as presented to us in the "Education of Man."

In the "Education of Man" we are told that the destiny of mankind is to unfold the divinity that lies within, and the divinity is never unfolded within us by going back to previous periods and resting upon those. May I follow the example of Miss Arnold, and also close with a piece of advice?

One of the outcomes of this epoch is the present prevalent notion that children should be fed as early as possible with myths and fairy stories, representing an early culture epoch in man. Now, in regard to this, I would advise great caution. Upon the myth I look as one of the most highly developed creatures of human genius; as an effort to represent in poetic form the theory of life and the theory of nature, as it appeals to a mature, earnest, poetic mind. To bring this to a child, it seems to me, is a desecration of the myth, as well as a sin against childhood. In the first place, the child cannot appreciate the soul of the myth. The child lacks maturity, lacks the knowledge, lacks the experience, lacks the insight into things and relations of things which are absolutely necessary in order to appreciate the soul of the myth. Hence he gets from the myth merely certain externalities of plot or form, but not the meanings or soul of it. Something similar, it seems to me, applies to a fairy story. The fairy story is the outcome of a rich, vivid fancy,.imagination. It pleases the child, but perhaps not all things that please a child are good, and in the selection of a fairy story we should be exceedingly cautious to see to it that its teaching should be in the right direction; that it should not lead the child back into former epochs; should not give him wrong ideas. I can tell you some stories from my lonesome walks to school. I was fed on stories, and I labor under the pernicious effects of them to this day.

I used to go home from school after hearing a fairy story and imagine myself the hero of that story, and I should blush to relate to you the absurd wickedness that came to my mind and which I fancied and acted out under the influence of the fairy story. There was, among other things on the road, an old castle. I visited that castle sometimes during the spring summer months. I went down into its deeper vaults, and there I communed with those persons who played with bones of skeletons, etc., and cruelty grew in my heart and much disregard for the sweet and beautiful things of life. And a taste for the hideous grew, and my mother had trouble to get that out, and I have labored to this day to help my mother in the work.

Give to the child the truth; that is not fairy story. Give him the truth to stand on, the truth to love, the truth to see always, the truth as he can see it; not the truth as you can see it, but the truth as he can see it. Is not nature beautiful? Is not the sunrise beautiful? And the sunset? The life of the flower, and the various animals of which the child can take loving care?

In the daily intercourse of one child with another, are not there ample opportunities for beautiful teaching, helpful, material, instructive situations? Why not take these, instead of those things which merely confuse, pervert, mislead the child's mind, and therefore arrest development? Let us hold fast to the truth; not follow names. Principles only are strong and will lead us to success.

COL. F. W. PARKER of Chicago, Ill.-The initial movement in education in this century was made by the kindergarten. History will confirm this statement. The next great organized movement now coming in with zeal and earnestness and scholarship is the Herbartian method. I am neither a Froebellian nor a Herbartian. I don't like the word "follower" in this country. From both we get methods and principles of priceless value. Froebel recognized the divinity of the child. Herbart did not find that inherent, and therefore Herbart will have to be modified, for I believe Froebel was right. The child is possessed of marvelous powers of body and mind, and all the progress of education in the past and the future will grow out of it.

Here is the difference between these men: Froebel discovered the great dignity of the child. The great failure of Herbart is, he believes in class education. There is no class education in Froebel. That is the reason he was driven out of Prussia in 1848. Froebel meant the entire freedom of man. It is not his gifts and methods we quarrel over. He believed in the principle of freedom for every child—a democratic freedom. The aristocratic instinct knew what that meant, and so it drove him out. Herbart and his followers did not arrive at that.

The greatest thing in the kindergarten, which is above all, superior to all else, is the community life, which the child cannot have at home because he has nothing to do for others. The only way to educate a human being is to set him to work for others. You can make a pedant of him, but you cannot develop him in the highest way without giving him something to do for others. Morality is thinking and seeking what you can do for others, and ethics is putting it into execution. Froebel recognized that thought, and put the children into the community life, to give them something to do for others before selfishness seized upon them. Froebel and Herbart are working in the same direction. I believe in the work of Herbart, only I want to say, don't be followers of Herbart. Be followers of his spirit. Don't be disciples of Froebel, but interpret his spirit and apply it. The ideal school is the ideal community. The child is not in school to gain knowledge. He is there to live and to put his life into the community in which he lives. This is the future of education. We must abandon the quantity view, the knowledge view, and remember that the society of to-morrow is the school of to-day. We can only make the society good, the state good, as we make these little communities of children love each other and put their work in each other's lives, and so the world will move forward.

