PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. | 689 
older times of naif theory, but is making itself very evident in these latter days. 
Anyone who has occasion to read all the books on the theory of Education as they 
appear, is impressed in spite of himself by the large body of doctrine that is 
common to them all. It is not that the books lack originality : each writer has 
his new point of view or his new interpretation of certain phenomena; yet each 
either baldly states or tacitly takes for granted a great body of truth that is held 
to be generally accepted. ‘Lhis body of recognised truth is gradually increasing 
as the result of collective thinking and the corrections involved in active criti- 
cism. Already critics are beginning to find fault with any writer who produces 
a book—not avowedly a text-book—that professes to deal with the whole range 
of Education. He is reminded that what is now wanted is a special development 
along certain definite lines. The general principles of Education are held to be 
established and accepted. 
In confirmation of what has been said, it may be added that within the past 
year or two have appeared no fewer than five separate treatises each bearing the 
same title : ‘The Principles of Education.’ ‘hese books are mainly for the use 
of students, and contain what are regarded as the accepted results of educational 
investigation up to the present date, ‘l'heir authors obviously recognise the 
existence of a certain body of truths on which all are agreed. In some of the 
professions it is customary to speak familiarly of ‘the books,’ meaning the 
standard works to which appeal is constantly being made. If among teachers we 
have not yet reached this stage, we are obviously far on the way towards it. The 
books are there, but the profession needs some time yet before, in its own 
deliberate way, it recognises their importance. By and by it will realise the fact 
that it has at its disposal material that will enable it to prophesy and thus fulfil 
the second condition imposed upon all who lay claim to scientific knowledge. It 
is true that in the past there was little ditlidence about prophesying: it was the 
fulfilment that gave trouble. Wolfgang Ratke supplies it not the first at any rate 
the most dramatic application of a control test in the working of educational 
prophecy. He went to prison because the people of his time did not make allow- 
ance for the insufficiency of the body of knowledge on which he based his predic- 
tions. ‘There was indeed nothing scientific about the procedure of Ratke. He 
was at the empirical stage, and could not rise above it. His modern fellows have 
not quite got beyond the empirical, but they are on their way. 
No claim is here made that Education has yet justified her demand to be 
recognised as a fully developed science; but it may be fairly maintained that she 
has at least entered upon the stage of scientific method: she is seeking to free 
herself from mere empiricism. In such a struggle there are at least two possible 
lines of action. 
The first requires some ingenuity, but is natural and pleasant. It consists 
in superimposing principles upon the facts of the case. 'The educational theorist 
inveits or assumes certain broad general principles, then proceeds to fit in all the 
observed facts, and often shows great skill in the process. This method is of 
very general application. Sometimes it is worked consciously aud deliberately, 
as in the case of Socrates’ doctrine of Reminiscence. Here we have the whole 
scheme of teaching simplified by this superimposed generalisation. Quite fre- 
quently, however, the broad underlying principles are not brought to clear 
consciousness, and are, in fact, sometimes contradictory to each other. Examples 
may be found in Rousseau. For our present purpose this tendency towards what 
may be called rational pedagogy is best illustrated in the system of Education 
elaborated by Herbart. Though the metaphysical basis on which he builds is 
generally regarded as false, it was deliberately adopted by him, and if it is once 
granted to him all the rest of his system must be admitted to be built up on 
strictly scientific principles. It is true that while logically Herbart’s pedagogy 
was built upon his psychology, in point of fact his pedagogical thinking preceded 
and dominated his psychological theory. While Pestalozzi sought to psychologise 
Education, Herbart may be said rather to have educationalised psychology. In 
any case he supplies us with a system that challenges recognition as scientific, 
whether the claim be admitted or not. 
‘he other method by which a study may seek to escape from mere empiricism 
is by dealing with observed results so as to reach the underlying principles. In 
this method, instead of setting up principles and making the facts square with 
them, we examine the phenomena and seek to discover the uncerlying principles. 
1912, Lae | 
