LB 649 
 i.R3 
 Copy 1 
 
 The Doctrines of Herbart in 
 the United States 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 Presented to the Graduate School of the University 
 
 of Pennsylvania, in partial fulfilment of the 
 
 requirements for the degree of Doctor 
 
 of Philosophy 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE BASIL RANDELS 
 
The Doctrines of Herbart in the 
 United States 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 Presented to the Graduate School of the University 
 
 of Pennsylvania, in partial fulfilment of the 
 
 requirements for the degree of Doctor 
 
 of Philosophy 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE BASIL RANDELS 
 
K 
 
 v^- 
 
 
 SEP 
 
 
LB 649 
 .R3 
 Copy 1 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction . . • . .5 
 
 Chapter I. A Sketch of Pre-Herbartian Pedagogy . 7 
 
 Chapter II. The Herbartian Movement in America . 16 
 
 Chapter III. The Educational Aim, the Aim of Instruction 
 and the Course of Study . . • .26 
 
 32 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 48 
 
 55 
 
 60 
 
 Chapter IV. The Doctrine of Apperception 
 Chapter V. The Doctrine of Interest 
 Chapter VI. The Doctrine of Correlation 
 Chapter VII. The Doctrine of the Culture Epochs 
 Chapter VIII. The Doctrine of the Formal Steps 
 Chapter IX. Conclusion . 
 
LB 649 
 .R3 
 Copy 1 
 
 The Doctrines of Herbart in tiie United States 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Herbartianism which has influenced American edu- 
 cational thought and practice is Herbart as found in the 
 interpretation of Stoy, Frick, Ziller, and Rein — most par- 
 ticularly the latter two. The designation Herbart-Stoy- 
 Ziller-Rein pedagogy is found quite frequently in American 
 educational literature. 
 
 When we recall the strange fate of Herbart in his own 
 fatherland, it is clear why this triple or quadruple name has 
 been accepted as the most nearly adequate title of the peda- 
 gogical doctrine which has become so influential in America. 
 His book on General Pedagogy, the source for all subsequent 
 developments, appeared in 1806, but received practically no 
 attention from the thinking public. The thinkers were so 
 engrossed in the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling, and es- 
 pecially Hegel, as to have no ears for the message of another. 
 Herbart lamented, "My poor pedagogy has not been able to 
 lift up its voice" (11 : 4). 
 
 Herbart remained a closed book until he received the 
 fructifying interpretation of his disciples. Ziller was recog- 
 nized as especially happy both in extending and explaining 
 Herbart. In respect to the doctrine of method, for instance, 
 the late Professor Vogt, of Vienna, has expressed the opinion 
 that it seemed for several years to be a lal3yrinth of concepts 
 out of which it was hard to make anything of practical mo- 
 ment until Ziller gave a clear explanation of the meaning and 
 showed how application might be made. The interpretations 
 upon the Herbartian text varied with other thinkers, who, as 
 well as Ziller, won enthusiastic followers for their views. 
 
 The Americans who were first instrumental in introduc- 
 ing Herbartianism recognized that in Germany it was a col- 
 lective term which included exponents of quite varied opinions. 
 It is evident that, studying as they did in Germany, they 
 would get their Herbartianism in some one of the systematic 
 interpretations prevailing at that time. As a matter of fact, 
 it came about that it was the Herbart-Ziller-Stoy pedagogy 
 which was propogated in America by returning enthusiasts. 
 
 We must picture Herbartianism in the educational Hfe of 
 America as a force both as it transforms educational thought 
 and practice and as it is itself transformed by the environ- 
 ment in which it works. It does not find unquestioned ac- 
 ceptance without a change. What we call Herbartianism, 
 after it has been developing here for twenty years, is the re- 
 sultant of two forces — the initial force as it comes from its in- 
 
6 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 terpreters in Germany plus the American way of looking at 
 life and education. 
 
 Perhaps the movement can be divided into periods, if too 
 much emphasis is not put upon such divisions. Before 1880 
 there were only stray notices of Herbart in America. From 
 1880 to 1890 Herbartians were preparing for their work, es- 
 pecially by study in Europe. 1890-1900 is the period of 
 propagation. Beginning about 1895 is a period of criticism 
 and the formulation of American Herbartianism. 
 
 There are some facts of a general nature which may be 
 stated here because they give a direction to our thought at the 
 outset. Herbartianism was introduced into America oppor- 
 tunely, not born as out of due time. Various events prepared 
 for its coming. American thought was bringing forth new 
 scientific and philosophical ideas which tended to clarify, illus- 
 trate, and confirm, or else to modify somewhat, the traditional 
 Herbartian theories so that they underwent development and 
 transformation into a sort of American Herbartianism. The 
 various doctrines were discussed one after another and this 
 fact partially accounts for the order of the following chapters. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 7 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 A Sketch of Pre-herbartian Pedagogy 
 
 In view of the main purpose of this thesis, there are a few- 
 points to guide in the selection of subject matter for this chap- 
 ter, which may be stated in the form of questions. What was 
 the prevailing pedagogy which Herbartianism was to sup- 
 plant? What were the most important topics discussed by 
 educators from 1870 to 1890 to which Herbartians might 
 make new and definite contributions? What solutions were 
 proposed before the advent of Herbartianism? On what 
 grounds were the answers made? To what extent were the 
 answers and reasons in line with Herbartianism and hence 
 preparatory to it ? To what extent were they in an opposite 
 direction? To use an Herbartian term, we are inquiring into 
 the pedagogical "apperception mass" of American educators. 
 The Reports of the National Educational Association 
 give the best idea of the prevailing pedagogy, as they also con- 
 stitute later on a good index of the progress of Herbartianism. 
 The meetings of this association were and are a sort of congress 
 of educators, serving as a clearing house for educational ideas. 
 Its reports are a fair index of educational movements. For 
 greater detail we may have recourse to educational periodicals 
 and pedagogical works. 
 
 The point of departure for all pedagogical discussions was 
 practical questions. Their solution was sought generally on 
 the basis of currently accepted pedagogical principles. 
 
 Altho the independent position of the American schools, 
 with regard to the church, made them targets for criticism, 
 there was no question more frequently discussed than moral 
 education. It was pressed upon educators. There was 
 scarcely a session of the N. E. A. at which there were not one or 
 more addresses on this topic. There was continual reiteration 
 of its supreme importance. "The central aim is effective 
 moral training." Speakers pointed out that intellectual train- 
 ing may do more harm than good, as in the case of counterfeit- 
 ing, where it may make a difficult crime easier. 
 
 There is little evidence of even an inkling of any necessity 
 for direct instruction in morality. They apparently think 
 that parables and anecdotes teaching moral lessons, history 
 and literature affording good examples, and maxims giving 
 rules of conduct, exhaust the possible relations between in- 
 struction and morahty. One man wrote that "act-impelling 
 desires are awakened by knowledge," but from the context he 
 evidently had in mind nothing more than teaching the bare 
 maxims of duty. In connection with right methods of learn- 
 ing, there are certain virtues such as honesty and persever- 
 
8 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 ance, that are supposed to result as by-products. This sug- 
 gests that practically all dependence is put on training, guid- 
 ance, and the example of teacher and community (105). 
 In fact, educational thinkers, thru presuppositions on the 
 nature of the will and the inherited notion of the unworthi- 
 ness of the feeling Hfe.were kept from seeing how the subjects 
 of instruction could contribute to moral training. The will 
 was a sort of unapproachable entity, or at best an independent 
 faculty. The abstraction, duty, was glorified sometimes as if 
 for the very purpose of slurring the feelings. From this point 
 of view it was difficult to perceive a relation between instruc- 
 tion and will thru the feelings. On the contrary, the feelings 
 were looked upon as seducers of the will. The very disciplin- 
 ing of the will had for its aim the repression of desires. Ex- 
 tremists even went so far as to cite brute animals as ex- 
 amples of beings controlled by the feelings. 
 
 Many a teacher must have been haunted by the fact that 
 there was no established connection between the chief work of 
 the school room and the accepted first aim of education. 
 The Herbartians held that the key to the situation lay in the 
 doctrine of interest. 
 
 In one sense American pedagogy was preparing the way 
 for a phase of Herbartianism by keeping up an interest in the 
 moral aim and by a half consciousness of the need of a bridge 
 between instruction and morality. In another sense, how- 
 ever, our pedagogy was putting difficulties in the way of Her- 
 bartianism in the form of a solution of the problem of moral 
 education which considered the will a faculty, applied the cur- 
 rent theory of formal discipline, and ignored the feeling life. 
 
 This fact leads to an inquiry as to the notions held by 
 these earlier thinkers concerning interest. Some writers on 
 moral training gave expression to statements that showed a 
 sort of appreciation of the doctrine of interest. One, for ex- 
 ample, said that the greatest educational need was that pupils 
 go out "loving truth, honor, and justice, and their neighbors 
 and their God." Altho in the address from which this extract is 
 taken it has little function other than that of an eloquent sen- 
 tence, the use of the word "loving" is an example of a wide- 
 spread pre-Herbartian notion of the condition in which a 
 child's heart should be. In this sense love can easily form, as 
 it once formed for Herbart himself, a transition to the doctrine of 
 interest. Some one else spoke of "kindling a genuine interest in 
 the things of the understanding," (105) but the term interest 
 was used without involving any systematic relation to morality 
 or the subjects of instruction. Its use was little more than a 
 prophetic glimpse of a truth to be later revealed. A com- 
 mittee on the educational value of common school studies, in 
 their report in 1886, also used the word interest. It speaks 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 9 
 
 of "the interests or objects of life," "the relative value of the 
 interests, and the relative value of studies in securing these 
 interests," (67 : 419) but the word "interests" is used in such a 
 way as to show complete innocence of the significance later 
 attached to it. The much used text book of Page has a chap- 
 ter on exciting interest in studies. But the sections of the 
 chapter — emulation, prizes, proper incentives — show the 
 special sense in which the term is used. 
 
 The function of pleasure and pain in learning had cer- 
 tainly been discussed in English pedagogy since the days of 
 Ascham, who treated the question at considerable length and 
 concluded: "Bring not up your children in learning by com- 
 pulsion and fear, but by playing and pleasure" (Scholemaster 
 96). Another had expressed the more common view that 
 "the Rodde onelie was the sworde, that must keep the Scole in 
 obedience and the Scholar in good order" (Scholemaster 47) . 
 This conception of pleasure in learning was associated with the 
 notion of making study interesting. It grew into a sort of 
 counter theory to the doctrine of effort which was the ofif- 
 spring of the doctrine of discipline, because, as it was argued, 
 the best resulted where the most effort was put forth. More 
 effort had to be expended on the unpleasant, therefore the in- 
 teresting and pleasant should be ruled out. The party who 
 favored making learning interesting received support from the 
 humane movements of the century and from the Froebel 
 Kindergarten movement. Those who championed interest, 
 however, were no match for their opponents in argument. 
 As the accepted basis of pedagogy, namely, the doctrine of 
 discipline, favored the opposite viewpoint, they had to rely 
 very largely upon sentimental grounds. The greatest im- 
 petus to this conception of interest came from Herbert Spencer 
 whose writings gave a dignity to the subject. 
 
 The gHmpse we have taken is sufficient to show the con- 
 fusion in the use of the term "interest" in popular speech. 
 It helps us to appreciate the difficulty of grasping the Her- 
 bartian doctrine and also suggests who among former edu- 
 cational thinkers will be the foes of Herbartianism and who 
 will be friendly — tho friendly because they interpret the Her- 
 bartian "interest" to mean what they have understood by the 
 word. This adds still more to the confusion. The pre-Her- 
 bartian thought had in one sense prepared the way by fre- 
 quent discussion of interest. In another sense difficulties had 
 been put in the way of getting a correct conception of the 
 Herbartian use of the term. 
 
 Another question often discussed was the relative value 
 of studies, the controversy over the sciences and classics having 
 much to do with bringing this topic into the foreground. The 
 earlier method of determining educational values, gives an ex- 
 
lO THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 cellent example of the older pedagogy in contrast with Her- 
 bartian thought. 
 
 A committee of the National Educational Association, 
 of which W. T. Harris was chairman, reported in 1876 on a 
 course of study. They were guided in their selection of studies 
 by two principles — discipline and usefulness. Reading, writ- 
 ing, and arithmetic had a paramount value over all other 
 branches (47 : 60) . The committee found the material of in- 
 struction to lie in two fields — man and nature. A course of 
 study was outlined into five parallel groups: nature, both 
 organic and inorganic; man, intellect, feeling and will. Arith- 
 metic, geography, grammar, histor)^ and literature are typical 
 studies in the five groups. If we substitute interest for the 
 subjects, we see a striking resemblance to Herbart. But just 
 that word — the key to the situation, was lacking. The fact is, 
 there was no further progress in solving the problem for 
 fifteen years. If anything, there was retrogression. The 
 more the thinkers of the old school worked upon the question 
 the more they enmeshed themselves in a tangled web. The 
 need of a knowledge of the educational value of the different 
 studies was strongly felt (48 : 48). 
 
 The report of a committee in 1886 on the educational 
 value of each of the common school studies may be taken as 
 typical of the results of the effort to solve the problem on pre- 
 vailing educational principles. There was a substantial agree- 
 ment among the members of the committee, and, in turn, they 
 reflected the general view of their contemporaries concerning 
 the standards for judging the relative educational value of 
 common school studies. In general, two values were recog- 
 nized — practical and disciplinary. Dr. White added a third 
 which he called culture and which referred to the mental satis- 
 faction or delight studies afford. Dr. Brooks stated the tests 
 a little differently, in that he said the value lay in culture and 
 knowledge, but he meant by "culture" the same that others 
 meant b}^ "discipline." Since knowledge is either purely 
 practical or a means to mental development, which is dis- 
 cipline, Dr. Brooks' statement resolves itself into the first. 
 Discipline was considered the more important of the two 
 values. 
 
 To ascertain the worth of a study, declared the report, 
 the educator must determine both the relative worth of the 
 faculties and the value of a given study in cultivating them. 
 It will not be necessary to go fully into the rather elaborate 
 classification of the mental capacities arranged in a scale of 
 worth (67 : 410). Let the following suffice as showing the 
 method of ranking the faculties: moral character ranks first 
 with a percentage of 100, deductive thought grades 95, in- 
 ductive thought 90, memory 50, attention 95, perception 70. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES II 
 
 The different studies are classified with the number of facul- 
 ties they train and the degree of training, with markings on 
 the basis of 10. A part of one example will illustrate this 
 curious system. The worth of arithmetic for training the 
 different faculties is indicated by the figure following each: 
 the language faculty 5, perception 4, memory 6, generalization 
 7, judgment 9, inductive reasoning 5, deductive reasoning 9, 
 attention 10, will 10. A third table is m^ade combining the 
 worth of the faculties influenced with the values of the par- 
 ticular studies for the faculties. The grand total will show 
 the true worth of a study for discipline. Now the studies may 
 be arranged in a scale relative to their value. They range in 
 value from wanting, worth 1960 units, to Latin which is worth 
 6230 units. 
 
 A somevrhat similar method, not unlike Herbert Spencer's, 
 is followed in ranking studies as to their utility. Of w^hat use 
 are studies for life, business, enjoyment, parenthood, society, 
 politics, morality? The method of ranking studies would 
 be similar to the preceding. Dr. Brooks does not carry thru 
 the investigation. He says, "I venture the opinion that the 
 solution of the problem from the standpoint of culture (dis- 
 cipline) is sufficient for all practical purposes in education." 
 "If discipline is attained, useful knowledge is usually ac- 
 quired" (67 : 419). The point considered of minor worth 
 bridges over into Herbartianism. It is to be noted that the 
 chairman of this committee, and likewise Herbert Spencer, 
 were thinking of the amount of knowledge that might be put 
 to use and not of the interests which might be created. 
 
 Herbert Spencer's celebrated essay on "What knowledge 
 is most worth" aroused a great deal of debate about educa- 
 tional values. No new principles were advanced for their 
 solution. The principles were discipline and usefulness. 
 Spencer's conclusion is the opposite of that of Dr. Brooks' just 
 quoted. Spencer says. Choose the useful and discipline will 
 take care of itself. 
 
 With all this discussion, the curriculum threatened and 
 still threatens, for the lack of an adequate selective principle, 
 to be an unwieldy conglomerate mass of studies. One class 
 demands that agriculture be taught because the farmer wants 
 it, another class wants political economy, a third preparation 
 for trade and industry, physicians want more physiology, 
 lawyers want law — a governor in a western state recommends 
 in his annual message that the penal code be used as a text 
 book — prohibitionists want temperance instruction, and so on 
 indefinitely (N. E. A. 1883 : 14). 
 
 Closely related to the selection of studies was their se- 
 quence. The topic was an old one in American thought. 
 Doubtless the Pestalozzian wave added to the interest in the 
 
12 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 question. Herbart had credited Pestalozzi with an earnest 
 effort to find the best order for the studies. Already in the 
 forties President Hill of Harvard wrote, with profundity of 
 thought, on the "True Order of Studies," but in the period 
 we have particularly in mind there was no carefully worked out 
 and systematic treatment based on principles. The chief 
 reliance was in the logical maxim from the simple to the com- 
 plex. However, there were suggestions of principles that in- 
 terest us because they prepare pedagogical thought for the 
 Herbartian principles shortly to be presented. 
 
 We may take for illustration the report of 1876 by Harris 
 and others. One suggestion for securing an order of studies is 
 that each of the five groups must be represented in the course 
 each year. There is a hint of that important principle of se- 
 quence: namely, apperception. True, it is not called "apper- 
 ception," but is spoken of as previous preparation. Tho not 
 systematically apphed, it is worth something to have even a 
 hint of this principle. 
 
 There is another suggestion in this report which may have 
 prepared the mind for the Herbartian doctrine of culture 
 epochs. It is the argument that it is the prevaihng scientific 
 conception of the age that in order to know a subject thoroly 
 it must be studied in its history, i. e., in its embryology and 
 growth (47 : 63) . Use was not made of this argument in de- 
 termining the order of studies, but it was urged in favor of 
 retaining Latin and Greek. Since they represented the first 
 stages in the development of the race, in order to know the 
 present we must know the first steps in the development. 
 
