tions on their proper objects." This training of the facul ties, which constituted all of education to the disciplinarian and was the phase of education to which the psychologist devoted the greatest attention, though in a manner radically different from that of the disciplinarians, became to the scientist subordinate. In other words, for these latter the training came as a by-product of the process of gaining the knowledge that was necessary as an instrument or that had positive value in itself.

The same general arguments appear in popular form in the latter half of the century. Youmans in the essay on Mental Discipline in Education sums up the problem thus:—

"With the growing perception of the relation between human thought and human life it will be seen that by far the most priceless of all things is mental power; while one of the highest offices of education must be strictly to economize and wisely to expend it. Science made the basis of culture will accomplish this result. . . . The ideal of the higher education . . . is a scheme of study, which, while it represents the present state of knowledge and affords a varied cultivation and a harmonious discipline, shall at the same time best prepare for the reasonable work of life."

A generation earlier similar demands were made and similar principles of relation were formulated by Combe and his confrères, and embodied before the middle of the century in "the secular schools." According to these early scientists, the subjects which demand first consideration are those which treat of man's bodily constitution, anatomy and physiology. Second, come those which treat of man's mental constitution. Third, come the physical sciences, - those that treat of man's relation to external nature. Fourth, are those that treat of man's relations to his fellow-men, the moral, social, and political sciences. Finally, comes instruction in religion.

Thus, according to the scientific view, the knowledge of value in education is that demanded by modern life. In

regard to subject-matter in education the scientific view agrees with the sociological. In regard to the foundation of method it agrees with the psychological; for the thought common to all this scientific discussion is that training or discipline is not developed through any special activity, but that it comes through the activity that is valued in itself.

In their more recent form the views of those who solve the problems of education from the point of view of modern science are in advance of the arguments stated above, or at least are stated in somewhat different terms. These views do not differ materially from such as are expressed by those who approach the problem from the social significance of education, and may be summarized as follows:

The elements which now enter into culture are very different from those of a few hundred years ago. New literatures have developed to vie with those of the Greeks and Romans; the arts have been perfected beyond the dreams of the imagination of those ages; the new sciences have been created and there now exists a knowledge of nature and of her forces that in comparison with the interpretation of preceding centuries seems most exhaustive and positive. Conse quently it is necessary to define anew the liberal education. Studies are no longer considered to be liberal in proportion to their remoteness from practical bearing, but, on the contrary, in proportion to their direct relationship to life. A liberal education is not one of no practical bearing, but one which fits a man so well for his profession, for his life as a citizen, and for all of his activities in life, that he is very much broader than that profession, seeing broadly the import of his actions in his life in institutions. Civil, mechanical, chemical engineering, the practical application of any of the sciences may become learned professions, and the preparation for these may in itself offer a liberal education, if the individual is so equipped with a knowledge of the fundamental sciences that he is perfectly "free" through his mastery

of his subject, and "free" in the life that grows out from and is based upon that profession. Such an education must contain more than mere rudiments or the technical instruction necessary for a practitioner in these arts; it must include a thorough mastery of them. For such a career the study, of the French and German languages, contributing as these literatures may in the broadest manner to one's success by opening to him the experience of other peoples of advanced civilization, is far more liberal than the ordinary instruction in Greek or Latin would be. Similarly the social, political, and economic sciences, contributing as they do a knowledge of the complex activities, interests, and forces of modern social life, are liberal in the sense that the old disciplinary use of mathematics could not be. True, a man in such lines of scientific activity would need a most thorough course in mathematics, but for an entirely different purpose from that held by the disciplinarians, with a different selection of the branches of mathematics and with considerable change in method.

A liberal education is one containing the best culture material of the life for which it is designed to prepare; and it is liberal only to the extent that it includes these materials. The natural sciences most largely contributed to the culture of the nineteenth century. In a similar way the social sciences are now being developed, with much of inspiration, purpose, and method borrowed from the natural sciences. Every aspect of life and thought of the present age has been modified and given its tone and color by the development of the natural sciences. Therefore, an education that constitutes a liberal preparation for present life must include a large element of these studies.

But since it is impossible that every youth to be educated should master even the rudiments of all these sciences in addition to much of the old material, the representatives of this view of education have usually contented themselves with

demanding freedom of choice in the selection of studies and the recognition by educational authorities of the equivalence in value of the sciences in the course of study. In that this demand for the freedom of selection of subjects is but another interpretation of the education of interest, the scientific tend ency here agrees with the psychological.

With the prevalence of such a conception of a liberal education and such an organization of its subjects, it will be possible for the ordinary practitioner in any of the professions to combine a liberal with a professional or technical education. So long as these two types of education are kept so entirely distinct that the person who has the one cannot have the other, and so long as the liberal education is restricted to the mastery of a few subjects to which the majority of men who enter the intellectual callings in life cannot devote time, it must follow that the great majority, even of those who lead and sustain the life of a community, will continue to be denied the privileges of a liberal education.

In England the men who have contributed to the establishment of this view, chief among whom were Spencer and Huxley, have labored for the most part outside of educational institutions; in America the most prominent of such leaders, notably President Eliot of Harvard, have been in connection with universities.

THE THEORY OF EDUCATION FORMULATED BY THE NATURAL SCIENTISTS. While there were numerous writers of minor importance who continued the line of educational thought from the time of the sense-realists, it is not until the middle of the nineteenth century, when the organization of the natural sciences had become perfected, that a modern presentation of their educational claims could be made. The first of these, and yet the most influential, at least for Anglo-Saxon thought, was that by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903).

"Education, Intellectual, Moral, and Physical," by Herbert Spencer, was issued in 1860. The fundamental characteristic of the scientific tendency is revealed early in the treatise in his discussion of the importance of the selection of subjects of study as the vital theory in education.

"If there needs any further evidence of the rude, undeveloped character of our education, we have it in the fact that the comparative worths of different kinds of knowledge have been as yet scarcely even discussed—much less discussed in a methodic way with definite results. Not only is it that no standard of relative values has yet been agreed upon; but the existence of any such standard has not been conceived in any clear manner. And not only is it that the existence of any such standard has not been clearly conceived; but the need for it seems to have been scarcely even felt. Men read books on this topic and attend lectures on that; decide that their children shall be instructed in these branches of knowledge and shall not be instructed in those; and all under the guidance of mere custom, or liking or prejudice; without ever considering the enormous importance of determining in some rational way what things are really most worth learning. It is true that in all circles we have occasional remarks on the importance of this or the other order of information. But whether the degree of its importance justifies the expenditure of the time needed to acquire it; and whether there are not things of more importance to which the time might be better devoted; are queries which, if raised at all, are disposed of quite summarily, according to personal predilections. It is true, also, that from time to time we hear revived the standing controversy respecting the comparative merits of classics and mathematics. Not only, however, is this controversy carried on in an empirical manner, with no reference to an ascertained criterion, but the question at issue is totally insignificant when compared with the general question of which it is part. To suppose that deciding whether a mathematical or a classical education is the best, is deciding what is the proper curriculum, is much the same thing as to suppose that the whole of dietetics lies in determining whether or not bread is more nutritive than potatoes."