40 THE A 'A TURE-S TUD Y RE VIE W , 3 : 2_peb. , ,^07 



impossible to say the list does not supply a point of view from which 

 to attack this perplexing subject. 



The fact that these lists of books— exceptions noted— contain 

 works that discuss the point of view from which this subject should 

 be approached, introduces into the qonfusion a vital and fundamental 

 unity. Furthermore, the work which appears in fifieen lists — or rather 

 sixteen, for it is fair to suppose Professor Hodge omitted his own 

 book on account of modesty rather than failure to recognize its worth 

 — is literally charged with a broad, sound and practical philosophy of 

 our needs in this subject. And that, by the way, is the purpose of 

 this article, namely, to plead for an adequate philosophy. If there is 

 one thing more than another that the movement lacks it is a clean 

 cut and rational rather than sentimental point of view. Because of 

 this lack, sentimentalism, narrowness in outlook, high-handed treat- 

 ment of those who have held that nature-study should comprehend 

 something more than plants and animals, failure to adequately estimate 

 what is involved in teaching this subject and indifference to public 

 sentiment and social needs have to an unfortunate extent characterized 

 the movement. Before any subject can find secure footing in a 

 democratic system of education, it must work itself free from inciden- 

 tal and special reasons for being and found itself on some perfectly 

 apparent social need. Whatever other reasons one may give for the 

 presence of history in the common-school curriculum, the perfectly 

 apparent one that a citizen of our republic needs to know something 

 of the origin and nature of the institutions which require his support 

 raises this study above all apologetic reasons for its presence in our 

 common schools. If our nature-study is to pass beyond the special 

 pleadings of a few enthusiasts, it must be made to meet some simple, 

 and when clearly stated, perfectly apparent social need. Individualists 

 we may be, yet we cannot expect our individual tastes and predilections 

 to be adopted and instituted at public expense. We sorely lack then, 

 not a large number of incidental benefits, but some simple clean-cut 

 statements of a social need which nature-study can reasonably be 

 expected to satisfy. 



This is the reason, I take it, why Professor Hodge's "Nature-Study 

 and Life" is regarded in the May Review and in discussions on this 

 subject as the leading book. Its central idea appears to be that 

 modern social conditions demand of its popular educational schemes 

 something besides "book learning" and that the physical and organic 

 conditions that surround and limit the individual shall be objects for 