 Herbert Spencer, more than any other one person, made 
 American educators famihar with the notion of parallelism of 
 racial and human development. His treatment called forth 
 much thought and discussion. Spencer prepared the way for 
 the Herbartian idea, altho he applied the notion quite differ- 
 ently, being primarily concerned with the sciences; hence 
 his application to method rather than to the sequence of stud- 
 ies. Herbert Spencer is to be credited with advancing in- 
 terest as a selective principle for material and sequence. 
 "No subject is worth teaching which is not interesting," 
 would be a short way of expressing this principle. 
 
 In practice the child's capacities had to be taken into con- 
 sideration. Systematic child study had merely been begun. 
 In the United States it dates from Hall's study of the "Con- 
 tents of Children's Minds" based upon a similar Berlin study. 
 But Stoy had made such studies in Jena years before, because 
 any application of Herbartian principles depended upon such 
 knowledge. Child study has more significance for Her- 
 bartianism than is often credited. Its dependence upon the 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 13 
 
 intimate and systematic appreciation of child life is easily 
 overlooked by non-Herbartian students of children. 
 
 The principle which had the most influence in determin- 
 ing the order of studies was a logical one. A certain subject 
 has to be mastered before another is studied. In spirit, the 
 principle is anti-Herbartian, for it opposes the doctrine of 
 apperception. The latter says certain material may be 
 studied now because the pupil is prepared for it. The view we 
 are considering says that such and such material must be 
 studied because of what is to be studied next. There are sug- 
 gestions of the Herbartian principles latent in American edu- 
 cational thought. They need to be classified and systematic- 
 ally apphed. 
 
 We have had to refer to the theoretical principles upon 
 which attempted solutions were made. So far as theory or 
 science of education are concerned, America was practically 
 under the dominance of English writers, notably Joseph Payne. 
 W. H. Payne said in 1880 that Joseph Payne had influenced 
 pedagogy more than any other writer (N. E. A. 1880 : 45). 
 Bain's "Science of Education" was accepted as a guide in 
 England, and in a far less measure in America, in determining 
 what a science of education should be (40 : 236) . It was by no 
 means so popular or influential as Joseph Payne's writings. 
 
 The central thought of what may be called Enghsh peda- 
 gogy is the idea of discipline and that based on a faculty 
 psychology. All this goes back to John Locke. The most 
 popular American text book of pedagogy expressed the 
 thought in one sentence: "Discipline of the mind, then, is the 
 great thing in intellectual training" (92 : 97). Payne wrote, 
 "Faculty of whatever kind grows by exercise" (94 : 170). 
 English teachers had actually worked out in detail the dis- 
 ciplinary value, not only of the different subjects, but of the 
 different classic authors down to definite pages and portions in 
 minute detail. So in the spirit of such a pedagogy the live 
 question of educational values was fought out. The promot- 
 ers of new subjects, the sciences and modem languages, were 
 first concerned to show the disciplinary value of the new 
 studies. It is to be expected that a generation brought up on 
 such theories would fight Herbartianism. We will have oc- 
 casions to note some of the objections to the new pedagogy 
 based on necessary corollaries of the prevailing pedagogy. 
 
 It was often asserted that Pastalozzianism was the ruling 
 pedagogy before the introduction of Herbart. This view was 
 shared by Harris and many prominent educators. The 
 Pestalozzi as interpreted by Harris was the Pestalozzi as prac- 
 ticed in the schools, i. e., the use of object lessons for training 
 the senses and object lessons to provide material before ab- 
 straction takes place. The defect pointed out was that 
 
14 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 Pestalozzi took no account of previous experience as an aid 
 to perception. We are not concerned with the correctness of 
 the interpretation put upon him. We want to point out the 
 interpretation because later it plays a considerable part in the 
 initial stages of the Herbartian movement. 
 
 The kindergarten had been established, and the theories 
 of Froebel had won exponents. This is worth noting in this 
 place, for the American mind was predisposed by these the- 
 ories to accept Herbart with certain modifications which would 
 harmonize features of Herbart and Froebel. 
 
 Mentioning Pestalozzi and Froebel suggests a consider- 
 ation of the general attitude toward German educational 
 thought, before drawing the conclusion of this chapter. 
 There had been fifty years and more of intimate pedagogical 
 relation with Germany. A conscious influence in an unbroken 
 succession begins with the publication of books on Prussian 
 education, visits and reports of educators, the presence of im- 
 migrants, especially scholars exiled for political reasons in the 
 thirties and in forty-eight, and in the returning American 
 students singing the praises of German Universities. 
 
 Mr. Ticknor was charmed by an account of German Uni- 
 versities contained in Madame de Stael's book on Germany 
 (62). Soon after he matriculated at Goettingen University. 
 He was followed by such representative Americans as Everett, 
 Bancroft, and Longfellow. By 1850 there had been not less 
 than 225 Americans at German Universities. The translation 
 of the report of Victor Cousin on the Prussian system fell into 
 American hands. The state of Michigan organized her school 
 system on this model. Of the many notable educators to re- 
 port on German education from their own observation was 
 Horace Mann. The famous seventh annual report was the 
 more influential because of the opposition of the school-mast- 
 ers which it aroused. 
 
 Almost invariably we have heard the bright side of Ger- 
 man education. Seldom have the dark colors been painted. 
 German ideals have influenced more than German realities. 
 The criticisms in English have been generally of a mild na- 
 ture, such as Carlyle's characterization of German professors 
 as "miserable creatures lost in statistics," or Lowell's humor- 
 ous complaint that "German scientists have picked all the 
 apples of wonder. Perhaps there are two or three left in 
 Africa. Two or three have hitherto hung luckily beyond reach 
 on a lofty bough shadowing the interior of that continent — but 
 there is a German doctor at this very moment pelting at them 
 with sticks and stones." Severe criticism has been wasted, 
 in the face of the popularity of German ideas. 
 
 Under German influences and after German models, we 
 had evolved an organized school system,— borrowed the 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES I5 
 
 kindergarten in toto, revised and revolutionized the elementary- 
 schools, and added the philosophical faculty to the universi- 
 ties. As if to confirm us in our faith, there came, in quick suc- 
 cession, the unparalleled victories of Prussia over Denmark, 
 Austria, and France. Von Moltke's statement, "The school- 
 master has won our battles," was quoted time out of mind. 
 Respect for German educational thought increased, if that 
 were possible. It is obvious that the general interest in Ger- 
 man education explains partly the response to German Her- 
 bartianism. 
 
 To summarize: we have seen that Americans during the_ 
 seventies and eighties were laboring with the following ques- 
 tions: multiplicity of subjects, choice and value of studies, and 
 sequence of studies. They were troubled about realizing the 
 educational aim. We have noted the methods of solution 
 attempted, some of which Herbartians would have to discard 
 and some of which would be favorable to the new views. We 
 have noted the confusion in American pedagogy, and we must 
 have felt the lack of clarifying principles. Just as into a test 
 tube of cloudy liquid the chemist may pour a clarifying solu- 
 tion, so the introduction of Herbartianism clarified American 
 pedagogy. Herbartians isolated the problems and gave a 
 systematic outline under which the discussions might be car- 
 ried on. To the problems with which American educators 
 were concerned Herbart offered a solution in a systematic 
 form, under such heads as, the aim, apperception, interest, con- 
 centration, culture epochs, and formal steps. 
 
l6 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE HERBARTIAN MOVEMENT IN AMERICA 
 
 There was but little known of Herbart previous to about 
 1890. In 1876 a sketch of Herbart's pedagogies, by Dr. Karl 
 Schmidt, appeared in the Journal oj Speculative Philosophy. 
 That an account of Herbart should be first read in a magazine 
 devoted to speculative philosophy, and chiefly HegeHan at 
 that, is suggestive of the fate of Herbart. As at home, so in 
 America, the glamor of Hegel eclipsed Herbart, so far as im- 
 mediate recognition was concerned. It is the beginning of a 
 curious parallelism between Herbart in Germany and Herbart 
 in America. In 1878 Barnard pubhshed in "German Peda- 
 gogy" a few pages on Herbart which had previously appeared 
 in the American Journal. 
 
 Col. Parker said in 1880, before the National Educational 
 Association, that people had been accusing him of stealing his 
 ideas. He said jestlingly it was true — he had stolen from 
 Aristotle, Pestalozzi, and Spencer (N. E. A. 1880 : 471). He 
 does not mention Herbart as having also contributed. In 1882 
 G. Stanley Hall read a paper before the Department of Super- 
 intendence on "Chairs of Pedagogy in our Higher Institutions 
 of Learning." He made repeated and extended reference to 
 German pedagogy and asserted with emphasis that pedagogy 
 "was far more cultivated and further developed in Germany 
 than in this country (46 : 42)". Hall made a very compli- 
 mentary reference to an Herbartian — not mentioned by name 
 — whom he looked upon as the most active of the professors of 
 pedagogy, and reported that this professor was constantly 
 lecturing, writing, and studying children and methods (46 : 36) . 
 In 1883 Professor DeGarmo, in a paper before the N. E. A., 
 had occasion to refer to German pedagogy, but made no refer- 
 ence to Herbart. He did make this significant statement, 
 tho: "I am now on my way to Germany there to spend some 
 years in the study of pedagogy" (N. E. A. 1883 : 50). As a 
 motive, he said he hoped to return and help to lift American 
 Normal schools to a higher efficiency. 
 
 In 1884 a committee, of which Harris, Hall, Soldan,and 
 others were members, presented a report affirming that there 
 was a science of education. Mr. Soldan in referring to Herbart 
 as the founder of a science of pedagogy extensively taught in 
 Germany, praises him for his systematization of pedagogical 
 knowledge (48 : 64, 44, 46) . The vagueness of his conception 
 of Herbart is apparent in Mr. Soldan's statement that Her- 
 bart's aim of education was freedom. A report before the 
 N. E. A. in 1888, on "Books of Pedagogy," together with its 
 discussion, indicates how slight an impression Herbart had 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 1 7 
 
 made, for in this report he is mentioned no more than if he had 
 never existed. Pestalozzi, Rousseau, Froebel, Sailer, Fitch, 
 Macell, Latham, are some of the names used. 
 
 There was then studying in Jena, under Professor Rein, 
 a band of young Americans, who on their return to America 
 were to change completely the current of educational dis- 
 cussion. No less than nine had studied in Jena before 1890. 
 Among the first were DeGarmo, C. A. and Frank McMurry, 
 Lukens, Rice, Van Liew. Before 1900 the number must have 
 approached fifty. 
 
 The Jena Seminar is, then, practically the fountain head 
 of American Herbartianism. It has a distinctive vitality that 
 wins disciples for Herbart. Americans were greatly interested 
 in its organizatiou, and purpose, and freely discussed it. The 
 first work that counted toward the propagation of Herbartian- 
 ism in America was the quiet work of pioneers in encouraging 
 others to go to Jena. 
 
 If middle Germany, and especially Jena, was the center 
 from which Americans brought their Herbartian ideas, with as 
 much truth, Illinois, and esepcially the Normal School at 
 Normal in that state, was the center for their distribution in 
 America in the early days. DeGarmo taught here after he 
 returned from study in Germany, as did the McMurrys. The 
 first practice school on Herbartian principles was organized at 
 Normal (112 : 98). The School-Masters' Club of Illinois dis- 
 cussed Herbartian questions. The first Herbartian literature 
 of any extent came from that state. 
 
 Continuing to look upon the N. E. A. as mirroring the 
 progress of Herbart, v/e note first how gradually Herbart comes 
 into prominence. In 1887 DeGarmo presented a paper on 
 German Normal Schools. Herbart's name was not mentioned. 
 
 Note: The following is a partial list of American students 
 in Jena in the earher period : 
 
 Atkinson 
 
 Abbot 
 
 Almnio 
 
 Bloome 
 
 Blaich", Lydia 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Brown, E. E. 
 
 Boggs 
 
 Brochhouse 
 
 Dodson 
 
 Cowin 
 
 DeGarmo 
 
 Earhart 
 
 Eckoff 
 
 Ggalliner 
 
 Gordon 
 
 Gentile 
 
 Goodknight 
 
 Jennings 
 
 Griffin 
 
 Hall, J. B. 
 
 Klemm 
 
 Karr 
 
 Kleinsorge 
 
 Lukens 
 
 Mace 
 
 McCrecy 
 
 McMurry, C. A. 
 
 McMurry, F. L. 
 
 Moore 
 
 Noss 
 
 Rice 
 
 Rishel 
 
 Rowe 
 
 Russell 
 
 Sawyer 
 
 Seeley 
 
 Shaw 
 
 Shank, Burgess 
 
 Shank, Bemice 
 
 Techheimer 
 
 Van Liew 
 
 Whitney 
 
 Wilkinson 
 
 
l8 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 The same year Mr. Soldan contributed a paper entitled, 
 "Outline of a Philosophy of Education." On reading over 
 Mr. Soklan's paper, one sees in every line the Herbartian 
 source of the ideas. He treated in a purely Herbartian way 
 the six forms of interest, the ethical aim, and sciences, effect of 
 interest on the will, guidance, discipline, and instruction; but 
 Herbart's name was not mentioned. No one discussed the 
 paper. 
 
 A necessary element in any successful propaganda of 
 ideas is to have a party with a distinctive name. Without a 
 live personality about whom ideas cluster, it is doubtful 
 whether they will be speedily accepted. There were Galileos 
 and Newtons even in the mathematical sciences, not to speak 
 of Luthers and Calvins where emotions play a larger part. 
 There is inspiration in a party name. Enthusiasm and hot 
 discussion were later aroused by these same ideas, but by that 
 time it had become customary to make Herbart the spiritual 
 leader. 
 
 In 1890 Professor DeGarmo read a paper on the relation of 
 instruction to will training. Herbart's name was mentioned 
 once. The discussion which followed did not bear on the 
 paper at all. By 1892 the Herbartian adherents had won 
 confidence and were more outspoken. In that 3^ear Mr. Frank 
 McMurry read a paper on "The Value of Herbartian Pedagogy 
 for Normal Schools." He believed the dislike for pedagogy 
 was due to lack of system, declaring that writers on the subject 
 in English had discussed it in only a disconnected way. 
 Herbart alone, he asserted, had ever produced a system of 
 pedagogy in detail. The paper bristles with the words 
 "Herbart" and "Herbartians." The reason for the changed 
 attitude can be better understood when we have glanced over 
 the early Herbartian literature. One can readily see how the 
 growth of literature laid a firm foundation for the large ad- 
 vances to be spoken of shortly. 
 
 Professor DeGarmo was the first to publish works upon 
 Herbart. "The Essentials of Method," issued in 1889, was 
 the first work which gave an extensive account of any Her- 
 bartian doctrine. Thru it American teachers had access to a 
 considerable portion of Herbartianism, especially the notion of 
 apperception and the doctrine of formal steps. In 1890 he 
 published a translation of Lindner's "Empirical Psychology. 
 This served well to bring the spirit of Herbartian psychology 
 before the American public. Access to some of Plerbart's 
 works was given Enghsh-speaking educators thru translations. 
 In 1891 Herbart's Psychology was translated by Miss Smith 
 and published in the series edited by Dr. Harris. In 1892 
 "The Science of Education" and "The Aesthetic Revelation of 
 the World" were translated by Mr. and Mrs. Felkin in Eng- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 19 
 
 land. Dr. Lukens contributed "Herbart's Psychological 
 Basis of Teaching" to Noss's "Outlines of Psychology." 
 In 1890 Charles McMurry wrote "How to Conduct the Recita- 
 tion." He published in 1891 "A Geography Plan for the 
 Grades" and "Pioneer History Stories" for the third and 
 fourth grades. The first original American work coming at all 
 near a systematic presentation of the whole field was McMur- 
 ry 's "Elements of General Method based on the Principles of 
 Herbart," published in 1892. In it the Ziller-Rein interpreta- 
 tions are adapted to American conditions. The ascendency 
 of that interpretation is largely due to the able and sensible 
 presentation found in the General Method. The work lays a 
 foundation for subsequent developments. Not the least of 
 its merits is its simplicity of style. Rooper's entertaining and 
 instructive book, "A Pot of Green Feathers," was published in 
 1892. Articles by Charles McMurry, Frank McMurry, Noss, 
 Harris, Brown, Smith, DeGarmo and others began to appear, 
 in educational periodicals. Most of this literature was of an 
 expository sort. 
 
 i-The disciples of Herbart now sought the added influence 
 which comes thru organization. A Herbart Club was formed 
 in 1892 for the purpose of "facilitating the spread of the new 
 ideas and to promote their rational application in school work 
 under American and English conditions." An especial ser- 
 vice of the association was the translations of Herbartian 
 literature. Of these were Lange's "Apperception" in 1893 
 and Ufer's "Introduction to Herbart" in 1894. Both books, 
 and especially Lange's, had a vast influence on American 
 thought. 
 
 In 1895 a more ambitious organization was formed bear- 
 ing the name of "The Herbart Society for the Scientific Study 
 of Teaching," which name was later changed to "The National 
 Herbart Society for the Scientific Stud}^ of Education." Its 
 purpose was to give the doctrines of Herbart, as of other edu- 
 cators, a thoro study and criticism, "and to test all theories by 
 the standard of usefulness (19 : 20o). "Papers were presented 
 and discussed before the society. The proceedings were pub- 
 lished, and they exerted a widespread influence. The year- 
 books are especially valuable in throwing light upon the de- 
 velopment of Herbartianism. The society was not narrowly 
 Herbartian. Non-Herbartians were members and freely de- 
 bated the questions at issue. This open nature of the pro- 
 ceedings was manifestly for the best interests of the new doc- 
 trines, as they received readier hearing and a more searching 
 criticism. It is difficult to say whether the usefulness of the 
 society was due more to the avowed disciples or to those who 
 gave the movement their sympathetic encouragement. The 
 noted men who served on the executive committee in the first 
 
20 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 years of the society's history did not all profess Herbartian- 
 ism Of the committee Charles DeGarmo was president, and 
 the other members were N. M. Butler, John Dewey, W. S. 
 Jackman, E. E. Brown, F. M. McMurry, C. A. McMurry, L. 
 Seeley, and C. C. Van Liew. 
 
