CORRELATION 65 



the story of their lives or to describe themselves. It is no 

 doubt true that children like this style. It puts them on a 

 friendly and sympathetic footing with these natural objects. 

 And so long as the essential qualities of the thing are pre- 

 served there can be no objection to the occasional use of 

 such literature. 



But when it conies to the use of myths and fairy tales as 

 nature-study material that is used for teaching about natural 

 things, a strong protest should be raised. Their subject- 

 matter is admittedly not based upon fact. The mere fact 

 that the characters in them are often animals, plants, and 

 other natural objects is no reason why they should be used 

 in nature-study. They were not intended to teach about 

 nature. Their purpose is merely to entertain, or to teach 

 some moral truth, and in literature, not nature-study, they 

 find their proper place. To a certain extent the same ob- 

 jection holds for other allegorical or figurative representations 

 of nature. We find much of this in our best writers, Shake- 

 speare, Milton, Wordsworth, Bryant, and others. We enjoy 

 the nature literature of these writers, not because they teach 

 us anything about the natural objects referred to, but rather 

 because they reveal to us some moral, aesthetic, or spiritual 

 aspect of nature, and because they help to place us in the 

 proper attitude to appreciate it. That is, these writers 

 bring out the human element or interest in nature rather 

 than teach botany, zoology, or any other science. The proper 

 place for this kind of literature is not in science. 



There is no particular objection to the introducing or 

 closing a lesson with some literary gem, a bit of personifica- 

 tion, or a fairy tale, in order to place the children in a sym- 

 pathetic and attentive attitude toward their work, or to give 



