JUNE 13, 1884.] 
are among the foremost in scientific research, 
they are also far ahead of us in the thorough- 
ness with which they learn the modern lan- 
cuages and mathematics. It is probably safe to 
say, that the average doctor of philosophy who 
has just graduated from a German university 
speaks and understands both French and Eng- 
lish better than nine-tenths of American mas- 
ters of arts speak or understand either French 
or German; that he reads Greek equally well 
with his American compeer, and Latin a great 
deal better; he also has as good command of 
mathematics as the best half of the American 
graduates, and possibly as good command as 
the average American professor of our three 
hundred colleges. It would seem, therefore, 
that the whole story is not told, when it is 
claimed that the two studies alluded to, receive 
a disproportionate share of attention. 
President Eliot does not define very fully 
what he includes under the head of natural 
science ; but as he would give no more attention 
than at present to mathematics, and as such 
attention is absolutely necessary to any im- 
_ provement in our general understanding of a 
physical science, we may assume that he refers 
principally to the biological sciences, especially 
botany, zodlogy, and animal and vegetable 
physiology. The advocates of a scientific edu- 
cation will probably reply, that it depends alto- 
gether on the way in which natural science is 
taught, whether it should take a more promi- 
nent place in the curriculum. If the teaching 
is confined to the regular routine of the past, 
and is to terminate in the ability of the student 
to name and describe the plants and animals 
which he may meet with in his rambles, a very 
little will suffice, though that little may be im- 
portant. 
With this great addition to the curriculum, 
it is evident that no one student can master 
the whole, or any considerable portion of the 
whole. The president of Harvard is well 
known as an advocate for the optional char- 
acter of studies: in fact, he would permit op- 
tion much earlier than it is now permitted. 
Yet as he would require, as a condition of 
admission to colleges, a proficiency in three 
out of the four languages, — French, German, 
Latin, and Greek, — he would, perhaps, not go 
so far in this direction as one might suppose 
from the general tenor of his discourse. In fact, 
from what he had just said of the extremely 
imperfect character of the knowledge which a 
student can possibly get of Greek and Latin 
in the usual course, — of metaphysics from a 
single text-book of moderate size, of physics 
from a manual of a few hundred pages, of 
SCIENCE. 709 
political economy from a single short treatise, 
—it would be inferred that he considers such 
imperfect knowledge as not worth acquiring. 
‘However this may be, it is certain, that, in per- 
mitting a student to choose from the beginning 
that subject for which he has the most capa- 
city, President Eliot gives expression to a very 
popular view of the subject ; but there is some- 
thing to be said on the other side. One of 
the great objects of a liberal education is to 
secure community and sympathy of thought 
and feeling among the great body of educated 
men. If, now, among these men, are found 
very different natural aptitudes for special 
studies, it is clear that the end will be best 
reached by adopting a system of training for 
every man in that class of subjects for which 
his natural capacity is the weakest. If, as the 
writer suspects, the actual differences of capa-. 
city are not so great as the apparent differ- 
ences in facility of acquisition on the current 
system, and if the apparent lack of talent 
among students in special subjects arises prin- 
cipally from those subjects not being presented 
to them in the way in which their minds are 
best able to grasp them, we may entertain a 
reasonable hope of coming nearer a common 
system of culture by suiting the method of 
teaching to the pupil. 
The writer does not think that President 
Eliot squarely hits the point, when he indicates 
a preference for a thorough study of some one 
subject over what he considers an imperfect 
knowledge of a number of subjects. Properly 
speaking, a thorough knowledge of any one sub- 
ject belongs to a professional, and not to a liberal 
education. The author can do little more than 
repeat, what he has probably said more than 
once before, that the main object of a liberal edu- 
cation should not be minuteness of knowledge, 
but a thorough understanding and mastery of 
those elementary ideas which form the founda- 
tion of all knowledge. If any system of train- 
ing can be discovered which will enable the 
student to see the economical fallacies to which 
all men seem to be liable, on the subjects of 
the currency, the employment of labor, and 
the protection of home industry, as plainly as 
he sees the same fallacies when applied to his 
own every-day work, then that system would 
have the highest claims upon us, as supplying 
what was wanted to form a liberal education. 
The text-books adapted to such a system would 
be small; but they would have to be supple- 
mented by a large amount of work, on the part 
of the living teacher, of a different kind from 
that commonly expected of him in this coun- 
try. S. NEWcomMB. 