 During the first three years, the topics were purely Her- 
 bartian, such as Interest, Concentration, Culture Epochs. In 
 the fourth year, there was a partial breaking away from these 
 topics, and subjects not distinctively Herbartianwere taken 
 up. The organized campaign for Herbartianism is unique m 
 American educational history. Certainly the disciples of no 
 other educator were ever so well organized or conducted a 
 campaign with so much energy. 
 
 Herbartianism was not allowed to enjoy an unchallenged 
 triumphal progress. Its right to the field was disputed with 
 some bitterness. Before the Department of Superintendence, 
 before the N. E. A., before the Herbart Society, and in the edu- 
 cational press, there were sharp conflicts between the Her- 
 bartian forces and their opponents. The discussions partly 
 concerned Herbartianism in a general way, but the most fruit- 
 ful were those upon specific doctrines. In this chapter we 
 shall confine our attention to the general phases of the Her- 
 bartian movement. 
 
 We have spoken of the favorable attitude toward German 
 thought, but this assertion must be qualified to some extent. 
 There are always those who resent anything foreign just be- 
 cause it is foreign. So it was in this case. In one of the ses- 
 sions of the Herbart Society, an opponent, evidently in a 
 belHgerent mood, expressed his dislike of what he thought was 
 an implication that there was in this country no philosophy of 
 education "until this German plant was brought across the 
 sea " (First Supplement to the First Year Book of the Herbart 
 Society, 151). The Herbartians often took occasion to defend 
 themselves by the counter attack, that all Ainerican peda- 
 gogy was of foreign origin, from Locke, Pestalozzi, Spencer and 
 Froebel, and that it was none the worse for that fact. In line 
 with the arguments based on the foreign origin were tauntings 
 of servility to Herbart. These taunts stung. DeGarmo in 
 reply made the remark, "We do not worship our ancestors, 
 but we have a very healthy respect for them." (as above 152). 
 The meetings were characterized as storm centers, and, even in 
 the cold printed pages of the reports, one can see that feehng 
 ran high. 
 
 We may believe that for some of the older educators this 
 foreign doctrine was the more obnoxious because the men who 
 introduced it were young men. They are referred to repeated- 
 ly as "a group of young men." 
 
 Some of the objections just mentioned may seem trivial, 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 2 1 
 
 but they are a part of the story and must be recorded. Some- 
 thing much more serious might have come of them if the op- 
 ponents had chanced to have had a wit in their number who 
 could have raised such a laugh at the expense of the Her- 
 bartians as to have seriously hindered progress for sometime. 
 There is no mistaking the fact that for a short time the Her- 
 bartians were put upon the defensive. However, no wit was 
 forthcoming. This sort of argument against the Herbartians 
 did not cease at once. Later G. Stanley Hall criticised the 
 movement to the extent that too many regarded the Her- 
 bartian pedagogy as the "consummate formulation of educa- 
 tional theory and have tried to apply its rubrics blindly to 
 different American conditions" (33 : Introduction). The 
 criticism was asserted to be groundless by those at whom it 
 was aimed. 
 
 In the sessions of the Herbart Society and of theNational 
 Educational Association, there were a number of non-Her- 
 bartians who argued against the new movement, not simply 
 because it was foreign but in a different spirit. One line of at- 
 tack was against its philosophical presuppositions. To 
 abandon them entirely was the easiest way to meet these ob- 
 jections, in which case the arguments came to naught. In 
 this phase, W. T. Harris was the notable opponent. The 
 philosophers could get themselves into all sorts of difficulties 
 by following out what they thought was Herbart's philosophy, 
 and could show that it ran into all sorts of absurdities. The 
 Herbartians did not pride themselves on being philosophers, 
 and hence did not have so many troubles. It is significant for 
 Herbartianism in America that, from the outset, the meta- 
 physical psychology of Herbart was denied a determining 
 place in educational thought. The emphasis was put upon 
 the purely pedagogical doctrines, even tho the metaphysical 
 support which Herbart had created for them might be re- 
 jected. We can illustrate the position by quoting directly 
 from Herbartians and non-Herbartians. In the course of the 
 early discussions, George P. Brown said, "I do not understand 
 it (Herbartianism) to be a system of metaphysics at all, but a 
 method." "Herbartian metaphysics I can find no use for." 
 "Herbartian psychology seems to me to have little inspiration 
 in it" (First Year Book, First Supplement, 141). Col. Parker 
 declared, "The Herbartian doctrine is a working hypothesis — 
 the best working hypothesis ever presented for the study of 
 teachers;" (Same 153-155). Dr. Harris: "His usefulness in 
 education is proportioned to his uselessness as a philosopher " 
 (N. E. A. 1895, 345). N. M. Butler said, "It is undoubtedly 
 true that we cannot accept Herbart's psychology as a satis- 
 factory explanation of mental life, but it is not necessary in 
 order to secure the benefit of the educational theory and the 
 
22 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 educational practice that bears Herbart's name" (N. E. A. 
 1895, 349). A year or so later Professor DeGarmo stated 
 what was the probable attitude of American Herbartians, 
 when he spoke of the confidence in the doctrine of interest, but 
 asserted that they do not feel called upon "to break any 
 lances in behalf of Herbart's psychology" (24 : 141). 
 
 Along with the criticism, there was praise for the Her- 
 bartians who were spoken of as "the most modest of men." 
 One remarked truly, "These young men have set the teachers 
 to thinking" (First Year Book, First Supplement, 143). Col. 
 Parker gave it his warmest encouragment, for he believed no 
 subject had arisen which afforded so much food for thought. 
 He referred to the Herbartians as "the distinguished teachers 
 who have spent several years at Jena studying under the fa- 
 mous Dr. Rein" (Same 153). Hall, in the introduction to 
 Dorpfeldt's "Connection between Thought and Memory," 
 spoke of these same men as "a choice group of young Americans 
 who have studied in a post-graduate and professional way in 
 Europe and at home" (33 : Intro IX). 
 
 It was not long before the movement had i-eached "the 
 second stage in the progress of new truth," as one speaker 
 rather facetiously remarked. The three stages he had in mind 
 are: first, "It is impossible;" second, "There is nothing new in 
 it;" and third, "I always believed it." 
 
 Before going farther, it may be well to note who were the 
 Herbartians. In the earlier discussions, there were a certain 
 number who always said "we." These were evidently 
 Herbartians. They numbered such as DeGarmo, theMcMur- 
 rys, Lukens, Van Liew. There were others who said "they." 
 Those who used this pronoun, altho in some points they may 
 have shared Herbartian views, preferred not to profess disci- 
 pleship. Parker and Harris were in this group. There was 
 still another class who employed neither of these pronouns, 
 but who nevertheless busied themselves with educational 
 problems along lines of Herbartian thought. Among these 
 were Dewey and Butler. At best, Herbartianism is a collec- 
 tive term. It is not necessary to call anyone an Herbartian if 
 he does not want to be so called. The principles provoked 
 thought and were in turn changed by the discttssion. As that 
 is the most important thing we shall draw into our treatment 
 any man Vv^ho may have played a part in these events. 
 
 To turn to the more positive features of the movement, an 
 interesting line of argument lay in showing acceptance of 
 Herbart to be a necessary step for Pestalozzians to take. 
 Eckoff argue^i (33 : 39) that Herbartianism should supplant 
 the ruHng pedagogy, because it is explanatory v/hilePestaloz- 
 zi's pedagogy is only inductive. I Pestalozzi was the Kepler of 
 pedagogy, but Herbart is the Newton. Dr. Harris likewise 
 
 I 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 23 
 
 looked Upon Herbart's theories as being supplementary to 
 Pestalozzi's. If the American pedagogy was on a Pestaloz- 
 zian basis, and if it was true as claimed by the Herbartians 
 that Herbart was a completion and development of the Swiss 
 educator, it would be the logical thing for Americans to take 
 the step Herbart took. This argument was pressed with 
 energy. 
 
 Of necessity, much of the work of the disciples in the 
 early days was the clearing up of misunderstandings and con- 
 fusions which were bound to arise. Some were due to the way 
 people understood. Sometimics the advocates were not clear 
 in their own minds. It is not surprising that there was con- 
 siderable superficiality in the early discussions. It was to the 
 advantage of the cause that its opponents forced those who 
 professed discipleship to study and to consider more deeply 
 the nature of the real teaching. The fact that Herbartianism 
 was introduced in its principles merely, leaving the details of 
 practice unemphasized, is partially responsible for mistaken 
 ideas. The applications of the principles were left to the good 
 sense of the teachers. If the introduction in the form of ab- 
 stract principles, instead of concrete rules of procedure, 
 brought the danger of misconception, it also brought ad- 
 vantages. Herbartianism was saved from the kind of narrow 
 practical devices under which the kindergarten suffered much. 
 The principles made teachers think. A breadth of view was 
 also guaranteed, because the comprehension of wide-reaching 
 principles makes the educator take a point of view overlooking 
 the Avhole field. After all, it must be considered the good for- 
 tune of Herbartianism to have been introduced in its prin- 
 ciples, even if it thereby suffered somewhat in their applica- 
 tion. 
 
 Herbartian theory had the further advantage of being 
 developed from the outset in contact with children. This was 
 true in its native land as well as in America. The American 
 practical spirit showed itself when it came to dealing with 
 pedagogy, as well as in business. Americans did not allow 
 Herbartianism, to stand as a fine theory, but sought at once to 
 see if it would work. Newness should not intimidate Ameri- 
 cans, of all people, for they are used to new things — new tools, 
 new inventions, to throwing the old away and giving the new a 
 trial. Pearson, in "National Life and Character," points out 
 this characteristic in contrast with the European, saying "that 
 in England the mental attitude is, 'This can not amount to 
 anything or it would have been discovered long ago; while in 
 America the attitude is, 'If this invention is a good thing, or 
 this process is valuable, we want it'" (Quoted in Ed. Rev. 24 
 25:) . The obvious danger is that the new be given too short a 
 trial. 
 
24 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 In the case of Herbartianism, the critical season safely 
 passed, the movement spread rapidly. All the agencies for its 
 propagation were in activity. At the close of the first year 
 the Secretary of the Herbart Society reported a paying mem- 
 bership of seven hundred. Notices of the organization of lo- 
 cal clubs for the study of Herbart were received every week 
 (First Year Book, Second Supplement : 252). Plans for sys- 
 tematic study were followed by these clubs. Herbartian prin- 
 ciples found a favorable reception in the Normal Schools, for 
 Jena-trained Herbartians taught in them in several states. 
 Likewise, Herbartian pedagogy was a subject of study in 
 colleges and universities. As early as 1891-92, E. E. Brown 
 had lectured on Herbart in the University of Michigan. The 
 Herbartian literature increased in volume. To the writings of 
 Herbart already accessible to English readers were added 
 "The A. B. C. of Sense Perception," translated in 1896, and 
 "The Outlines of Educational Doctrine." The translation of 
 Rein's "Outlines of Pedagogics" in 1893 was an important ad- 
 dition to the list of Herbartian books written by Germans. A 
 large number were written by Americans and English. Many 
 articles appeared in the leading educational magazines. As 
 time went on, the literature became less expository and more 
 critical and constructive. 
 
 As a consequence of all this activity, Herbart's name was 
 known everywhere. Indeed, Herbartianism spread like a 
 contagion. The United States Commissioner in his report of 
 1894-5, said, "There are at present more adherents of Herbart 
 in the United States than in Germany" (U. S. Com. of Ed. 
 Report 94 : '5 : 322). He attributed this fact to the greater 
 freedom of discussion in America. An educator writing in 
 1896 characterized the situation by saying it was hardly pos- 
 sible to attend an educational gathering of fair pretensions to 
 magnitude or dignity without at least hearing Herbart's name 
 (55 : Int. XIII). American educators have begun to live, 
 move, and have their being in an atmosphere of Herbartian- 
 ism" (55 : Int. XIV). Looking at it from one angle, it is a 
 veritable renaissance. Viewed from another angle, the im- 
 pression is that Herbart had become the fashion. In America 
 and in the rest of the world, too, much goes by fashion. In 
 this respect Herbartianism shared the fate of child study. 
 In some ways it is unfortunate that such serious matters as 
 educational principles should be subject to fashion. Doubtless 
 Herbartianism's very popularity repelled some, but, just as 
 with child study, after many had been repelled and grown 
 tired, there still remained a large body of earnest students and 
 disciples. Alexander Darroch, the Scotch professor, must 
 have been viewing Herbart in America in 1902 from this 
 second angle when he said, "To some extent in the land of its 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 2$ 
 
 birth, but more particularly in America, Herbartianism has 
 become more or less of a craze" (12 : 2) . The truth probably 
 is that it partook of the nature of both a fashion and a peda- 
 gogical renaissance. 
 
 It will be profitable to turn from the general view to a 
 closer study of the different doctrines, for it was by special at- 
 tention to the separate topics that American teachers became 
 familiar with Herbartianism. Such attempts as Soldan's to 
 give a survey of the whole system as a system, were bound to 
 be fruitless before well into the nineties. The American read- 
 er and hearer were not prepared to grasp the whole system at 
 once. Moreover, certain topics were better adapted for first 
 introduction than were others. Those topics which were 
 most concrete or which had closest resemblance to current 
 American pedagogical activity were the first to receive intelli- 
 gent attention, even tho they were not first in the logically con- 
 structed system. The doctrines were introduced one after 
 another in order of concreteness and adaptation to the prepar- 
 ation of the American teacher. Thus the first discussions cen- 
 tered around method, then apperception, and next concentra- 
 tion took the most prominent place, to yield in turn to the 
 doctrine of interest. It is more difficult to say when the doc- 
 trine of culture epochs and of aim received the most attention. 
 All the topics were discussed more or less every year, but dur- 
 ing certain years the major part of the attention was given to 
 some special topics. 
 
26 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL AIM, THE AIM OF INSTRUCTION, AND THE 
 COURSE OF STUDY 
 
 "The one problem, the whole problem of education, may- 
 be comprised in a single concept — morality." With these 
 words Herbart has announced the aim of education. He fol- 
 lowed the spirit of the Kantian assertion that there is nothing 
 good but a good will. Herbart defined the good will more 
 closely by representing it as having five phases which he called 
 the five ideas or pictures of the will, the idea of inner freedom, 
 of completeness, of good will, of rights, and of equity. Ameri- 
 can thinkers were prepared for a lofty conception of educa- 
 tion. The high ideals which the Pestalozzian wave had intro- 
 duced were common property, in theory at least, however 
 much of a hold the notion of making an economic success may 
 have had on practice. "Character building" was a common 
 expression before the advent of Herbartianism. In the opin- 
 ion of Dutton, the concept was often sentimental, but Herbart 
 made it "Scientific" (35 : 53-58). 
 
 The educator can contribute to moral character thru the 
 will, permanently influencing it in three ways — thru training, 
 thru government, and thru instruction. The greatest Her- 
 bartian contribution was in showing how knowledge could di- 
 rectly influence morality. Beside the aim of education, there 
 is a more immediate aim for instruction, which is the building 
 of such a moral-religious circle of thought that a good will may 
 result from it. Or, since the will follows the interest, it is a 
 degree better to say that the aim of instruction is to awaken 
 interest. An ideal character requires that a many-sided in- 
 terest be produced. The final aim of instruction is morality, 
 but the nearer aim, which instruction in particular must set 
 before itself in order to reach the final one, is a many-sided 
 interest (59 : 62) . 
 
 The great influence and popularity of Professor James 
 prepared the way for the acceptance of certain points con- 
 nected with the Herbartian notion of the educational aim. 
 The Herbartians needed just the sort of psychology to which 
 James gave expression on the question of the relation of 
 knowledge to will and conduct, for example, "My thinking 
 is first and last and always for the sake of my doing" (70 : 383) . 
 In fact, the whole pragmatic movement in American philoso- 
 phy gave a powerful support to the Herbartian aim and the 
 way of its realization thru instruction. Pierce wrote, "The 
 whole function of thinking is but one step in the production of 
 habits of action" (Quoted in Jr. of Ped. 19 : 43). Dewey's 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITEDSTATES 27 
 
 statement that "ideas result from action and develop for the 
 sake of better control of action " (31 : 15) fortifies the Her- 
 bartian views and also contains a concept which gives a new 
 tendency to American Herbartianism. 
 
 In the first popularization of the aim of education in the 
 United States there were analyses of character not so very 
 different from those in vogue before the introduction of 
 Herbartianism (26). The five pictures of the will were at no 
 time more than mere words, mentioned in a sort of perfunctory 
 way. The writers did not seem to know how to make them 
 useful. Other ideas, such as serviceableness and preparation 
 for good citizenship, take their place. The whole tendency 
 of the American formulation has been in the direction of less 
 precise definition. It has tended toward more general des- 
 criptions which are more in keeping with the first chapter of 
 Paulsen's Ethics than with the Ethics of Herbart. Since 
 American public schools do not impart religious instruction, it 
 is natural that the religious phase of the moral-religious aim 
 has not been emphasized. 
 
 The American attitude toward the German classification 
 of interest, such as Rein's six classes of interest, is not unlike 
 the attitude toward the pictures of the will. In the early des- 
 cussions the German presentation was followed, but with time 
 the classification of interests became more and more neglected. 
 The American, like the English, mind is more interested in 
 particulars than in elaborate generalizations. The individual 
 man is deemed of far more consequence than any abstract 
 classifications of his interests. Consequently, it was thought 
 desirable to create specific interests thru instruction. 
 
