EDITOR'S TABLE. 



123 



do not understand it. What peo- 

 ple see is that the system works 

 very smoothly and uniformly and 

 rhythmically, and that it saves, or 

 seems to save, them a great deal of 

 trouble; and that it is enough to 

 make them think it something very 

 fine. Whether it is really saving 

 trouble in the end is a question 

 which we consider quite open to dis- 

 cussion. There is room, in our opin- 

 ion, to inquire whether the stimulus 

 of society is not too early and too 

 systematically brought to bear on 

 the infants who throng the educa- 

 tional nursery — whether it is well 

 for children of three and four to be 

 brought every day under the eye of, 

 and more or less into competition 

 with, a large number of companions 

 of their own age. We doubt much 

 whether it tends to simplicity of 

 character, and we can not but regard 

 it as distinctly unfavorable to the 

 development of individuality. The 

 rule of fashion begins at once to 

 operate with great intensity, and the 

 child loses the power of conceiving 

 life except in the herd. As to 

 whether trouble on the whole is be- 

 ing saved to parents by the new sys- 

 tem, the question could best be an- 

 swered by ascertaining whether, in 

 the long run, parents have more or 

 less trouble with their children now 

 than formerly. We should be sur- 

 prised to hear any one maintaining 

 that they had less. 



We are aware that parents, for 

 the most part, enthusiastically testi- 

 fy that their children enjoy the kin- 

 dergarten very much; but may it 

 not be possible for children, as well 

 as their elders, to like what is not 

 altogether for their good? We do 

 not consider that we can safely fol- 

 low all a child's likes and dislikes in 

 the matter of diet, or companion- 

 ship, or hours for going to bed and 

 rising. Sensible people do not think 

 that everji;hing children crave 

 should be given to them, or that 

 more than a limited number of ex- 



citements should be thrown in their 

 way. It is one of the drawbacks to 

 wealth that the possessors of it can 

 hardly refrain from half burying 

 their children beneath a profusion 

 of toys, and crowding upon them 

 such a multitude of distractions, in 

 the way of travel, shows of all kinds, 

 and society, that all chance of de- 

 velopment from within is well-nigh 

 destroyed. It has been remarked by 

 many that the children of to-day 

 who rarely read a story that is not 

 illustrated, have much less imagina- 

 tion than the children of former 

 days, who in reading had to make 

 and did make their own mental pic- 

 tures. Yet what pampered child 

 ever said he or she was pampered 

 too much? What overflattered 

 child ever asked for a surcease of 

 flattery? What child suffering from 

 an excessive amount of social excite- 

 ment ever requested that it might 

 have less of such unhealthy stimu- 

 lation? The inference we draw is 

 that it does not settle the question 

 finally in favor of the kindergarten 

 to say that children enjoy it. If 

 Miss Carter's experience is to be de- 

 pended on, the result at least of 

 some kindergarten training is to 

 stimulate the vanity of the little 

 ones and give them a quite undue 

 sense of their self-importance. They 

 would enjoy that while it lasted, 

 poor little things ! but it would be a 

 bad preparation for the subsequent 

 work of education. One broad fact 

 stares the educational world in the 

 face, and that is that the average 

 child has to-day, at a given age, a 

 less capacity for learning than the 

 average child of twenty-five or thir- 

 ty years ago. What share the kin- 

 dergarten may have had in this 

 retardment of intellectual develop- 

 ment is a question which deserves 

 investigation. Messrs. McLellan 

 and Dewey, in their work on The 

 Psychology of Number (Interna- 

 tional Education Series), say (page 

 154) : " We have kno\vn the seven- 