FRANK M. MCMURRY, Buffalo, N. Y.-My special topic is the relationship of Herbart and Froebel. Not long ago President Eliot remarked that the problem of education was the same, whether we spoke of the kindergarten, or the school, or the university. He declared that the laws of teaching, if true, are universal in their application. We have in this country to-day an enthusiastic body of kindergartners; likewise we have those interested in Herbart's teachings. If the laws of instruction are universal, there is no reason why these two bodies should stand aloof from one another. They ought to recognize the unity of their efforts. During the past year my experience has led me to feel we are losing much because we stand away from one another, thinking about topics which really are closely related. I have not a very long-time acquaintance with the ideas of Froebel, but all my work has led me to think of the relationship between these two men. Knowledge and discipline are not the primary objects of either of these schools by any means. I am going to touch upon the points of similarity. Knowledge does not stand first in the minds of the Herbartians in Germany to-day. Neither of these schools is utilitarian. Knowledge is an instrument and not a thing in itself. Both of these men keep in mind the condition under which knowledge can be gained.

The attitude of the child toward the studies-that is what we are thinking about. Both schools are aiming primarily, not at character, not at knowledge, not at discipline, but at the right attitude of the child toward the thoughts given him. The development of taste is a strong test among Herbartians; also, the development of a religious, social, sympathetic, speculative interest and scientific interest. Herbart divided the work of instruction into these six fields. In each line the purpose is to develop a love for one or the other, or all of these lines. Then we agree in attempting to develop primarily the tastes, the loves, in the leading fields of knowledge. I hope, that, if I misinterpret the kindergarten standpoint, the mistake can be pointed out here this afternoon. I am preaching from the standpoint of Herbart, but it seems to me it is the standpoint of Froebel also.

To both of these schools, what is taught in the school is an exceedingly important matter. We don't agree on the whole with the common statement that it makes little difference what children study. We agree, that, through clear and accurate ideas, a strong character is to be developed, provided a lively interest in those thoughts is aroused. Here is possibly a difference: I am not certain whether the followers of Froebel believe that ideas themselves are the chief means through which a live interest can be aroused.

I saw during the past year a morning circle in a kindergarten in which corals were the topic, and the teacher presented a quantity of thought which was so difficult that I would not have attempted to give it in three or four recitations with ten-year-old children. The Herbart standpoint is that a lively interest is based upon clear, accurate thoughts. Whether that is the kindergartner's standpoint or not, I am not quite sure. We see, then, that both of these schools do not aim at discipline primarily. We are interested in choosing ideas which fit the child. Apperception is one of the most common words among Herbartians. Child study is one of the most common phrases. We are interested in just the same kind of work. We both realize that the school is for the child. The standpoint in this country to-day is not that. As I understand common schools, the teacher feels the curriculum is superior to the child. As I understand it, the kindergartners and Herbartians are opposed to that. The curriculum must be sacrificed for the children. I think the principle of going from the whole to parts is emphasized vastly more by the kindergartners than by the followers of Herbart. A part may be a whole, a whole may be a part; it depends upon how we look at it. On that account, the Herbartians emphasize the law of apperception. Begin with the thought which is nearest the child. We might begin with a tree or a part of a tree; for instance, the roots, if the roots of a tree are nearest the child's interest. So the law of apperception guides us in making our choice.

Coming down to the arrangement of subject-matter, I think the kindergartners are accomplishing concentration more nicely than the followers of Herbart. I have never seen such beautifully connected work in the common schools as in the kindergarten. The morning circle in which the ideas are presented which guide the work in occupations and gifts, it seems to me, is the center of interest there, the center of concentration, and the day's work in the kindergarten is better associated than in the common school; and many weeks' work is better associated in the mind of the child than the different weeks' work in the common school. I think teachers have a great deal to learn from the kindergartner. I don't believe we can ever apply the kindergarten idea fully, and I don't think it desirable quite, but I find the ideal relationship of the day's work there.