 Standing immediately in the way of any large progress in 
 the direction of the Herbartian aim was the centuries-old doc- 
 trine of formal discipline. We have in a preceding chapter 
 noted the hold this theory had upon pedagogical thought in 
 America. This doctrine must be dislodged from its position. 
 The Herbartians criticised the doctrine severely, arguing that 
 it v/as based upon a faculty theory of the mind, which psy- 
 chologists since the days of Herbart had rejected. It was ar- 
 gued further, largely from experience, that educators should fol- 
 low the psychologists and discard an educational theory which 
 rested on a false psychology. As an outcome, the doctrine of 
 formal discipline was abandoned by the leaders in education, 
 tho it kept its hold upon much of the school room practice. 
 Gradually but sullenly the doctrine that subjects should be se- 
 lected for their disciplinary value has been yielding the field. 
 As the old doctrine gives way, room is made for the exercise of 
 saner selective principles. 
 
 Another of the older conceptions of the aim of education 
 which did not harmonize with the Herbartian was that of 
 
25 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 "rovmded development," but the criticism against it was not 
 so severe as against the doctrine of formal discipline. It was 
 enough to point out the indefiniteness of such a view, for, all in 
 all, it was comparatively harmless and had a good side, too, 
 namely, to serve as a text to arouse enthusiasm, even if little of 
 a definite nature came of it. Finally, some held that educa- 
 tion should aim at the practical; but, as we shall see, Her- 
 bartians only needed to qualify this aim to make it do service 
 in the direction of their own. 
 
 The most positive iVmerican contribution has been to em- 
 phasize a social aim. In the early discussions, both in Ger- 
 many and in America, the Kantian ethics was the source of in- 
 spiration for the treatment of the will, and hence the educa- 
 tional aim ; but in later years, in America, sociology has exerted 
 by far the greater influence, and has contributed a new and 
 widening concept. Education should result in a livelier social 
 consciousness and in more efficient social activities. Since 
 1900 the new view of education has become very prominent in 
 educational literature. The Herbart Society was recognized 
 as chiefly responsible for the enthusiastic effort to interpret 
 educarion socially (68 : 12, 231). 
 
 It would be wrong to say, as some did, that Herbart's aim 
 was entirely individualistic, for there is sufficient evidence in 
 his own writings to disprove such a notion. He maintained 
 that psychology remains incomplete as long as it considers 
 man only as an isolated individual. Again, he advocated 
 placing human conditions and relationships in the foreground 
 of instruction (59 : 25). Still it is probably true that the 
 original conception does not put sufficient emphasis upon the 
 pupil as a member of a social group. When this side is 
 brought into prominence, the center of gravity is changed so 
 that it could be said that the religious-moral aim of the Her- 
 bartians is socialized. Recently it has become quite common 
 to express this widening view of the educational aim as "edu- 
 cation for adjustment," since this new aim demands a closer 
 correlation of school work with social life. 
 
 Right here lies the chief practical importance of an aim, 
 namely, that it serve as a selective principle in making up the 
 curriculum. Courses of study will differ with the varying aims 
 of education held by those who make them. What material 
 shall constitute the course of study? is the question which 
 presses immediately when the aim has been determined and 
 the possibility of education thru instruction has been estab- 
 lished. Those studies must be chosen which will realize the 
 educational aim, since it is in this way that the aim becomes a 
 standard of selection. The Herbartians introduced the fruit- 
 ful term "educative instruction" to express this idea — an ex- 
 pression only too little used. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 29 
 
 One of the immediate consequences of abandoning the 
 formal discipHne point of view was a new attitude to the three 
 Rs. A classification was made into content studies and form 
 studies. The former were of primary importance, for they 
 could contribute to the circle of thought and the building of 
 interests. The position of form studies, such as reading, gram- 
 mar, and arithmetic, in the curriculum, is justified by their ser- 
 vice to the content studies. They hold a subordinate, altho 
 essential position! The way for such a view was prepared in a 
 small measure byHuxley and Lubbock who considered the 
 three Rs only a means and not an end in themselves. The 
 general tendency, since the advent of Herbartianism, has been 
 to give the content studies an increasing and the form studies a 
 diminishing place. 
 
 The new conception of the aim of education has resulted 
 in great changes in the curriculum. Especially the emphasis 
 of the social side has led to a broadening of the course of study. 
 In the preceding era Herbert Spencer and the scientists 
 pleaded for the natural sciences because of their utility. 
 Following up the work of Spencer the Herbartians demand a 
 large place for the sciences as having a practical importance for 
 members of society. They have given a higher meaning to 
 utility and have widened its concept. History, literature, and 
 the arts, as well as the sciences and manual activities, are prac- 
 tical, because they may result in social interests and social 
 character. Thus, the new aim has shown a breadth which 
 none of the others have. 
 
 Moreover, its value in determining what shall be omitted 
 from the curriculum is recognized. At a time when so many 
 subjects are pressing into the curriculum so as to overburden 
 pupils, lengthen the course, and result in superficial work, 
 there is need of an aim that is selective in a double sense: 
 choosing what ought to be included and rejecting all that is 
 not of most worth. It is quite generally agreed that the final 
 test of the fitness of each study for the curriculum is its 
 possession of a "plain relation to some need of life, either ethical 
 or utilitarian in the narrow sense" (88 : 197). 
 
 With German Herbartians the material for educative in- 
 struction belongs either to the historical or to the natural 
 science series. The former is considered especially valuable 
 in forming the disposition. Dr. Rein shows how both are re- 
 lated to the will, the first by revealing what ought to be or 
 ought not to be, and the second by showing what can or can not 
 be done. This classification has been especially valuable in 
 drawing attention to the educational aim. Altho its practical 
 worth was recognized by Americans, yet they took liberties 
 either in the direction of dissolving all classification (in a 
 measure, Col. Parker) or by increasing the groups (De Garmo). 
 
3° 
 
 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 The tendency was also away from making a distinction be- 
 tween the educative work of the natural science and the 
 historical series. The view has grown that whatever can be 
 brought into the service of man has its social side. The in- 
 terest awakened is not merely speculative. Dr. Dewey and 
 others have shown how the study of things may be brought in- 
 to a closer relation with the educational aim than had been 
 previously realized. 
 
 There was much said and written under the head of an 
 enriched course of study. The notable addresses of President 
 Eliot may be cited as evidence of interest in it. Undoubtedly 
 this movemxcnt helped along the Herbartian views for recasting 
 the elementary curriculum in the interest of the aim of educa- 
 tion. 
 
 An intelligent comprehension of the educational aim 
 alone is not a suflficient guide for the making of a complete 
 course of study. One can say in a general way what subjects 
 ought to be in the curriculum, but in order to be specific in 
 details and to find those subjects which will realize the aim, 
 other principles of selection must be found. Their use, how- 
 ever, must always be with an eye single to the aim of education. 
 
 Special attention must be given to two ciuestions of great 
 importance to the realization of the aim: the proper sequence 
 of the studies and the different portions of each study. If we 
 borrow a term from the laboratory we may say the answer to 
 the first question deals with the longitudinal section of the 
 course of study; the second concerns the relation between the 
 subjects taught and, to keep the figure, would deal with suc- 
 cessive cross sections of the course of study. The Herbar- 
 tians, especially of the Ziller-Rein wing, found an answer for 
 the first question in the culture epoch theory, and for the 
 second in the theory of concentration. Of course, the edu- 
 cational value of subjects will be determined to a certain ex- 
 tent by these new principles. Not only the question of suc- 
 cession, but also what has been said thus far about educational 
 values, is treated by Rein in connection with the culture epoch 
 theory. We mirror American practice better in giving a less 
 prominent place to the culture epoch theory and in considering 
 the choice of studies in immediate connection with the aim. 
 The chief importance of all the Herbartian doctrines except 
 one, lies in their relation to the selection and arrangement of 
 the studies in the curriculum. Therefore, not only the chap- 
 ters on the culture epoch theory and concentration, but also 
 those on interest and apperception are concerned, implicitly at 
 least, with principles of selection. 
 
 It is the genuis of Herbartianism to attach the greatest 
 possible importance to the educational aim and the aim of 
 instruction. It is significant that Herbart's greatest pcda- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 3 1 
 
 gogical work bore the title "General Pedagogy Deduced from 
 its Aim." The aim determines all educational procedure, 
 since the system grows out of the aim. Some modifications 
 which one may observe in American Herbartianism may be 
 traced to an American tendency to change the aim or to lose 
 sight of it while discussing individual principles. 
 
32 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF APPERCEPTION 
 
 Of all the Herbartian principles, the doctrine of apper- 
 ception was the one most readily accepted, because it could be 
 appreciated independently of the other doctrines of the sys- 
 tem. It was widely discussed and expounded. The first 
 public work of the Herbart Club was the translation and pub- 
 lication of Lange's "Apperception" in 1892. They believed it 
 the best book to introduce the young teacher to the new edu- 
 cational thought (75 : Int. VIII). The editor wrote of this 
 work, "His book will interest the simplest and instruct the 
 wisest " (75 : Int. VII). Rooper's "Pot of Green Feathers" was 
 republished in America, and its very title popularized the 
 notion of apperception. Dr. Harris saw in EckofT' transla- 
 tion of Herbart's "A. B. C. of Sense Perception" a contribu- 
 tion to apperception. All new pedagogical books had promi- 
 nent chapters on it. The leaders in education, ^mong them 
 Dr. Harris, thought Herbart supplemented Pestalozzi with this 
 concept, for Pestalozzi was not credited with taking into ac- 
 count previous experience as an aid to perception. At that 
 point, then, Herbart supplements Pestalozzi with the idea of 
 apperception which is esteemed of far more importance than 
 Pestalozzi's contribution. No other one topic called forth a 
 like quantity of discussion in the early nineties. 
 
 For a short time, it almost appeared that the general edu- 
 cational public identified Herbartianism and this doctrine. 
 At the meeting of the Department of Superintendence in 1891. 
 Dr. Harris referred to the "Herbartians whose great word is 
 apperception" (U. S. Com. of Ed. Report 92-'3 : 505). In 
 1892 the Superintendent of Public Instruction for Missouri 
 called Herbart "the apostle of apperception" (Same : 1658). 
 At a pedagogical conference Harris said: "The idea of apper- 
 ception is the most important fruit thus far developed by the 
 study of the psychology of pedagogy" (Quoted in Int. to 98). 
 At a later date he wrote that Herbart deserved the study of 
 the teacher because of his "painstaking investigation of 
 branches of study in view of their value as material of apper- 
 ception" (55 : Preface). 
 
 The notion of acquiring new ideas by the aid of old ideas 
 already in the mind, appealed to the common sense of teachers. 
 Of course they had been using the principle all their lives. 
 American psychologists had taught much of its truth under 
 the head of such terms as assimilation and association, but 
 the new term brought the truth to a conscious focus in the 
 every day school work. Its aim was to make instruction in- 
 teresting and was a key to memory. A knowledge of apper- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 33 
 
 ception helped in determining the arrangements of topics and 
 the association of studies. It could be used in all these di- 
 rections even by teachers who were not aware that its primary- 
 function was to assure the basis for right interests. The result 
 was its diligent use in the school room. David Salmon, 
 writing in 1900 on "Impressions of American Education," 
 says, "I found everywhere the theory of apperception not a 
 dead dogma receiving mere tacit assent (like the Athanasian 
 creed), but a living principle" (Ed. Rev. 19 : 38). 
 
 The theory met with practically no adverse criticism. 
 Some of the older pedagogs thought there was too much ado 
 made over it. Some psychologists discredited the term. 
 Professor James thought psychology could very easily dis- 
 pense with the word (70 : 320) . It is significant that, at least 
 by implication, he admits the importance and usefulness of 
 apperception for pedagogy. A more serious objection, made 
 more recently, tends to give certain reasonable limits to the 
 use of the principle in teaching. It calls attention to the fact 
 that, in memorizing, repetition is an essential element. If ap- 
 perception is depended upon entirel}^ as a means of retention, 
 and the principle of repetition is neglected, the results are by no 
 means satisfactory. The criticism on this point of the pu- 
 pil's lack of retention of a certain minimum which ought to be 
 remembered, was often aimed wrongly at a misconstrued doc- 
 trine of interest or at Herbartian pedagogics in general. It is 
 only recently that it has been directed toward the real diffi- 
 culty, namely, an excessive reliance upon apperception. 
 Probably the research into the problem of learning and 
 memory by experiments in psychology and pedagogy has 
 made some educators conscious of a healthy and reasonable 
 limitation of appercepion as a means of learning. 
 
 At this point may be made some comparisons of the place 
 of apperception in American Herbartianism and in the German. 
 It has not experienced a development nor been given a dis- 
 tinctive American color so much as the other doctrines. Dr. 
 Harris said, "His doctrine of apperception does not need cor- 
 rection" (N. E. A. 1895 : 345). The one American contribu- 
 tion may be said to be the consciousness of the limiting prin- 
 ciple to which reference has already been made. Judging 
 from the amount of literature distinctively upon apperception 
 as compared with other topics, that subject may be said to 
 have been given a more prominent place than in German 
 pedagogy. It is also treated more independently, i. e., less as 
 a dependent and integral part of the whole pedagogical sys- 
 tem. As a consequence of the independent consideration 
 given the doctrine, it is more than likely that it is often con- 
 sidered an end instead of a means. Consequently it plays a 
 smaller part as a selective principle. When it is so used, it is 
 
34 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 most often disguised as a mental ability, which of course in- 
 cludes apperceptive power and natural ability. All subject 
 matter should be within the comprehension of the child. In 
 this form it has considerable influence also as a selective rule. 
 Altho not used to the extent of its possibiHties in this latter 
 respect, and altho in the sphere of method often overworked 
 and sometimes used mechanically, still it is obvious that it has 
 had a stimulating effect on American teaching. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 35 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF INTEREST 
 
 By virtue of its inherent importance, the subject of in- 
 terest gravitated to the center of the discussion, becoming the 
 topic of the earHest controversies. It was felt to be the kernel 
 of Herbartianism (24 : 141). 
 
 An objection was made by the philosophers among the edu- 
 cators, on the ground that interest destroyed the will, that it 
 was a makeshift substitute for the will. It was in partial 
 answer to this objection that a similarity between love and in- 
 terest was pointed out. Love, which was an orthodox end of 
 education, was made a stepping-stone to the notion of interest. 
 This is in curious parallelism to an incident in Herbart's own 
 life, for he himself had occasion to substitute definitely the 
 word "interest" for "love" as used by another writer (55 : 75). 
 
 From what we have already noted about interest in pre- 
 Herbartian pedagogy, we are prepared to appreciate the fact 
 that there was considerable confusion in the use of the newly 
 introduced concept. There were some mild-natured people 
 who saw an ally in Herbart. They interpreted him of course to 
 mean "making the lessons interesting." This, they could say, 
 they always had believed in. Such disciples naturally would 
 propagate an error and travesty the real doctrine; they could 
 not help bringing it into ill repute. There were those of a 
 severer type who thought Herbart stood for just that idea, and, 
 in dislike of a flabby doctrine so incompatible with that of dis- 
 cipline, would have driven it out without giving it a hearing. 
 Dr. White in scorn called Herbart's theory of interest a "soup 
 theory." 
 
 In the same paragraph, he voiced a second objection to 
 the theory, namely, that it was indefinite. Dr. Galbreath 
 showed by example how there was a confusion. He said, "In- 
 terest is to guide us in the treatment of subjects, and we are 
 also talking of the interest of the child as a guide to him in his 
 work" (Fourth Year Book, 109). There was certainly a 
 double meaning here that caused a great amount of confusion. 
 Even Herbartians were baffled by the confusion which reigned. 
 
 The Herbartians had their work cut out for them by the 
 nature of the objections. As De Garmo later said, in the 
 sentence already quoted, they had gone by faith in the right- 
 ness of the cause. Evidently, an analysis of the whole 'lues- 
 tion of interest was needed. Much of the early controversy 
 was due to the fact that the true meaning of the doctrine was 
 neither clearly presented nor yet completely understood. 
 What interest means and what it does not mean had to be so 
 clearly stated that all misleading preconceptions would be re- 
 
36 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 moved. An adequate presentation involved an interpretation 
 in terms of native Am.erican philosophical and psychological 
 thought, even tho it apparently should give a new meaning to 
 the concept of interest. The first adequate analysis was given 
 by Dr. Dewey. He analyzed the pedagogical doctrine of in- 
 terest and showed how Herbart was substantially correct. 
 He proved most conclusively how interest in the Herbartian 
 sense had nothing to do with the pleasurable as such. It does 
 not even mean that objects of knowledge must be made in- 
 teresting. An Herbartian leader writes along this line: "In- 
 terest is not excited simply in order that one may learn better, 
 i. e., more knowledge be acquired. This is the usual view but 
 it is not Herbartian" (86 : 427). It is false to associate Her- 
 bartian interest with any gingerbread theory of education. 
 This point, that pleasure and interest can not be identified, was 
 made so clear that there ought to be no longer any question 
 about the Herbartian viev/. No more can there be fellowship, 
 on the other hand, with the party which advocated effort for 
 the sake of discipline. This negative description of interest 
 brought it into relief and, by removing some preconceptions, 
 opened the field for positive statements. 
 
 It could now come home with force that Herbart had in 
 mind to arouse and build interest as a means of influencing 
 conduct. This is the central fact of Herbartian interest. The 
 kind of character one has is dependent upon the sort of in- 
 terests resulting from his education. There is a sternness and 
 seriousness in this central doctrine of Herbartianism, which 
 ought to silence any who attempt to identify interest with any 
 trifling pleasure. However, it has proved an extremely hard 
 matter to keep the true notion in the center of thought and dis- 
 cussion. The old conflict constantly recurs, distracting at- 
 tention from the main thought. 
 
