GERMAN TESTIMONY ON CLASSICS QUESTION. 25 



not allow the heritage of the ancient humanistic cnlture to this incon- 

 sistent system. . . . Through many practical-schools — and this often 

 less on account of the studies taught than of the superficially practical 

 training of the teachers — there runs a certain strain of philosophical 

 and ethical crudity. That many teachers possess only a scientific and 

 partial culture is generally less their own fault than that of the irregu- 

 larity which characterizes the examinations of these teachers by the 

 authorities. 



"It is a most ridiculous position which Latin occupies in the prac- 

 tical-school. It bears no relation to any of the other branches, and, 

 since the pupils learn French quicker than Latin, it is senseless to say 

 that they learn Latin in order to be able to learn the modern lan- 

 guages." 



The author then sketches the course of study of the ideal second- 

 ary school, but fails to preserve the proper balance between the sev- 

 eral studies, from having no adequate conception of an important one 

 of them. He has something to say about natural science, but does not 

 know why, how, or when it should be studied. Apparently no glim- 

 mer of psychology has ever entered his mind ; at least, not a ray is 

 reflected. Not sufiiciently conscious of his defect to refrain from 

 what he is incompetent to perform, he is yet so far aware of it as to 

 make a confession in these words : 



" Unfortunately we ourselves, thanks to our classical training, are 

 too strange in this realm to be able to determine how far and in what 

 way the sciences referred to are to be taught in school without either 

 those parts of the natural sciences which constitute an element of 

 general modern culture being omitted, or things being dragged in 

 which would be better left for presentation by the university instructor. 

 The answers to these questions must come from men who are familiar 

 with the natural sciences without being prepossessed by them." 



The advocates of a wider choice of studies in American education 

 are of two classes : One class, admitting the claims of linguistic train- 

 ing to superiority, asks only the option of employing either ancient or 

 modern languages, saving a little space, perhaps, for natural science. 

 The other class holds, first of all, that the art of education must be 

 based upon the science of psychology, and that the symmetrical devel- 

 opment and highest efiiciency of the mind can be secured only through 

 a training which gives the due amount of exercise to each faculty. It 

 has long been recognized as an absurdity to suppose that the muscular 

 part of the human organism gets its best development from any one 

 kind of hard work. The stone-cutter or machinist may have strong 

 arms, with very defective legs. The coal-heaver will be strong in the 

 back, but will have a stooping posture and a cramped chest ; much 

 rowing produces about the same development. Similarly with the 

 brain. The most prolonged and severe exercise of the memory will 

 not perceptibly improve the observing powers, and no amount of drill 