Further, both the kindergartners and Herbartians have brought into the world a new conception of what a recitation is. I heard two university presidents a short time ago state, that, in the universities, text-books and lectures were being given

up largely, especially lectures. I believe it is, to a considerable extent, owing to these two schools. The kindergarten shows us that a recitation should be, primarily, a conversation. We see it above all in the circle work. It is certainly weak when we find people reciting what is in a book or listening to a lecture. The kindergarten gives us the ideal method of instruction. We meet face to face in the morning circle. The old plan of Socrates is coming into vogue to-day. The relationship of the occupations, the games, and the gifts is that largely of the application of the thoughts gotten in the morning circle. In no instruction anywhere is the application of the ideas, the doing of what is talked about, so emphasized as in the kindergarten work, and there is no point which is so vital to proper instruction.

The common schools and colleges do not to-day recognize that the moral thoughts gotten in history and literature should be applied in character. The kindergarten is leading us in that thought. The Herbartians are urging that point continually, when they say that the fifth formal step, viz., the application of thoughts in all studies, is one of the points of universal importance. The Herbartian primary school, then, if we agree as to these fundamental points, is practically a continuation of the kindergarten. If we had to-day our primary schools arranged as the Herbartian school insists, viz., with a rich course of study in literature and in nature a rich thought contained-it seems to me that it would be a proper continuation of the kindergarten. We feel the kindergarten gives to children, first of all, attractive ideas. We feel in kindergarten a love for literature is gained thoroughly imaginative literature. Here we provide for imaginative literature, like the myths and fairy tales. We feel that they are true. Myths and fairy tales are true just as poetry is true. The underlying thought in classic literature is true. In brief, then, I would say, simply, that we are working along the same lines. The principles we insist upon are universal.

THE FACULTY AND MINISTRY OF SONG.

BY W. L. TOMLINS, CHICAGO, ILL.

To speak of music or to write of music is not to express it. Music speaks for itself. Music tells for itself what words can never tell for it. Yet there are so many misconceptions abroad in regard to the faculty of song, and so much of that misconception in schools, that a great deal of harm is being done. I am very glad this afternoon to simply talk to you, talk to you as a workman coming from a workshop (for I am used to the workshop rather than the platform), and if possible suggest along certain lines what I think may help those of you who are workers.

First, we may speak of the universality of music. Music is appre ciated by all peoples, and under almost all possible conditions from the cradle to the grave, as the lullaby in the cradle, the lover's song, the anthem, the battle hymn, the funeral march, and the dirge. Rus

kin says that music will not lend itself to anything that is ignoble, and uses the illustration that a girl may mourn in song the loss of her lover; a miser cannot voice in song his loss of gold. There are people who say that there is something unwholesome in music-in certain kinds of dance music. If you will bring me music which you claim to be un wholesome, I will put my finger on the spots which prove it not to be true music.

It is not necessary to understand music to appreciate it. It rather seems to understand us. When we come together music is appropriate. It sympathizes in our joys, consoles us in our sorrows. The power of music is almost magic. A year or two ago I remember standing on the corner of State and Madison streets, in Chicago, on a very busy day when everybody was hurrying along surrounded with the rush and turmoil of Chicago life. Suddenly a military band was heard, and at once it was a holiday. There was joyousness in every step, such was the power of even the more material music. In song, a higher form of music, the effect is very much greater. Some of you may remember how John B. Gough, the great temperance orator, used to begin his lectures and continue them for some time by telling a number of stories. Some thought he merely wished to get his audience interested, but he had a much more profound motive. His stories had a method in them. He would tell a story exciting laughter; another, pity; another, indignation; another, courage, sympathy, reverence; in short, he would go the round, the gamut of the emotions, and when he had touched the entire audience in every point of their emotional nature, then he struck. What Mr. Gough accomplished with these stories, systematically taking thirty or forty minutes to get his audience stirred, Patti would do in forty seconds, and do it very much better. One line of "Home, Sweet Home," and the entire audience was at her feet, her slaves. Not only Patti, but Nilsson, with the "Suwanee River," would affect people to a greater degree than John B. Gough. For instance, a man in that audience who was wrought up to intensity of mind, would be let down at once, and the poor woman at his side, who with weary watching was worn out, would be lifted up. Each one in the audience would be brought to his equilibrium. They were more themselves than before the song began. With their sympathetic response to the singer, they became equal to each other and equal to her. People who would sit, as people are too apt to sit, afraid to approach a neighbor on either side, would turn with a smile, and maybe a handshake,-so much did the song bring about the feeling of equality and brotherhood.

What is this spirit of song? Do we get it in books? I think not. You get in the books a great deal about flats, and sharps, and scales, and naturals, and keys, but that does not make you a musician. I