 It is a part of the service of Dr. Dewey to show a valid re- 
 lation between interest as an outcome of education and interest 
 as a motive in learning and a means in education, a question 
 which had been so long a stumbling block in America. Its so- 
 lution came thru a consideration of the psychological phases of 
 interest. As mentioned in a preceding chapter, it was a very 
 common thing for American Herbartians to reject the Her- 
 bartian psychology and philosophy. Unlike most^of the men 
 who discussed Herbartian topics, Dr. Dewey was a psycholo- 
 gist. He also felt it necessary to reject entirely the psycholo- 
 gy Herbart had created and to make a new psychological basis. 
 He wrote, "I do not see how the psychologj' and pedagogy of 
 interest among Herbartians can possibly be made to square 
 with each other" (30 : 237). 
 
 The original character of interest must be sought in im- 
 pulse, instincts, and feeling. The intellectual basis, so promi- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 37 
 
 nent in Herbart, yields to one in which impulse or will is the 
 chief characteristic. Dr. Dewey pressed his behef in the 
 fundamental nature of impulsive hfe in interest. "All con- 
 duct springs ultimately and radically out of native instincts 
 and impulses" (28 : 27). By way of example our attention is 
 called to the close relation between instincts and conduct — 
 how we have certain interests because we have certain in- 
 stincts. De Garmo has worked out this relationship in more 
 detail, discussing the range from the most primitive instincts 
 which aid in self-preservation to the instinctive reactions at 
 the basis of social conduct. 
 
 James's attractive view of the selves helped to prepare 
 Americans for such a view of the psychological basis of in- 
 terest as Dewey and DeGarmo presented. In the process of 
 the developm.ent of the self — in self-expression — interests are 
 present, one set of interests giving way to another at different 
 stages of development. Such a view does not belittle the im- 
 portance of the ideas which are a necessary basis for the in- 
 terests, but it does emphasize the willing life as primary and 
 the source of interests. Now, with this new psychological 
 basis, the way is opened for using interest not only as a motive 
 but also as an end. This sense has to be always carefully dis- 
 tinguished from its primary and original Herbartian meaning. 
 It is possible to use it in a way that does justice to the popular 
 view and does not do violence to the original. It is a neces- 
 sary corollary of that view. Dewey speaks of interests in this 
 sense as signs and symptoms of dawning capacities, and indices 
 of the material upon which the child may work most fruitfully 
 (31 ; 16). What a child is interested in, then, is suggestive of 
 what ideas may be most easily acquired. Hence they form 
 the basis of permanent interests. Economical teaching de- 
 mands that subject matter be chosen which will most probably 
 be interesting at the same time. To state the same idea 
 negatively, as is commonly done, nothing should be brought 
 into the course which is not likely to be interesting, unless de- 
 manded by the consideration of the aim (88 : 197). We have 
 here one use of interest as a selective principle upon which 
 considerable reliance is placed. But it is far from Herbartian- 
 ism to say, "Follow all interests": it says, rather, "Create in- 
 terests which lead to the ultimate educational aim." Ameri- 
 can Herbartianism has shov/n how and when it is possible to 
 use native interests as starting points, and further, that where 
 there is interest the operations of acquiring are relatively easy. 
 
 Credit was given Dr. Dewey for eliminating the psycho- 
 logical objections, and his monograph was warmly received by 
 the Herbartians. His psychological analysis was accepted in 
 place of Herbart's, since he had expressed for the Herbartians 
 what they felt and believed but were unable to reduce to 
 
38 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 words SO successfully (24 : 143). The question was con- 
 sidered settled, and for a long time the public discussion of in- 
 terest was less general. As an indication of this, Professor 
 Shaw edited in 1889 a translation of Ostermann's "Interest in 
 its Relation to Pedagogy," with the purpose of reviving the 
 subject. 
 
 It is hard to overestimate the importance of the work of 
 Dewey and DeGarmo in the development of a doctrine of in- 
 terest. Nevertheless, there were some drawbacks to their ex- 
 position. It is sometimes rather bewildering. This is a 
 criticism brought against the Dewey monograph, on its first 
 reading. If it created a new basis, it did not insure its being 
 understood. The discussion cleared up some errors, but it is 
 not free from responsibility for some minor mistakes in theory 
 and practice. In carrying on a sharp fight against the doc- 
 trine of effort and formal drill then prevailing, it was easy to go 
 too far. Of course, effort for the sake of discipline can never 
 be upheld; but the argument ought never to be driven so far 
 as absolutely to banish from the school room effort, even of an 
 unpleasant nature. Naturally, if left, it is for another reason 
 than discipline. Herbartians demanded that interests of a 
 right sort be formed. Action and interest do result from 
 ideas, whether they are in themselves interesting or not. 
 When it is desired to form a certain interest with no native in- 
 terests to build upon, it is the duty of the strict Herbartian to 
 marshall the ideas necessary for such an end, even if old time 
 effort has to be used. Could the result be reached by the path 
 of the interesting, then so much the better; but reached it 
 must be. Unfortunately, many lost sight of the central fact 
 of the theory of interest and thought they were doing Her- 
 bartian service if only all effort were banished from the school. 
 The Herbartians were blamed for the false position. It may 
 often require memorizing to firmly fix ideas that are to insure 
 a permanent interest. The memorized material may be vi- 
 tally necessary for a groundwork. More in a private way 
 than thru public discussion, Herbartians are seeing the mis- 
 take of over-forcing the fight against effort, for there are oc- 
 casions when it is the only way to reach interest in the primary 
 sense. It is a question of insisting, as McMurry does, that the 
 nature of the child shall not control in the selection of subject 
 matter. "The nature of the child is the second factor in in- 
 fluence" (Second Year Book of the Society for the Scientific 
 Study of Education 49) . The educational aim is of first import- 
 ance. Such a position is not only good Herbartianism, but a 
 necessary position to hold at a time v/hen experimental peda- 
 gogy is coming to the front, a pedagogy which has to do very 
 largely with questions of economy of learning where effort is 
 chiefly relied upon to get results. After all, it is not an easy 
 
THE DOCTRIXES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 39 
 
 matter to hold fast the idea of interest in both the primary and 
 the secondary sense. It is so easy to overemphasize the latter. 
 Wherever this is done, there is an unsettled sort of teaching 
 that does not often reach any definite goal. 
 
 The Americans have not kept up the systematic classifi- 
 cations of interests which Herbart made, but in a measure, 
 they have replaced it by reference to particular interests. It is 
 in harmony with American thought to abandon highly worked- 
 out classifications, since they savor too much of pedantry. 
 
 During the discussions, the concept of interest has been 
 illuminated from several sides. It has been given a place in 
 the general scheme of development as worked out by psy- 
 chologists, and has been enriched thru its connection with the 
 notion of self-expression and self-activity. Whether the latter 
 concept is familiar to American teachers thru Froebel, or is a 
 reminder of Hegel to some, among them Harris, it has con- 
 tributed to the complete concept of interest as now held. The 
 Herbartians' profiting from Child Study has given interest a 
 definite place in relation to the instincts, emotions, and 
 self-activities and to their stages of development. After in- 
 terest has been considered in these new relationships, it ap- 
 pears a different and a richer concept. The original orthodox 
 meaning, however, is still at the center and can not be held too 
 tenaciously. If interest seems of a different color now, it is 
 because of its immersion in American psychology and philoso- 
 phy. 
 
40 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CORRELATION 
 
 The congested and crowded nature of the school pro- 
 grams had been a matter of concern to practical men for sever- 
 al years. Such vigorous complaints had been expressed 
 against the multiplicity of subjects, that any principle which 
 promised relief by concentrating the school studies and by 
 making the curriculum less unwieldy was sure of a hearing. 
 In the Herbartian doctrine of concentration, some saw what 
 they thought was a remedy for all these evils. Others, after 
 thinking over the Herbartian solution, devised variations of 
 their own, which they held with the same pride that men usu- 
 ally attach to their own creations. Some favored concentra- 
 tion, others correlation, and still others co-ordination. Those 
 who favored concentration in a narrow sense selected different 
 subjects for the core. Likewise among those who favored 
 correlation or co-ordination, there was large variation in the 
 grouping. To add to the confusion, the terms were often used 
 synonomously. All in all, it is probable that concentration 
 received more attention than any other one theory, being on 
 the crest of the Herbartian wave immediately following that 
 devoted to apperception. It was widely used and misused in 
 the school room, and was a common topic of discussion exerting 
 wide influence. President Butler, in writing of the work of 
 the Committee of Ten, says, "Neither the Committee of Ten 
 nor the conferences contained a single person who may be 
 classed as a follower of Herbartian educational theory as ex- 
 emphfied by Ziller, Stoy and Rein, yet by purely empirical 
 methods the committee and the conferences arrived at a strik- 
 ing confirmation of the main doctrines of the Herbartians — 
 the co-ordination and correlation of studies" (9 : 77). 
 
 The interest in the theory became so great that in 1893 
 the Department of Superintendence appointed a committee 
 of fifteen on elementary studies, one of whose specific problems 
 was the correlation of studies. In making its report in 1895, it 
 aroused discussion thruout the land. At the first meeting of 
 the Herbart Society one of the topics discussed was concentra- 
 tion. As a matter of fact, it monopolized the attention of the 
 society. 
 
 The doctrine had a marked influence on school work. 
 The Commissioner-General of the United States, in reviewing 
 the educational exhibit at the Paris Exposition of 1900, found 
 correlation to be one of two characteristics of the American ex- 
 hibit, the other being self-activity on the part of pupils. He 
 observed that correlation was in evidence on its meritorious 
 side in the correction of formalism, and on its unfavorable side 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 41 
 
 by its seeking purely artificial relations (U. S. Com. of Ed. 
 Report 99-00, 1672). One excuse for the artificial phase is 
 that most of the teachers had only the theory for a guide, and 
 then often only as expressed in extreme form without oppor- 
 tunities of seeing the best practice in the use of the principle. 
 
 We may now attempt a more critical survey of the doc- 
 trine, considering the objections offered to it and the changes 
 it underwent. 
 
 An illustration of the misconceived notions of concentra- 
 tion — or "correlation," which is the term most frequently used 
 — may serve as a starting-point for the discussion. A writer 
 tells of a visit to a school in a city where concentration was the 
 rage. "I remember hearing of a day's lesson in a certain over- 
 correlated city. The subject was "the crow." The children 
 studied the crow, drew him, wrote about him, added and sub- 
 tracted him, bought and sold him, multiplied and divided him, 
 and for aught I know, carried him out on a crow-bar" (Educa- 
 tion 17, 311). Of course it was a mere travesty of Herbartian- 
 ism, but many believed such a farce was Herbartianism itself. 
 Such absurdities were represented as its logical outcome. It is 
 obvious to anyone, whether he knows anything about the doc- 
 trine, that the principle used here is considered an end and not 
 a means. 
 
 When we turn back to the Herbartian sources, it is per- 
 fectly plain that the doctrine of concentration is one of the 
 means for the realization of the educational aim. No small 
 part of American thought and practice is colored by treating 
 the doctrine as an end detached from the system. Neither of 
 the two systems of interpretation which were recognized as the 
 starting point of American thought, lost sight of its being a 
 means. One school of interpreters was led by Stoy, whose no- 
 tions were more fully developed by Frick. Of the two, Frick 
 exerted the more influence on American thought. While 
 groups of subjects, such as the linguistic and natural science 
 studies, were put upon a completely independent basis, and 
 there was no subordination, still the course of study was made 
 so as to bring out every possible association between the 
 studies. History and literature were, moreover, so used as to 
 exert a co-ordinating effect upon the other studies. A rational 
 co-ordination thru far-reaching interrelations is sought in the 
 higher stages of the gymnasium (80). This interpretation of 
 concentration had the most influence in the higher schools. 
 
 The leaders of the other schools were, first, Ziller and 
 later. Rein. They represented a more rigid system than that 
 of Stoy and Frick. Since Herbartians were agreed that his- 
 torical and literary studies were the educative material of first 
 importance, Ziller and Rein chose those subjects for the center 
 
42 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 of the curriculum, correlating others with them. For exam- 
 ple, the place of the sciences was not determined by their im- 
 portance as sciences, but thru their relation to the central sub- 
 jects. A place was given the sciences because they were re- 
 lated to man's will as means or limits of its activity. In prac- 
 tice, geography was used as an associative study between na- 
 ture subjects and the historical-literary. Formal studies like 
 arithmetic and grammar, were considered incidental to the 
 main elements of the course. We are most concerned with 
 bringing to a clear light the fact that the real guide in the 
 practice of concentration is the growing personality of the pu- 
 pil, for it deals with the child's manifold interests. The true 
 center is the developing character of the pupil. The spirit of 
 concentration lies primarily in the pupil, and only secondarily 
 in the subjects. The aim of education must always be kept in 
 mind. The concentration of the branches must be subordi- 
 nate to this true concentration. Its only purpose is to do all 
 that is possible for economy of effort on the part, first of the 
 pupil, and then of the teacher (97 : 94) . Rein recognizes with 
 Herbart that a plan which brings all to one point is harmful 
 and unnatural (97 : 86). He admitted that Ziller failed be- 
 cause much of the connection was artificial (97 : 83) . In the 
 actual practice of the followers of the Jena school, the sciences 
 are not destroyed, but are preserved in groups. 
 
 The amount of space given to this exposition is justified 
 by the fact that we have before us what actually influenced 
 American thought. Some, notably De Garmo, came under 
 the influence of Stoy and Frick. The Rein-Ziller interpreta- 
 tion, however, exerted the most influence, and is what most 
 critics had in mind when they discussed Herbartian concentra- 
 tion. Too often critics took Ziller unfairly by the letter and 
 neglected the development of the doctrine by Rein. 
 
 On the advent of Herbartianism, studies taught in iso- 
 lation was the prevailing practice. Mr. White, who had done 
 much to mould pre-Hetbartian theory and practice, advo- 
 cated isolation as essential and fundamental to a course. It is 
 certain that many feared to see this condition pass away. 
 Any plan which threatened remotely to break down the hard 
 and fast divisions between studies was met with opposition 
 
 Numerous objections were made against concentration, 
 among them that it destroyed the logical order upon which 
 teachers had worked, set up a higher standard for teachers 
 than they usually possessed, was liable to degenerate into for- 
 mal and mechanical correlation, and subordinated all studies 
 to one central study (Summarized 83). One of the most 
 vulnerable points of attack was the artificial and strained use 
 of the principle. Only a few had the opportunity to learn how 
 to use it by seeing it in actual practice at Jena or as used by 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 43 
 
 some disciples. The teacher had only the theory to follow, 
 and that detached from counter-influences of other parts of the 
 system. It was not Herbartian, tho many represented the 
 practice as such. Just as in Europe failure of some had made 
 concentration a byword in the mouths of many (97 : 87), so 
 likewise in America overdoing it had brought ridicule. 
 
 However, the kernel of the opposition lay in fear for the 
 fate of the subjects. Many of the critics devoted more atten- 
 tion to the way the different studies and sciences developed 
 than to the development of the pupil's character. They 
 missed absolutely the Herbartian viewpoint. 
 
 To meet the arguments of the critics, the Herbartians em- 
 phasized more strongly than ever that school sciences as such 
 did not exist. They are not systematic bodies of knowledge" 
 (Second Year Book 33) . Geography, for instance, derives its 
 material from biology, mathematics, and history (Second 
 Year Book 29) . Therefore, on the basis of its own theory, the 
 isolated treatment of geography finds no support. Out of 
 this phase of the controversy, there developed considerable 
 literature on the topic of the logical and psychological. This 
 literature, based partially upon the results of child study, em- 
 phasized the necessity of adapting material to child nature 
 rather than to the logic of the branches. The emphasis on 
 this point could easily lead some to believe that Herbartians 
 were more careless about the school studies than they were in 
 actual practice. Herbartians showed by convincing examples 
 that a mixing and mingling of studies was a groundless fear. 
 Each subject of study would preserve its boundaries. It was 
 emphasized that artificial and far-fetched correlations were 
 not necessary and were indeed harmful. While Herbartians 
 had to admit a danger in this direction, they could assert that 
 it was contrary to the spirit and best practice of Herbartian- 
 ism. Some opponents maintained that the mental powers of 
 the pupil would guarantee all the concentration needed, al- 
 lowing the curriculum to stand as it was. Thus Mr. White 
 argued, "It did not follow that facts taught separately re- 
 mained isolated in the pupil's thought. The mind is endowed 
 with the power of assimilation and unification" (Second Year 
 Book 16). Such a view found little support among the ene- 
 mies of the doctrine. 
 
 Some opponents of the theory of concentration adopted a 
 theory of co-ordination advocated by Dr. Harris, who was 
 chairman of the subcommittee which wrote the report on cor- 
 relation for the Committee of Fifteen. It is entirely his work 
 and embodies his theory of education. Practically, it is only 
 an elaboration of the report of a committee on a course of study 
 made in 1876. Mention has already been made of the group 
 system there advocated. If the word meant anything in this 
 
44 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 connection it did not mean correlation of studies, but a sort of 
 philosophical correlation of the child and the world thru his 
 studies. 
 
 The Herbartians, and even non-professing Herbartians, 
 who were ahve and in sympathy with the current of thought, 
 saw that it was not concerned with the true problem of con- 
 centration at all. Lukens pointed out that "The report stands 
 for isolation and arranging the studies so that they can not 
 possibly interfere with one another" (78 : 27). It was in- 
 imical to correlation. Others saw quickly enough that the 
 report was not even on the subject, but dealt rather with the se- 
 lection and valuation of studies. Col. Parker declared that 
 they had ignored the subject which it was intended they should 
 treat. When he moved the appointment of the committee, he 
 had expected them to make a study of Herbart, Ziller, Stoy 
 and Rein (N. E. A. 1895 : 344). It was clearly not the sort of 
 report the advocates of correlation expected. To say 
 the least, it was un-Herbartian, for it gave an altogether too 
 prominent place to formal studies, beside neglecting to make 
 proper provision for interests and instincts. The report was 
 rightly characterized as a step backwards (N. E. A. 1895 : 348). 
 A golden opportunity was indeed lost. Current psychological 
 investigations threw Hght upon the problem. A committee 
 in sympathy with the new education might have summarized 
 and given expression to the best of the prevailing thought, and 
 at least made a starting place for new investigations, but in- 
 stead, a report was offered under which the foes of the new 
 views might take shelter. It was a severe blow to the normal 
 development of the doctrine of concentration. Its authority 
 was the greater because of Dr. Harris' commanding influence 
 and because of the form in which the report appeared. It 
 went broadcast as an authoritative statement of the doctrine 
 of correlation. 
 
