him. It is something so new, and leads to so unexpected discoveries of other new ways, that it has a charm which can never be given by the "endowing with human attributes."

All the false representations of plants and animals given in the nature-study books and papers are so many wrongs done to the creatures and to the children.

In one of his "Talks to Teachers," Professor James has expressed exactly the trouble. "We have had of late too much of the philosophy of tenderness in education; interest' must be assiduously awakened in everything, difficulties must be smoothed away. Soft pedagogics have taken the place of the old steep and rocky path to learning." This is doubtless the reaction from the old severe methods of teaching, and it must have reached its height, or nearly reached it. Then we may hope for a more reasonable kind of teaching.

At present the tendency is to make all work so easy that the child finds no difficulties, so interesting that he likes it as well as play or stories. It might answer all purposes if it could be continued through life.

Doubtless it is easier at the time for pupils and teachers, and it may give the children considerable information, but it is not education. It does not fit them to overcome the difficulties or to face bravely the disagreeables which will surely meet them in life. On the contrary it makes them resent any effort and any unpleasant duty, leads them to feel that everything ought to be made easy for them, and that they are hardly used if they are required to work for anything. Instead of making a child able to cope with such difficulties as come in his way, and at least to make a brave effort to conquer them, it leaves him helpless, and with no idea of struggle. The child is deprived of the exhilarating sense of power which comes from doing a good piece of work or solving a difficult problem; the sense of power which grows into self-respect and self-dependence, and is essential to strong character. "Soft pedagogics" are like "peptonized food,”—good for diseased or enfeebled individuals, but by no means adequate to the needs of the healthy and vigorous.

Misrepresentation in nature-study is more injurious than mere "soft pedagogics." It is equivalent to the adulteration of food, and adulterated food fails to nourish properly even when it causes no active harm.

What is gained by this misrepresentation? Take the following instance, from an account of the queen bee's leaving the hive," She merely gathers up her thousands of eyes, her shortish but still valuable tongue, her basketless legs," etc. One is tempted to ask if these organs were scattered all through the hive-like the bones of St. Catherine in the various cathedrals. To continue the quotation,-" She is very generous to the young queen, who, of course, is her own daughter, and leaves all the furniture and silver spoons and everything of that sort behind."

What is gained by this? The literal child who heard this read promptly said: " Why, she couldn't leave furniture and silver spoons, because she didn't have any to leave! That isn't a very true book, is it?"

The brighter child's criticism was: "How silly that is! It's so stupid to pretend things like that when they couldn't ever be." Yet this child is very imaginative, delights in fairy tales, and lived Alice in Wonderland for weeks. But she feels the unfitness of "pretending" about animals out of fairy tales. She demands true accounts of the real creatures. This is logical and reasonable. Yet that very passage in the book has been quoted to me by a teacher as "so taking, so cute." One woman said, "Children like to think of the animals as having just such things in their houses as we have in ours." The children I know do not like such thought of the animals. They much prefer to know just how the creatures really do live. But suppose all children did "like" such false statements about the animals, would that be a wise or sufficient reason for allowingmore, for teaching-them to "think" so? If they cannot be interested in the animals as they are, should they be given representations of impossible animals as portraits of the real ones? This awakening interest under false pretences is not fair to either the child or the animals.

Another method of awakening such interest is to call some insects"friends" and others "foes" of man. This is considered "so beautiful" by sentimentalists. Friendship is a relation between two persons, or between a person and an animal, or between two animals, based upon affection, respect and confidence. It is a feeling of which both are conscious.

When an aphis devours the leaves of a cherished plant it is called a "foe" by some writers, and the " ladybug" larva, which feeds upon the aphis, is called one of our friends," because it does us good service in clearing our plants of the harmful aphids. Yet the "ladybug" larva is as utterly unconscious of us and of our ownership of the plants as is the aphis. Neither considers us in the least. Both eat to satisfy their own bodily needs. Where is the least evidence of friendship?

66

It is a nursery and kindergarten fashion to tell children about the "kind cow who makes good milk for you to drink," and the busy bee who makes sweet honey for you to eat." The child may drink milk and eat honey, but not because either has been consciously prepared for him by its maker. The cow's milk came for the use of her calf. The bee's honey was made for the use of the hiveful of bees. Both would have been "made" if there had not been a child in the world. Both have been taken from their rightful owner by the stronger power of man. Neither was intended for the child by the cow or the bee, both of whom were entirely ignorant of the child's existence-in most cases. Of course there are instances where cows come to a child to be fed and petted, but even in such cases the cow can hardly be said to "make" its milk for the child.

This method of "awakening interest" puts child and animals into false relations, and nothing is gained by it, except, possibly, an added interest on the part of the child. Since this interest is based upon conditions which do not exist, the child has no right to it. The animals are not interesting in that way. Why is it not better and wiser, as it is certainly truer, to give the child the facts about the plants and animals in as interesting ways as possible, and let each stand on its own merits? All are not equally interesting, even to the naturalists studying them with special aims and with more reason for feeling interest in them than any child could have.

Why not admit this, and study the creatures honestly, as they exist, giving to each its rightful place, recognizing its limitations, and not demanding from it—or attributing to it— thoughts, feelings, or acts which are beyond its powers?

This is the only fair way to study nature, the only possible way to study it; for the study of the creatures" endowed with

human attributes" is not nature-study, but the study of creatures drawn by the imagination of the writer or speaker, and often very different from the real animal.

Imagination is out of place when it leads to misrepresentation. in the study of living creatures, and there is ample scope for it in perfectly legitimate ways, without any such misrepresentation. Let it find its place.

All over the country teachers are complaining of the inaccuracy and valuelessness of the nature books provided for their use. Very little actual observation and experience in naturework is needed to show them this. Yet what can they do? Publishers publish these books, superintendents supply them to their teachers," and he expects us to be delighted because they have colored pictures, though the books are so untrue that even my inexperience can recognize their falseness," one teacher writes me. Another says: "If the writers would only write what they know instead of what they think sounds pretty, it would be easier for teachers who want to know the facts." Another writes: "Shouldn't you think the publishers might have some one who knows the subject accurately read every manuscript, so that the books might be true to life?"

With the specimens of nature-study given here compare the accounts of animals given by Ernest Seton-Thompson, each one of which rings true. Each animal is shown in its real life and feelings. No "human attributes" are forced upon it. Each character is consistent throughout, true to its nature. The tragic ending of the stories is painful, and to some children is too harrowing; but was there ever a child who was not "interested" in these stories?

Is the position taken by this superintendent of schools tenable?

SEA.

CHARLES AUGUSTUS SCHUMACKER, ONEONTA, NEW YORK.

Sunshine-crowned, snow-crested,

Wonder-waves, unrested,

Laugh and leap,

Surge and sweep,

And fill my soul,

And make me whole,

Here with the deep.

Wind-swept, hoar, and soundless,
Ancient, grave, and boundless,
O thou sea,

Ever be

As near as now,

And guard the vow

That chastens me!

EDUCATION.

FREDERICK MANLEY, NEW YORK CITY.

To still believe, thro' all discouragements,
That what the greatest is, the least may be,-

To win us from the vassalage of sense

That goads the soul to act unworthily:
To seek with love and hope unceasingly
Through all man's prisoning environments
Till we do find there his divinity,

And call it forth to light, and make it free!

To seek with tireless love like his who sought

The Lion-hearted King with minstrelsy

Whose notes of love his master's freedom wrought;

And like that loyal minstrel, still to call

And seek till unto freedom we have brought

The spiritual king that lies in all.