396 
NATURE 
’ 
7 
7 
and red. These are, however, only seen in the arcs as 
their lower rim, and by the forward’movement one part 
assumes a red, another a green tint. The red colour 
sometimes changes into violet or ochre. 
The spectroscope I have not had much opportunity of 
using here, but the well-known auroral “line” I can 
always see ; any others I have not observed. 
With regard to the height of the aurora I have, judging 
from observation, come to the conclusion that it does not 
appear at a lower elevation here than it does in the 
south of Norway, while I am convinced that its plane 
is to be found far above that of the clouds. There 
has often enough been an opportunity of observing 
aurore and clouds simultaneously, but never has there 
been the slightest indication of the aurore having de- 
scended to the sphere of the clouds, not even under the 
most violent oscillations and the most intense luminosity 
and play of colour. In fact I have come to the conclu- 
sion that the aurorze which I have watched at Kautokeino 
are identical with those I have studied in southern 
latitudes, while their plane is at the elevation which I 
estimated when choosing Kautokeino as my station of 
observation. 
I may in conclusion state that I have never myself 
heard the slightest approach to any auroral “ noise,’’ and 
this in spite of my most earnest attention to this so- 
much-disputed question. Still if I ask the native people 
(Lapps) about here as to the “noise” there is not a single 
one who doubts its existence, while several even assert 
that they have heard it. 
I have several times attempted to photograph the 
aurora borealis, but without success, Thus even by using 
the most sensitive English “dry” plates, and exposing 
them from five to seven minutes, I have not obtained a 
trace of a negative. The cause of this is, I believe, the 
exceedingly limited substance of light possessed by the 
auroree: were thus even the entire heavens flooded by 
the most intense aurora, their aggregate lighting capacity 
would not equal that of the moon when full. I may 
therefore assume that photographing the aurora borealis 
is an impossibility. SOPHUS TROMHOLT 
Kautokeino, Finmarken, Norway, January 28 
PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON EDUCATION 
GN the 16th inst., Prof. Huxley gave an address in 
connection with the distribution of prizes at the 
Liverpool Institute, a revised report of which will appear 
in the next number of the Journal of Education. By 
the courtesy of the editor of that journal, we are en- 
abled to give a few extracts from Professor Huxley’s 
address. He began by referring to certain propositions 
which he laid down in the address he gave in Liverpool 
fourteen years ago as to the practical value of instruction 
in physical science, its superiority to any other study as a 
mental discipline, and the certainty that in the future 
physical science would occupy a much larger share in the 
time allotted to teaching than had been the case pre- 
viously. He also laid special stress upon the fact that he 
was no advocate of the exclusion of other forms of culture 
from education, but, on the contrary, insisted that it would | 
be a serious mistake to cripple them for the sake of science. | 
He had no sympathy, he said, with a kind of sect or horde | 
of scientific Goths or Vandals who think that it would be 
proper and desirable to sweep away all other forms of | 
culture and instruction except those in physical science. 
After referring to the great variety of his past experiences, 
his familiarity with every form of society, from the un- 
civilised savage of Papua and Australia, to the occa- 
sionally somewhat over-civilised members of our upper 
ten thousand, and to his interest in every branch of know- 
ledge and form of art, Prof. Huxley insisted on the vast 
importance of science in education, when properly taught 
He pointed out, however, that unless the knowledge con- 
veyed in the teaching of science or in the teaching of 
history were actually realised to themselves by the learn- 
ers, it would be worse than useless. 
“Make it as little as you like, but unless that which is 
taught is based on actual observation and familiarity with 
facts it is better left alone. There are a great many 
people who imagine that elementary teaching might be 
properly carried out by teachers provided with only ele- 
mentary knowledge. Let me assure you that that is the 
profoundest mistake in the world. There is nothing so 
difficult to do as to write a good elementary book, and 
there is nobody so hard to teach properly and well as 
people who know nothing about a subject; and I will tell 
you why. If I address an audience of persons who are 
occupied in the same line of work as myself I can assume 
that they know a vast deal, and that they can find out the 
blunders I make. If they don’t, it is their fault and not 
mine ; but when I appear before a body of people who 
know nothing about the matter, who take for gospel 
whatever I say, surely it becomes needful that I consider 
what I say, make sure that it will bear examination, and 
that I do not impose upon the credulity of those who 
have faith in me. In the second place, it involves that 
difficult process of knowing what you know so well that 
you can talk about it as you can talk about your ordinary 
business. A man can always talk about his own business. 
He can always make it plain ; but if his knowledge is 
hearsay he is afraid to go beyond what he has recollected 
and put it before those that are ignorant in such a shape 
that they shall comprehend it. That is why, to be a good 
elementary teacher, to teach the elements of any subject, 
requires most careful consideration if you are a master of 
the subject ; and if you are not a master of it it is needful 
you should familiarise yourself with so much as you are 
called upon to teach—soak yourself in it, so to speak— 
until you know it as part of your daily life and daily 
knowledge, and then you will be able to teach anybody. 
That is what I mean by practical teachers, and although 
the deficiency is being remedied to a large extent, I think 
it is one which has long existed, and which has existed 
from no fault of those who undertook to teach, but because 
; until within the last score years it absolutely was not pos- 
sible for any one in a great many branches of science, 
whatever his desire might be, to get instruction which 
would enable him to be a good teacher of elementary 
things. All that is being rapidly altered, and I hope it 
will soon become a thing of the past.” 
Then as to the important question of time, Prof. 
Huxley said that all he asked for was that scientific 
teaching should be put into what politicians and states- 
men call the condition of the “most favoured nation”’ ; 
that is to say, that it shall have as large a share of the 
time given to education as any other principal subject. 
On the important question as to what should be regarded 
as “principal subjects,’ Prof. Huxley remarked as 
follows :— 
“T take it that the whole object of education is, in the 
first place, to train the faculties of the young in such a 
manner as to give their possessors the best chance ot 
being happy and useful in their generation ; and, in the 
second place, to furnish them with the most important por- 
tions of that immense capitalised experience of the human 
race which we call knowledge of various kinds. I am using 
the term knowledge in its widest possible sense, and the 
question is what subjects to select, by training and disci- 
pline in which the object I have just defined may be best 
attained. I must call your attention further to this fact, 
that all the subjects of our thoughts, feelings, and propo- 
sitions, leaving aside the mere materials and occasions of 
thinking and feeling—our sensations as all our mental 
furniture — may be classified under one of two heads: 
as either within the province of the intellect, something 
that can be put into proposition and affirmed or denied, 
Nae, a gS aoe 0 oe, 
yn 
[ Feb, 22, 1883 