 Centering the fire upon studies and their interrelation, 
 drew the Herbartians from their position. The relation of the 
 principle of concentration to the realization of the educational 
 aim was not kept in the fore-front. This more than any other 
 one factor was responsible for the misunderstanding of the 
 doctrine, for its inadequate exposition, and for its often feeble 
 execution. Sometimes, if the spirit of realizing the aim is 
 brought to consciousness, the whole face of things is changed. 
 It is true that a dissenting member of the committee defended 
 concentration against the implications aimed at it. In an 
 earlier magazine article this writer had said, "Concentration is 
 primarily for the sake of character and all is centered in the 
 aim." Unfortunately in the report the dissenting opinion was 
 weakened by the fact that he did not put the doctrine in this 
 light; hence the dissent carried little weight. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 45 
 
 The Herbart society gave concentration a dignified place. 
 At the first meeting the seriousness of the topic was appre- 
 ciated. The last sentence of a paper on concentration voiced 
 this feeling in the following words: "We are only at the com- 
 mencement of the investigation of this important subject; it is 
 one of the life problems which help to make teaching a science 
 and a profession" (87 : 66). 
 
 Among the friends of correlation there was by no means 
 entire unanimity. Col. Parker published a volume on the 
 method of concentration and exemplified it in the Normal 
 School of which he was Principal. He acknowledged the in- 
 spiration and guidance which come from the doctrine of con- 
 centration as enunciated and applied by Ziller, Stoy, and Rein 
 (91 : V). The principle of unification was based on the suppo- 
 sition of universal law — thruout all phenomena whether of 
 nature or man. There were no school subjects as such. The 
 varied manifestations of universal law constituted the cur- 
 ricukmi. As a matter of fact the natural sciences were made 
 the central subjects of instruction, in the belief that they were 
 most educative, being the most complete manifestations of 
 universal law. The form studies spring naturally from the 
 thought aroused by the central study. The course was open 
 to criticism by Herbartians, because there was not enough 
 emphasis on the things of the spirit which Herbartians must 
 consider of first importance. Col. Parker's views commanded 
 attention and exerted influence. 
 
 Professor Dewey made progressive industrial activities the 
 center of the curriculum and grouped the rest of the school life 
 around this center: the Herbartians desired that the natural 
 sciences and industrial activities exert influence over the will. 
 Dewey has carried the socializing of the sciences and industries 
 farther than the German Herbartians. 
 
 Dr. DeGarmo favored a group system of studies consisting of 
 three groups, historical, natural science, and economic. The 
 latter may be considered a response to the increasing social and 
 economic consciousness. "Now these groups," he tells us, 
 "are the cores of unification with constant cross-relations" 
 (19 : 243). It is an adaptation and extension of the Stoy- 
 Frick interpretation, hence it is Herbartian in spirit and 
 ought not to be confused with the co-ordination theory of 
 Harris. DeGarmo also accepted from the Ziller-Rein wing 
 the scheme of having fairy tales and Robinson Crusoe the basis 
 of the first two years, a practice violently rejected by Stoy. 
 The McMurrys and Van Liew have kept closest to the Ziller- 
 Rein view. They do not, however, accept the extreme Ziller. 
 proposition (83 : 51). They take practically the same position 
 as Professor Rein in giving the central place to history and 
 literature. When this is said, it does not mean that all other 
 
46 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 subjects lose their identity. There is no proposal to derive 
 the subject-matter of one study from that of another. 
 
 All Herbartians admit that a large responsibility for cor- 
 relation must rest upon the teacher, but it is not Herbartian to 
 rely upon that alone. Economy of effort demands also a cor- 
 relation of subjects. 
 
 The discussion of the topic fell in the period when there 
 was a great deal of faith in the deliverances of child study. 
 Many looked to that study for a solution of the problem of cor- 
 relation. So it was quite a common thing to advocate making 
 the child the center. Let the school activities, then, be cor- 
 related about the child's instincts, interests and life. Her- 
 bartians could grant the validity of much of this contention, 
 but, as we shall see under the topic of Culture Epochs, Her- 
 bartians insist upon objective standards in addition to the sub- 
 jective standards which child study provides. The theory of 
 making the child the center breaks down in the presence of the 
 question fundamental to Herbartian education, namely, what 
 ought a child to become? 
 
 Apperception is an important instrument in the solution 
 of the correlation problem. Its use in this connection is ob- 
 vious. 
 
 Correlation is still a problem, tho there are signs of fruitful 
 progress, particularly in this fact that studies are made for the 
 children. Not the least hopeful sign is that elementary text- 
 book writers are shaping their books more toward the psycholo- 
 gy of the developing child and less with the idea of being sci- 
 entific. 
 
 There is no question but that since the introduction of the 
 doctrine, teaching is far different from what prevailed when 
 isolation was theory and blind practice. One prominent 
 sign of such a change is the way form studies are made in- 
 creasingly subordinate to content studies. In practice, iso- 
 lation has given way completely to some form or other of cor- 
 relation. 
 
 Just what the American theory of correlation is would be 
 hard to say. Negatively the view is partly defined by the use 
 of correlation rather than concentration or co-ordination, for 
 the theory is not in any extreme form such as Ziller is com- 
 monly represented as advocating. Neither does co-ordination 
 express the present temper of the American mind. It were 
 better if that word were kept for the view of Dr. Harris. 
 De Garmo also uses this term as we have seen. Correlation 
 best expresses the middle course which is the one taken. The 
 views of Dewey, De Garmo, Parker, and McMurry are well 
 known among educators, and there is no question but that 
 they all exert an influence in the curricula which are made 
 from year to year. In fact, they have doubtless influenced 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 47 
 
 and tempered the opinions of each other. The activity of all 
 is in the direction of correlation. The American view is just 
 what it is, because of the contribution of each individual. 
 There is a larger place given to industrial activities as cor- 
 relating agencies than would have been true if it had not been 
 for Dewey and his followers, while the McMurrys have kept 
 the correlating power of the historical and literary subjects in 
 a place of prominence, and an impetus for science and nature 
 study as correlating studies has come from Parker. It is to be 
 noted that credit is not given these men in this connection for 
 showing the worth of the various sixbjects, but for showing 
 their correlating value. Child study, which kept before the 
 educators' eyes the growing personality of the child', has pre- 
 vented any thinker from abstractly following a chain of 
 thought to absurd lengths. DeGarmo contributed an assured 
 recognition of the worth of all the content studies. 
 
 Of the original German schools, the representatives of 
 Ziller-Rein exert a greater influence in elementary education 
 than the Stoy-Frick, with a leaning toward these latter, 
 Professor De Garmo has transferred his attention more and 
 more to secondary education. In it some group system is 
 used entirely. It suggests that perhaps the principle of cor- 
 relation is different in elementary and secondary education. 
 It may be that there is no conflict between the two views, that 
 each is valid in its own field. A sort of philosophical and 
 rational co-ordination may be expected with older pupils in 
 the secondary and higher schools, but not with the younger in 
 the elementary schools. The logic of events points that way 
 in Germany, where the Stoy-Frick interpretation exerts the 
 most influence in higher education, and the Ziller-Rein in ele- 
 mentary. Professor Rein has remarked that concentration 
 grows more difficult in advancing grades. At least in prac- 
 tice, American education shows a tendency to the view that 
 elementary and secondary education need different principles 
 of correlation. The solution of a long-standing conflict seems 
 to lie in the direction indicated. 
 
 On the one hand, it may be said that the doctrine has 
 suffered loss from the fact that it had not a place in so com- 
 pletely an organized system as that of Germany, especiaUy 
 because the aim has so often been lost sight of. Of course, this 
 is the least tangible part, and it is not surprising that it is 
 hardest to hold. On the other hand, there has been a rich and 
 varied development. In neither country is there unanimity 
 except in the spirit of the doctrine. If the following state- 
 ment of Parker is true, it is not surprising that unanimity has 
 not been reached. He wrote, "The doctrine of concentration 
 is itself a science of education that will absorb the attention of 
 thoughtful teachers for centuries" (91 : V). 
 
48 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CULTURE EPOCHS 
 
 To the problem of the right sequence of studies, which has 
 confronted every constructive educational thinker, the Her- 
 bartians found an answer in the theory of culture epochs. 
 Whether this theory be accepted or rejected, the educator 
 necessarily deals with the substance of the problem. If the^ 
 development of the child is by periods, it follows that the solu- 
 tion of the best educative material for the various stages of de- 
 velopment is a question of utmost importance. An attempt 
 to keep the problem chiefly before our minds and to trace the 
 influence of the idea may carry the discussion beyond the 
 limits one might naturally expect to mark the confines of the 
 term "culture epochs." The other ways of answering the 
 same question must necessarily be considered, for they in- 
 fluenced the attitude of thinkers toward this Herbartian doc- 
 trine and determined to what extent the theory might be ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 When the culture epochs theory is considered, one must 
 remember that it is the Ziller-Rein interpretation which 
 Americans have in mind, an interpretation which Stoy, 
 Waitz, and some other Herbartians bitterly opposed, but the 
 Ziller conception has been completely identified as Her- 
 bartian in American discussions. It is worth noting, then, 
 that American criticism of the theory has its counterpart in 
 Europe even among Herbartians. 
 
 The chief educational characteristics of the doctrine as 
 introduced into America may be very briefly summarized as 
 follows: there are well marked periods in the civil and re- 
 ligious history of the nation and race. Industrially, too, there 
 are marked periods which fit in with the preceding. O. W. 
 Beyer contributed to Herbartian pedagogy the notion that 
 education must attach a like significance to the industrial 
 epochs, hunting, pastoral, agriculture, handicraft, and manu- 
 facturing (97 : 45-48). Further, a study of children reveals a 
 series of periods in which there are characteristic reactions 
 which show they are living on a more or less similar plane. 
 At this point the claim is made that the individual passes thru 
 all the epochs that the race does, from savagery to civilization. 
 The ideal course of study consists of just those things which 
 aroused an abiding interest in the race at its successive stages 
 of advancement. The pupils will acquire the same interests 
 and thus rise from one level of interests to another, until at 
 length the interests are acquired which this civilization mani- 
 fests. The German Herbartians relied chiefly upon the liter- 
 ary materials which represent those planes and upon the his- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 49 
 
 tory of the people at these different levels. In the case of re- 
 ligious interests, Hebrew history and literature was the basis of 
 instruction, except in the last year in which Luther and the 
 catechism was the year's work, in Rein's course. The ma- 
 terials for the profane series — except the first two years of 
 school — where in the first year fairy stories constituted the 
 course, in the second year Robinson Crusoe, — were found in 
 the life of the German people. Robinson and the fairy stories 
 were thought to represent the most childlike period of the race. 
 In a word, it is the duty of the educator to lead the "pupil from 
 the beginnings of our culture to an understanding of the 
 present" (97 :48). 
 
 The theory has the closest relation to the theory of apper- 
 ception, for the pupil is to live in each period, and what is there 
 acquired will then form the apperceptive basis for acquiring 
 the next. The present can not be reached at once, because the 
 apperceptions fail. In fact, a deductive way of reasoning from 
 this point led Herbart and Ziller to the theory of culture 
 epochs, as Vaihinger has pointed out (97 : 49). 
 
 The American critic generally has in mind an extreme 
 form of the Ziller interpretation, but also confuses with it con- 
 cepts which might more properly be considered under the head 
 of a "theory of recapitulation." One critic does admit that 
 there is a slight distinction between the two theories (7 : 37) . 
 It is probably a fact that the American view of culture epochs 
 has been modified by the recapitulation theory, but the true 
 status of the culture epochs theory can be understood best by 
 keeping the prominent points of view of the two theories quite 
 distinct from one another. Of course, both agree in the funda- 
 mental notion of parallelism between race and individual de- 
 velopment. The distinction lies chiefly in the outlook the one 
 or the other affords. The recapitulation theory is primarily 
 biological, and emphasizes chiefly the correspondence in the 
 reactions of the individual with the reactions of animals and 
 men at the different stages of development. It rests, then, 
 first on the science of biology, especially embryology. The 
 culture epochs theory, as the word culture indicates, draws our 
 attention primarily to a parallelism between the stages of de- 
 velopment in the race and in the individual. To repeat the 
 definition gi\'ien in the first pages of this chapter, the child 
 passes thru the same stages from infancy to manhood that the 
 race passed thru from savagery to civilization. It rests on so- 
 ciology, anthropology, and the history of civilization. Bi- 
 ology can furnish it with arguments only by analogy. 
 
 The topic of culture epochs did not at first meet with the 
 serious consideration shown some other Herbartian principles. 
 It was on the program of the first meeting of the Herbart So- 
 ciety, but, owing to the fact that it did not receive the attention 
 
50 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 which Herbartians thought its importance warranted, papers 
 were again prepared on this topic for the second meeting. 
 
 The opponents of the theory in the early periods of the 
 discussion made their attack on two grounds : first, that its ad- 
 vocates regarded it as a finahty, and second, that they as- 
 sumed that there were no hmits to the parallehsm. The 
 Herbartians assured educators that they held neither of these 
 views, and that they did not intend to carry it to such absurd 
 lengths as the opponents represented for the sake of holding 
 the theory up to ridicule (110 : 1.30). 
 
 However, the objectors continued to rely upon the breaks 
 in the chain of biological development which could only show 
 that the proof was imperfect. They were fond of quoting 
 Marshall to the effect that entire chapters of the history were 
 lost, that some pages were misplaced and others blurred so as 
 to be illegible, and that still others were but spurious addi- 
 tions (7 : 38) . The premises here are that most of the facts in 
 support of the theory are derived from biology and embry- 
 ology. Of course, the Herbartian notion rested primarily up- 
 on the belief in an orderly development of society. The re- 
 search of biologists can do little more than furnish a back- 
 ground for the Herbartian culture epochs theory. Such ar- 
 guments could do no more than make Herbartians cautious 
 about asserting too much for their theory. 
 
 As a matter of fact, caution was shown. Van Liew and 
 other Americans objected to drawing lines so closely as did 
 Ziller, who went too far in attempting to ascribe these stages 
 even approximately to definite years (109 : 95). They saw in 
 Rein a leader who allowed larger liberty. They agreed that 
 certainly no exact parallelism has been proved ; but practically 
 all felt there was a general correspondence. 
 
 Baldwin has called attention to short cuts in recapitula- 
 tion. This principle naturally emphasizes in a new way a 
 limitation insisted upon by Herbartians, namely, that "mis- 
 taken and circuitous routes are not to be repeated (97 : 52) . 
 Another principle of practical importance in tempering the 
 application of the theory is arrest of development. Dr. 
 Harris has shown how excessive exercise in any one stage may 
 cause arrest of development at that level. 
 
 Some other factors outside of Herbartianism may be men- 
 tioned as contributing to the theory of culture epochs, either in 
 confirmation or modification. In confirmation, there was a 
 growing faith in the essentially evolutionary nature of the edu- 
 cational process that education is attained thru a series of ad- 
 justments. There was a continuation of thought along the 
 line which we may say Herbert Spencer opened up. The 
 Clark University type of child study has been especially clever 
 in its interpretation of the behavior of children thru an appeal 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 51 
 
 to race parallelism, either established or fancied. It has been 
 more in the nature of a contribution to the recapitulation 
 phase of the culture epochs theory, and has emphasized chiefly 
 the periods of individual development. 
 
 The evolution of society has received increasing attention. 
 The growing science of anthropology has thrown much light up- 
 on the process of racial development, and has furnished new 
 data for the continuation of the inductive study of the stages of 
 development. It has emphasized the fact that, at certain 
 points in the historical development, there are certain de- 
 finite bodies of experience. This experience is the resultant of 
 the inventiveness of the people in meeting the industrial, social, 
 religious, and aesthetic conditions which surround them. A 
 new educational interest has been given to all this by studies 
 under the head of social heredity or social imitation, by 
 Tarde, Baldwin, and others. As the tendency of child study 
 was in the direction that emphasizes individual development, 
 so this last sort of study emphasizes the objective products of 
 social evolution. The terms "social inheritance" and "imita- 
 tion," used by these writers, imply that to the children all this 
 inheritance shall belong. It is -for them to acquire. Butler 
 has presented this view of the matter in the address on "The 
 Meaning of Education." Dr. Harris most emphatically in- 
 sisted upon the educational importance of the heritage of 
 civilization, and advocated the view that the present is only 
 properly appreciated in the light of the past. These views, in 
 fact, have become relatively common notions, and undoubted- 
 ly fortify the culture epochs theory at certain points, especially 
 in emphasizing the educational importance of the products of 
 culture which child study alone neglects. At one point, the 
 Clark school helped the advocates of a culture epochs theory 
 against those who would teach the present in its complexity, 
 by insisting that if any of the activities peculiar to a period of 
 development were neglected in hastening on to the exercise of a 
 higher, all succeeding stages would suffer. So Herbartians 
 found new justifications for using material with children, 
 which cannot be shown to have a practical use for adults. 
 
 With influences at work from these two, namely, from 
 child study with its light on individual development and from 
 anthropology and sociology with somev/hat less clear light on 
 racial development, it is not strange that there was uncer- 
 tainty as to whether the sequence was in the child or in the 
 race. Since child study was exerting so much influence, it is 
 not surprising that there was a marked tendency to find the 
 standard of sequence in the child, C. A. McMurry, in 1896, 
 was willing to accept Dr. Dewey's statement that the standard 
 educationally is the sequence in the child (85). At that time, 
 too, there was a marked tendency to accept the Dewey inter- 
 
52 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 pretation, that activities which were dominant at the culture 
 periods, rather than the ideas, should occupy the major atten- 
 tion of the child (29) . If these two conceptions were followed 
 without regard to other factors, a logical conclusion would be 
 to educate the child on its own products, to let it write its own 
 stories and make its own culture materials. Of course, the 
 impetus from orthodox Herbartianism and some other factors 
 already mentioned, was too great to permit such lengths being 
 reached in theory or practice. Herbartians, knowing too well 
 from actual evidence that the cultural products do have a hold 
 upon children and result in the very activities desired by Dr. 
 Dewey, were not ready like him to minimize the importance of 
 the cultural products. The ideas are more suggestive than any 
 blind contact with nature or things (85 : 105). Sociological 
 studies grew in importance and the Herbartians turned back to 
 a more conservative position. The conviction gained ground 
 that the psychical development of the child can furnish no final 
 criterion of the subject to be taught. Whether the selective 
 principle is called culture epochs or social tradition the Her- 
 bartian must cling tenaciously to the essentialness of the ac- 
 quirements of the race. In 1903 F. M. McMurry wrote, "The 
 nature of the child shall not control the selection of subject 
 matter. The nature of the child is the second factor in in- 
 fluence" (Second Year Book for the Scientific Study of Educa- 
 tion : 47, 49). It must be said, tho, that the activities peculiar 
 to the stages which Beyer pointed out, are given a larger place 
 than in German Herbartianism. A great deal of influence has 
 come from Dewey's work in this direction, but the status re- 
 mains about as just given. 
 
 Some have refused all allegiance to the theory because it 
 can not be demonstrated, but others act as tho they would say, 
 "Granted it is not a demonstrable fact, it is nevertheless a 
 workable theory." As a matter of fact, it disputes honor with 
 the doctrine of interest and apperception for influence in the 
 practical changes which have come over our course of study. 
 C. A. McMurry was the first to make application to courses. 
 The Americans had before them the research of Professor Rein, 
 but common sense changes were made to fit American condi- 
 tions. 
 
 If one v/ould measure its influence, he has only to compare 
 the studies in the first two or three grades after the advent of 
 Herbartianism with what pupils of the same age studied in the 
 preceding period. Stories, fairy tales, Robinson Crusoe, or a 
 poem like Hiawatha took the place of much of the reading and 
 spelling lessons of the old school. It was a happy thought, de- 
 veloped especially by C. A. McMurry, to continue with pioneer 
 stories of the child's own community, followed by colonial 
 history, finishing with our national history in the last year. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 53 
 
 In this analysis of the culture epochs in our history, he showed 
 how Americans could be original in application and be true to 
 the spirit. One of the opponents of the theory admitted that 
 the practices were good, altho the reasons for them were bad. 
 Many granted the changes were good from an educational 
 standpoint. It seems to be the spirit of American Herbartian- 
 ism to put the chief reliance for a proof of the theories upon the 
 way they work in practice. 
 
 The theory of culture epochs probably finds less formal ac- 
 ceptance than any other Herbartian doctrine. It is seldom 
 spoken of under that name, and yet there is a belief in some- 
 thing of real influence in our educational theory and practice, 
 which is the American counterpart of the German theory of 
 culture epochs. Perhaps a more indefinite phrase like "theory 
 of parallelism" fits the temper better. It has been the object 
 to summarize the substance of such a doctrine and show what 
 it is as a resultant of several forces. It can not be narrowly 
 defined. Its vagueness of statement is one of the ways in 
 which it differs from the German form of the theory. It is a 
 synthesis which does justice to the historic and generic spirit, 
 on the one hand, as exemplified by Harris, and the spirit of in- 
 dividualism and election of studies (interest), as exemplified 
 by Eliot, on the other hand. We may put this same synthesis 
 in another form and say that justice is done those who maintain 
 that the choice of studies is determined by the demands of the 
 civilization into which the child is born, and those who be- 
 lieve with President Hall and other child psychologists who say 
 the curriculum can only be settled by a study of childhood and 
 youth (78 : 29). It takes a judicial position toward the re- 
 searches of child study, the new interpretations of primitive so- 
 ciety and institutional history, and the teachings brought from 
 Germany. 
 
 None maintain that the theory of parallelism has the final 
 word on the question of sequence of studies. It carries far less 
 authority than the theory of culture epochs does in the Ziller- 
 Rein school, altho rich in suggestiveness. It is serviceable to 
 other principles to which Americans attach more authority. 
 It is suggestive, for example, in showing what will most likely 
 be interesting, what interests can most easily be acquired, and 
 which of them ought to be acquired. It is suggestive of ma- 
 terial suitable to the mental ability and apperceptive powers of 
 children at varying ages, and prevents the use of these prin- 
 ciples in an absolute way. It guides the products and ac- 
 tivities of lower levels and assures a consideration of them in 
 the course of study. E. E. Brown expressed a notion similar 
 to this by saying it gave dignity to the earUer periods of in- 
 struction (8 : 81). This is by no means a negligible factor, 
 when we appreciate the influence among us of such ideas as 
 
54 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 social heredity and spiritual inheritance. It is nothing 
 against the principle in hand, that it takes a relatively subor- 
 dinate place. Probably the greatest reason that the doctrine 
 of culture epochs has fallen into discredit is that its opponents 
 represented it as purporting to be a final selective principle. 
 This was aggravated by the fact that Herbartians themselves 
 lost sight of its being a means and not an end. It is too com- 
 mon to discuss the question without enough reference to the 
 aim of instruction. It is in harmony with the spirit of Her- 
 bartianism that the aim alone is an end, and that the principle 
 of parallelism is a means. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 55 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FORMAL STEPS 
 
 Logically, in the Herbartian system, the treatment of 
 method follows the other topics, but in America the doctrine 
 of formal steps was the first to have systematic treatment. 
 The American teacher was best prepared for instruction in 
 method, since it had been for a generation and more the chief 
 subject in his pedagogy. The educational journals were de- 
 voted, for the most part, to the presentation and discussion of 
 methods and devices.* 
 
 DeGarmoinhis "Essentials of Method," 1889, was the first 
 to present to American readers the doctrine of the formal 
 steps of the recitation as developed by German Herbartians. 
 It was at the same time the first work of any extent bearing on 
 Herbartian pedagogics, written by an American. DeGarmo 
 drew from the German sources. Professor Rein and Dr. O. 
 Frick. In general five formal steps were recognized: prepar- 
 ation, presentation, association, condensation, and application, 
 as given by Professor Rein. The first two are steps in the one 
 stage of gaining facts; the next two are likewise steps in the 
 formulation and statement of the general notion. So the most 
 essential feature of Herbartianism is the recognition of three 
 stages as being necessary to correct method. De Garmo recog- 
 nizes and calls them by various names. On the title page of 
 the book, these three words are found: observation, generaliz- 
 ation, application. Later he defines them more closely as, 
 first, the apperception of new facts; second, transition from in- 
 dividual to general notions; third, the application of these gen- 
 eral truths to concrete facts. Under the first head are in- 
 cluded preparation of the child's mind and presentation of 
 matter of instruction. 
 
 The process of mind in the second stage is called induc- 
 tion, and includes comparison of the data which have been se- 
 cured by apperception and the formulation of the general 
 truth, followed by the application of the general truths. It is 
 seen how closely the analysis of the Germans is followed. 
 
 The German Herbartians recognized two forms of presen- 
 tation, that of mere telling by the teacher, and that of helping 
 the child to discover and anticipate the details. In the latter 
 case facts and general truths are developed by conversation ; 
 hence it is called the unfolding or developing presentation. 
 This method is far better adapted to call out the self-activity 
 of the pupil. The text of "The Essentials of Method" only 
 hinted at this form of presentation (15 : 96), but the practical 
 illustrations of lessons afforded good examples of its use. 
 Besides, in treating the second stage under the name of indue- 
 
56 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 tion, the second method is brought into the foreground. Al- 
 tho these forms are spoken of chiefly in connection with the 
 step of presentation, still the spirit of one or the other will per- 
 vade all the first four steps. 
 
 The use of the word induction is suggestive of a point at 
 which the Herbartian doctrine found support in current 
 English and American thought. The triumphs of modern 
 science and the inductive method which it used had become 
 familiar to many teachers and to a large percentage of the 
 people. Herbert Spencer had eloquently championed the 
 notion that children should learn by making their own in- 
 vestigations and by drawing their own inferences. 
 
 It was the part of wisdom for Herbartians to ally them- 
 selves with current thought which might be helpful to the intro- 
 duction and spread of the doctrine of formal steps. "Is it sci- 
 entific?" is the measuring stick applied to all new notions in 
 this generation, replacing this question, "Is it logical?" of 
 former generations. The friends of the formal steps asserted 
 the agreement with scientific procedure, pointing out the 
 parallelism between the steps in scientific procedure as for- 
 mulated by Huxley and the formal steps in learning (81 : 289). 
 
 When the McMurrys published the "Method of the Recita- 
 tion," they formally combined the two forces, in that the book 
 was based upon the principles of teaching expounded by 
 Herbart, Ziller, and Rein (81 Int. VIII) and also upon the 
 "inductive-deductive thought movement in acquiring and us- 
 ing knowledge" (81 : Int. VII). The spirit of the inductive 
 method received a larger place in this book than in the "Es- 
 sentials of Method." 
 
 The induction of science can well be considered an im- 
 portant factor in the acceptance and development of the doc- 
 trine of formal steps in America, and is in a measure respons- 
 ible for the fact that the developmental method receives ade- 
 quate treatment. 
 
 Thus, the formal steps became very popular with a great 
 number of teachers, who found the method quite usable, altho 
 they might know nothing of other Herbartian doctrines. Of 
 course, it followed naturally that some teachers, untrained in 
 the use of the formal steps, would overdo and bring discredit 
 upon this as upon any other doctrine. It was in the develop- 
 mental phase of instruction, under the name of the inductive 
 method, where the rage for a time was greatest and where dis- 
 crediting practice was most common. Inductive text-books 
 were written in large numbers. Induction was a word to 
 charm with. Teachers failed more often than they succeeded 
 with it, because it was a tool in the use of which they had no 
 special training. In many schools teachers could be found 
 wasting valuable time in pursuing a senseless guessing game or 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 57 
 
 beating around the bush trying to get the pupil to discover a 
 fact or idea. 
 
 How much of the rage for the inductive method was due 
 to the Herbartians, and how much to the natural scientists and 
 especially Herbert Spencer, is difficult to say. It is probable 
 that the momentum came from the latter, and that the former 
 crystallized into definite and practical form the vague general- 
 izations on method by the scientists. The two forces worked 
 together, but the scientists, rather than the Herbartians, had to 
 bear the criticisms for the failures. Certainly much of the 
 failure was due to the partial grasp of the problem. They 
 knew how to reach general conclusions, but they left them 
 swaying in the air, for the fifth step was not enough in evidence. 
 Herbartians emphasized more and more that teachers should 
 be cautious in the use of the developmental method, since not 
 every teacher is fitted to use it successfully. Further, 
 there are limitations in its use because it is not everything that 
 can be developed. 
 
 The Herbartians had to defend the formal steps from va- 
 rious criticisms. The earlier ones were directed against the 
 supposed effects of the use of the method upon the teacher and 
 pupil, in making the teacher a dry formalist and taking away 
 the pupils' power of self-activity. The later criticisms have 
 been directed toward the question of the truth and universal 
 validity of the theory. It was urged by some that the doc- 
 trine of formal steps would have a mechanizing effect upon in- 
 struction. There is no question but that there were individual 
 teachers against whom such a charge might be brought; but 
 the charge is without ground when brought against the doc- 
 trine as developed in America. The receptivity of Herbar- 
 tians to the discoveries in child-study was an assurance that 
 there would be no dead mechanical use of the formal steps. 
 From the outset, the American Herbartians recognized the 
 need of using the formal steps subject to the powers, hmita- 
 tions, and interests of the child at its varying stages of de- 
 velopment (15 : 76). 
 
 The assertion that the formal steps are universal processes 
 met with objections from several quarters. The feeling that 
 the doctrine was not completely adequate may be considered 
 partially a consequence of the new psychological basis Ameri- 
 can Herbartians have accepted. If the positions with refer- 
 ence to such questions as the emotions and will are different, it 
 would be natural to look for a correspondingly new method ; or, 
 at least, one ought not to be surprised if faith in the old method 
 is somewhat shaken. There has been a feeling that the formal 
 steps apply very well, so long as it is a question of acquiring 
 knowledge; but that, in subjects where skill or an emotional 
 response is aimed at, they are not in place (111 : 193). The 
 
58 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 English Herbartian, Findley, gives expression to such views 
 (41 : 335). Some of the factors which hinder modifications in 
 the direction of Findley's suggestions may be mentioned. The 
 most economical method in acquiring skill is a question for ex- 
 perimental pedagogy. At present, an experimental attack has 
 only commenced. Herbartians can join in the experimental 
 investigations with as good a spirit as other educators, and it is 
 quite certain American Herbartians will welcome the results of 
 all such researches in special method. 
 
 As to the suggestion that the method does not apply in 
 the case of the emotions, it is to be said that the same psy- 
 chology which is responsible for the change in view as to the 
 origin of the emotions has also spread the belief that to arouse 
 the emotions without their discharge in action is pernicious. 
 Giving the right direction to the activity is a matter of judg- 
 ment and intellect. If we do not produce the unstable charac- 
 ter of which we are warned, the intellectual must have the 
 leading place: hence the methods appropriate to the ac- 
 quisition of truth must be given the place of first importance. 
 As in so many cases, the new psychology bolsters up the Her- 
 bartian practice. 
 
 In this connection we may note an impress the new psy- 
 chology has left upon method. There is a growing conviction 
 that the application, the fifth step, should come in some ob- 
 vious form of activity and doing, which activity shall serve 
 as the starting point of another thought movement. The 
 action has confronted the child with a new and unsolved prob- 
 lem, and his realization of this problem leads into a new lesson 
 in which the solution is sought. Professor De Garmo makes 
 this annotation in the translation of Herbart's "Outlines of 
 Doctrine:" "The fact that doing is antecedent to our interest in 
 knowledge or feeling, is fully recognized by all Herbartians in 
 the theory of method" (59 : 77). This is an advanced posi- 
 tion, and the facts in educational literature and practice do not 
 indicate that it has been widely grasped in its largest signifi- 
 cance. Perhaps the largest force in favor of the old interpreta- 
 tion has been the widespread use and influence of the McMurry 
 texts on special method. In them the view is consistantly 
 maintained that the formal steps are universal in their appli- 
 cation, because they are capable of great variety in adjust- 
 ment to the needs of different studies. On this question of 
 universality, about all one can say is that it is in an unsettled 
 state. 
 
 Beside the definite criticisms already mentioned, there 
 have been objections of a general nature directed against the 
 method. It is quite common to find statements that American 
 teaching owes much to the formal steps, but that they are in 
 need of revision. As a rule, one looks in vain for a definite sug- 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 59 
 
 gestion, as to how they should be revised. However, these 
 critics have not been without influence in dampening the ardor 
 of Herbartian enthusiasts and putting the whole doctrine in an 
 unfavorable light. In general, the introduction of the new 
 thought gave a healthy tone to method and led away from 
 catchy devices. At the same time, nothing is put in the way of 
 investigation and experimentation looking forward to the most 
 economical way of presentation and generalization. 
 
 In summarizing, we may note that child study and scientific 
 education were factors in the development of the doctrine of 
 formal steps in America, and that, as a consequence, some 
 limitations and qualifications of the steps have been accepted. 
 The best writers accept the doctrine of the inductive de- 
 velopment method of Herbart with those relatively few 
 qualifications and with precautions as to its use. The opinion 
 of Professor Smith may be quoted in conclusion: "The influ- 
 ence of such writers as DeGarmo and the McMurrys in America, 
 opening up the German, and particularly the Herbartian, 
 views of the bases of method or the basis of education, has 
 given a great impetus to teaching in America." 
 
6o THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 In 191 1 the Herbart Society dropped the word Herbart from 
 its name and has since been known as "The National Society 
 for the Scientific Study of Education." It is a suggestive 
 point of departure for drawing a conclusion as to Herbartian- 
 ism in America. In no wise does the change of name mean 
 that Herbart has been abandoned, but rather it may be 
 thought of as the last of the suggestive parallels between 
 Herbart in Germany and Herbart in America. Just as 
 German Herbartians talk of scientific pedagogy, so Americans 
 even tho they be Herbartians, prefer the advantages which 
 come from research under the name of scientific education. 
 It does not hinder one from beheving that Herbart has been 
 the largest contributor to that science. The publications of 
 the society indicate no attempt at any new grounding of the 
 science. This fact is really a tacit admission that the peda- 
 gogy worked out on Herbartian lines is the best expression of 
 the fundamental principles of a science of education. If the 
 followers in Germany are right in using the name "scientific 
 pedagogy," the corollary inevitably follows that the peda- 
 gogy will unfold with the progress of scientific discovery. 
 Americans have, then, such a precedent. 
 
 A glimpse has been taken at the state of pedagogy in the 
 eighties. The several chapters following have been taken up 
 with describing the changes that came over American peda- 
 gogy as a result of the discussion of the different Herbartian 
 principles. It is not necessary to call further attention to the 
 details of the complete transformation which resulted in edu- 
 cational thought. That has been done in connection with the 
 various doctrines. 
 
 However, if one were to look for a statement of American 
 Herbartian pedagogy in a systematic form, his search would 
 be in vain. There is a sense in which there are as many 
 pedagogies as there are thinkers. The variation comes from 
 the fact that pedagogy shares in the nature of philosophy as 
 well as of science. If we could get a good view of one of these 
 American minds, we would come upon a characteristic which 
 differentiates an American educational thinker from the 
 German. Everyone must be impressed with the relatively 
 chaotic and unsystematic presentation of American writers. 
 The fact that they do not trouble themselves about the articu- 
 lations of the various parts, by no means indicates that their 
 minds are equally unsystematic : they possess the pedagogy in 
 its spirit, altho the power of accurately expressing their 
 thoughts and impressions seems to a degree to be lacking. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF DERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 6l 
 
 This appears to be an Anglo-Saxon characteristic. Just as the 
 EngHsh constitution on the surface is apparently contradictory 
 and has a bewildering mass of checks and counter checks, 
 while yet the spirit of it is followed generation after gener- 
 ation, so in the matter of pedagogy the American is not satis- 
 fied with saying he believes in a certain statement of principle, 
 going on then to articulate with it a closely related principle, 
 and so on until he has a systematic pedagogy. The truth is he 
 believes always with qualifications, but a systematic peda- 
 gogy can not be made of qualifications. It must accept defi- 
 nitions once and for all. To the American the definition does 
 not contain all the truth, and it contains a little which is not 
 truth. All this is said in spite of the fact that nowhere, cer- 
 tainly not in Germany, have Herbartian principles been car- 
 ried to such absurd lengths as in America. Perhaps just be- 
 cause of the absurdities in practice, the thinkers who try to see 
 all sides are timid. Certainly, no one has had the courage to 
 write two large volumes on systematic pedagogy. They are 
 satisfied with presenting the different chapters and letting the 
 reader systematize for himself. In a word, the American 
 product lacks the finish and symmetry that comes from the more 
 rigid presentation in Germany. It is possible that the 
 German has that characteristic because he is often saturated 
 with the metaphysics. 
 
 We have seen that from the outset the metaphysical basis 
 was neglected in America. The American is satisfied and has 
 faith in experience. Dr. Harris once said, "I am glad that our 
 friends are pushing the Herbartian pedagogy, but when they 
 reject the Herbartian philosophy they do not put anything 
 in its place." All that one can say in reply is that Herbartian- 
 ism grew up in America in a philosophical atmosphere made 
 chiefly by such men as James and Dewey. The doctrine of 
 pragmatism has been in the air. It preaches usefulness and 
 workableness as a test and proof of a theory. It teaches that 
 ideas are always directed toward activity and that mental life 
 is teleological. To an article by Pierce in the Popular Science 
 Monthly in 1875, is credited the beginning of the movement. 
 It is particularly in the writings of WilHam James that prag- 
 matism has exerted a wide influence. It appears, if not under 
 that name, at least prominently in his "Talks to Teachers." 
 Here the pragmatic method finds application to educational 
 thinking. Nov\^, either pragmatism has taught Herbartians 
 how to get along without a philosophy, or if pragmatism be a 
 philosophy, then it is the unconscious basis of American peda- 
 gogy- 
 
 The remark about American Herbartianism developing 
 in an atmosphere of pragmatism- is suggestive. We arrive at 
 something miore tangible when we call to mind the great ac- 
 
62 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 tivity in psychology, especially child and experimental, in 
 America. This activity has eclipsed the philosophical. The 
 American Herbartians put their trust in psychology. "On 
 these few large points in psychology, e. g. apperception and in- 
 duction, pedagogy rests" (Fourth year Book 115). The 
 Herbartian educational principles have had a new grounding 
 in psychology. The American philosophy which most in- 
 fluenced Herbartians, encouraged a neglect of any metaphysi- 
 cal basis. All the doctrines — interest, apperception, con- 
 centration — have profited from the investigations in psycholo- 
 gy and child study. Feelings, instinct and will have been 
 given a larger place, relative to the intellect, than Herbart 
 ever dreamed of. One of the staunchest of Herbartians, 
 Professor Frank McMurry, says, "The Froebelian view of 
 psychology is better, and this, back of the Herbartian peda- 
 gogy, makes the child a greater factor" (Fourth Year 
 Book 114). The active productive elements have been em- 
 phasized. It may be said that German Herbartianism ap- 
 pears intellectualistic, but that in America it is voluntaristic. 
 In fact, the psychological basis is entirely new, tho without 
 doing violence to fundamental pedagogical doctrines. New 
 discoveries and new truths have been read into the inherited 
 system. There is no better authority for the privilege than 
 Herbart's own words in speaking of Schwartz's Pedagogy. 
 "When in an earnest writer full of heat and intellect we seem 
 to miss something, it is competent for him to reply that if we 
 will only let his work act upon us a longer time, if we will read 
 ourselves into it, if we will use it anew and repeatedly on a va- 
 riety of occasions, much will be found in it that is not set down 
 in so many words" (55 :287) . 
 
 It is worth while to have a framework into which one may 
 read new truths. The product after this process may con- 
 tinue to bear the old name. This elasticity of Herbartianism 
 has saved it from destruction. Its elasticity is what makes it a 
 good educational creed. While, on the one hand, we are not 
 bound to an outgrown shell, on the other, we have a scheme in 
 which to see the educational problem as a whole. To have 
 kept the whole process of education before the mind of the 
 teacher, has been an inestimable service to the cause of edu- 
 cation. Seeing every act of teaching in relatioA to the whole 
 educational process, is the only means by which teaching is 
 kept from becoming drudgery. American Herbartianism has 
 shared in, and also contributed to, a tendency in educational 
 thinking away from the formulation of rules of procedure to 
 the formulation of large principles and to a point of view over- 
 looking the whole field (O'Shea, Education as Adjustment 
 52). 
 
 All the facts in the course of American Herbartianism 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 63 
 
 have emphasized the free position taken by the adherents, and 
 in no sense whatever can the charge be substantiated that the 
 Herbartians have been servile followers. No other members 
 have been more alert in appreciating and making use of the 
 researches of investigators in child study, experimental peda- 
 gogy, psychology, and the social sciences. The advice of Col. 
 < Parker has been followed: "Don't be followers of Herbart: be 
 followers of his spirit" (N. E. A. 1895:549). It is greatly to 
 the credit of the followers that, without being ambitious for 
 originaHty — and they have not lacked in it — they have been 
 willing to turn the results of their research and investigations 
 to the credit of the great founder. 
 
 Even if there were no followers, the service of Herbart 
 would still be unmistakable. The stimulation to thought has 
 been immeasurable to all, whether Herbartian or not. Few 
 have escaped his influence. Moreover, it furnished the themes 
 and outlines for thinking for several of the most fruitful 
 years, until those principles became common property, for 
 Herbartianism can be recognized in many who have never 
 studied Herbart, but have caught it thru imitation of those 
 working near them. What President Butler said of the Com- 
 mittee of Ten and of the doctrine of correlation may be ex- 
 tended much farther. The vast majority who have a theory 
 have Herbartianism or an Herbartian foundation to it. 
 Much of the educational thought today is conducted in terms 
 of interest, apperception, correlation, culture epochs, circle of 
 thought, — terms all but unknown in their present sense in the 
 eighties. If Herbartians had done no more than to introduce 
 these terms and to stimulate thought about them, it would 
 be the greatest service done in a generation. 
 
64 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 Reference List 
 
 ( 1) Allen, Arthur: Social Recapitulation Educational Review, 18; 
 
 344-352. 
 ( 2) Adams, J.: Herbartian Psychology Applied to Education, Boston, 
 
 1898. 
 ( 3) Adams, J . : Relation of the School Studies to Moral Training, Third 
 
 Year Book of the National Herbart Society, 73-100. 
 ( 4) Baldwin, M. : Mental Development in the Child and the Race, N. Y. 
 
 1898. 
 ( 5) Barnard, Kenry : German Pedagogy , Hartford, 1876. 
 ( 6) Blake, Harriet M. : Education, 17, 309-313. 
 ( 7) Bolton, F. E. : Recapitulation, Journal of Pedagogy, 16, 37. 
 ( 8) Brown, E. E. : Notes on the Theory of the Culture Epochs, Second 
 
 Year Book, 81-88. 
 ( 9) Butler, N. M. : The Meaning of Education, N. Y., 1905. 
 
 (10) Chancellor, W. E. : Education for Social Control, Proceedings and 
 
 Addresses of the National Education Association, 1901, 619- 
 626. 
 
 (11) Compayre, G. : Herbart and Education by Instruction, tr. by Find- 
 
 ley, N.Y., 1906. 
 
 (12) Darroch, A.: Herbart and the Herbariia>t Theory of Education, A 
 
 Criticism, London, 1903. 
 
 (13) DeGarmo, C: A Basis for Ethical Training in the Elementary 
 
 Schools, N. E. A., 1891, 170-177. 
 
 (14) Coordination of Studies, N. E. A. , 1895, 87-96. 
 
 (15) Essentials of Method, Bloomington, 1889. 
 
 (16) German Contribution to the Co-ordination of Studies, Ed. Rev. 
 
 4, 422-437. 
 
 (17) German System of Normal Schools, N. E. A., 1887, 484-492. 
 
 (18) Introductory Remarks to Pressing Problems, First Year Book, 
 3-25. 
 
 (19) Herbart and the Herbartians, N. Y., 1895. 
 
 (20) Herbartian System of Pedagogics, Ed. Rev., 1, 33-45; 244-252; 
 453-462. 
 
 (21) Interest and Education, N. Y. , 1902. 
 
 (22) Letter in Reply to Harris, Ed. , 16, 240-242. 
 
 (23) Place and Function of the Model School, N. E. A., 1883, 47-54. 
 
 (24) Present Status of the Doctrine of Interest, Second Year Book, 
 
 141-144. 
 
 (25) Relation of Instruction to Will Training, N. E. A., 1890, 118- 
 
 125. 
 
 (26) Social Aspects of Moral Education, Third Year Book, 35-57. 
 
 (27) Working Basis for the Correlation of Studies, Ed. Rev., 5, 451- 
 
 466. 
 
 (28) Dewey, J.: Ethical Principles Underlying Education, Third Year 
 
 Book. 7-34. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 65 
 
 (29) Interpretation of the Culture Epoch Theory, Second Year Book, 
 
 89-95. 
 
 (30) Interest as Related to Will, Second Supplement to the First 
 Year Book. 
 
 (31) My Educational Creed, Lang, Educational Creeds. N. Y., 1898. 
 
 5-19. 
 
 (32) School and Society, Chicago, 1 900. 
 
 (33) Dorpfeldt: The Connection between Thought and Mewory. tr. by 
 
 Lukens; Int. by G. S. Hall, Boston, 18, 1895. 
 
 (34) Dow, G. E. : Correlation of Studies, Ed. 17, 181-183. 
 
 (35) Button: Social Phases of Education, N. Y., 1899. 
 
 (36) Felkin, H. M. and E.: An Introduction to Hcrbart's Science and 
 
 Practice of Education, Boston, 1900. 
 
 (38) Felmly, D. : The Culture Epochs, Second Year Book, 126-J29. 
 
 (39) Fick, H. H. : Education of the Heart, N. E. A., 1883, 25-35.. 
 
 (40) Find'ly, J. J.: The Scope of the Science of Education. Ed. Rev., 
 
 14,236. 
 
 (41) Principles of Class Room Teaching, London, 1902. 
 
 (42) Frick and Friedel: The Value of the Didactic Principles of 
 
 Herhart—Ziller—Stoy, Supplement to Third Year Book. 153- 
 
 (43) Galbreath, L. H.: .4 Critical View of the Culture Epoch Theory. 
 
 Second Year Book, 107-1 16. 
 
 (44) Gilbert, C. B.: Some Suggestions to Herbarlian Teachers. Ed. 15. 
 
 75-80. 
 
 (45) The New Education, Ed. 16, 95-103 ; 1 51-160. 
 
 (46) Hall, G. S. : Chairs of Pedagogy in our Higher Institutions of Learn- 
 
 ing N E A Department of Superintendence, 1882. 35-44. 
 
 (47) Harris', W. T. and others: .4 Course of Study from the Primary 
 
 'Schools to the University, N. E. A., 1876, 58-67. 
 
 (48) Harris, Soldan, Halland others: Is there a Science of Education r. 
 
 N. E. A., National Council, 1884, 49-55. 
 
 (49) Harris, W. T. : Herbart's Unmoral Education, Ed., 16, 178-181. 
 
 (50) Five Coordinate Groups of Studies, N. E. A., 1896, 287-296. 
 
 (51) Correlation, Report of U. S. Commissioner of Education, 1893, 
 
 XXXIV-XL. 
 
 (52) Report of the Committee of Fifteen, U. S. Com. of Ed., 1893- 4, 
 
 489-541,alsoinN.E. A., 1895,287-394. 
 
 (53 ) The Study of Arrested Development, Ed. , 20, 453, 460. 
 
 (54) Hayward, F. H. : The Secret of Herbart, London, 1904. 
 
 (55) Herbart J F ■ The A. B. C. of Sense Perception, and Minor Peda- 
 
 gogickl works, tr. by W . J. Eckof=f, with notes, N. Y. , 1896. 
 
 (56) Application of Psychology to the Science of Educatton. tr. by 
 
 BeatricMuUinger, London, 1898. 
 
 (57) The Science of Education and Aesthetic Revelation of the World. 
 tr. by Henry M. and Emma Felkin, London, 1892, Boston, 
 1895. 
 
 (58) Psychology, tr. by Miss M. K. Smith, N . Y. , 1 892. 
 
66 THE DOCTRINES OF HERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 (59) Outlines of Educational Doctrine, tr. by Lange; annotated by 
 
 Professor DcGarmo, N. Y., 1901. 
 
 (61) Hervey, W. L. : The Study of Education at the German Universities, 
 
 Ed. Rev., 16,220-232. 
 
 (62) Hinsdale, B. A.: Notes on Foreign Inflttence on Education in the 
 
 U. S. Report U. S. Com. of Ed., 1897-'8, 591-629. 
 
 (63) The Dogma of Formal Discipline, N. E. A. , 1894, 625-635. 
 
 (64) The Colossal Man Theory of Education, Second Year Book, 117- 
 125. 
 
 (65) Holmes, M. J. : Historical Sketch of the Herbart Society, Sixth Year 
 
 Book of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Edu- 
 cation, 68-72. 
 
 (66) Hoose, J. : On the Educations! 1 'atuc of Racli of the Comnum School 
 
 Studies, N. E. A., 1885, 224-234. 
 
 (67) Payne and Brooks Report of the Committee on Educational 
 
 Values of Common School Studies, N. E. A., 1886, 403-420 
 
 (68) Howerth, J. N. : The Development of the Social Aim in Education, 
 
 Jr. of Ped. 12, 230-243; 13, 102-109; 169-180. 
 
 (69) Jackman, W. S., The Correlation of Mathematics, Ed. Re\'. 25, 249 
 
 -264. 
 
 (70) James, W. : Psychology, Briefer Course, 1892. 
 
 (71) Principles of Psychology, N. Y., 1890. 
 
 (72) Pragmatism, N. Y., 1907. 
 
 (73) Talks to Teachers on Psychology, N. Y. , 1899. 
 
 (74) Jenks, J. N. : Social Basis of Education, Ed. Rev. 25, 442-463. 
 
 (75) Lange, Apperception, tr. by Herba:rt Club, Boston, 1892. 
 
 (76) Lindner: Empirical Psychology, tr. by DeGarmo, N. Y., 1892. 
 
 (77) Lukens, H. T. : Point of Difference between Race and Individual 
 
 Development, Second Year Book, 56-70. 
 
 (78) The Vital Question in the Curriculum, Ed. 18,U9-29. 
 
 (79), McMurry, C. A.: The Elements of General Method based on the 
 Principles of Herbart, Bloomington, 1892. 
 
 (80) Hoiv to Conduct the Recitation, 1 896. 
 
 (81) Method of the Recitation, N. Y., 1903. 
 
 (82) Pioneer History Stories, 1 89 1 . 
 
 (83) .1 Reply to Dr. White's Paper against Coordination!, Second 
 
 Year Book, 48-52. 
 
 (84) Herbart and the Course of Study, N. E. A. , 1895, 470-481 . 
 
 (85) The Culture Epochs, Second Year Book, 96-106. 
 
 (86) McMurry, F. : Value of Herbartian Pedagogy for Normal Schools, 
 
 N. E. A., 1892, 421-433. 
 
 (87) Concentration, First Year Book, 27-69. 
 
 (88) Bases of Omission in Courses of Study, N. E. A. , 1904, 194-202. 
 
 (89) With C. A. McMurry : The Elements of General Method. 
 
 (90) Ostermann: Interest in its Relation to Pedagogy, tr. and edited l^y 
 
 Shaw, N. Y., 1899, 
 
 (91) Parker, F. W.: 7"rt/A'.s- on Pedagogics, an outline of the Theory of 
 
 Concentration, N. Y., 1S!I4. 
 
THE DOCTRINES OF llERBART IN THE UNITED STATES 67 
 
 (92) Page: Theory and Practice of Teaching, First Edition 1847, edited 
 
 by W . H. Payne, N. Y., 1885. 
 
 (93) Payne, Joseph : Lectures on the Science and Art of Education, 1883. 
 
 (94) Payne, W . H. : Contributions to the Science of Education, 1887. 
 
 (95) Rein, W.: Education in Germany, Report of U. S. Com. of Ed. 
 1894-1895, 322-329. 
 
 (90) Outlines of Pedagogics, tr. l^y C. C. and Ida J. Van Liew, Syra- 
 
 cuse, 1895. 
 
 (97) A. Pickel, E. Scheller: Theorie U. Praxis des Volkschulunter- 
 richis, Das ersie Schuljahr, Seventh edition, Leipzig, 190. 
 
 (98) Rooper, T. G. : .4 pperccption, or a Pot of Green Feathers, Syracuse, 
 
 1897. 
 
 (99) Schaeffer, N. C. : Books on Pedagogy, N. E. A., 1888, 281-289. 
 
 (100) Schmidt, Karl : Journal of Speculative Philosophy, April, 1876. 
 (ion Scott, Isora: Pragmatism in Educational Theory, Jr. of Ped. 19, 
 
 42-61. 
 
 (102) Seeley, L. : Culture Epochs, Second Year Book, 71-80. 
 
 (103) Spencer, H. : Edwca^on. 
 
 (104) Soldan, F. L. : Outlines of a Philosophy of Education, N. E. A. 
 
 1887, 74-79. 
 
 (105) Stearns, J W. : The Public Schools and Morality, N. E. A.. 1 885, 
 
 81-90. 
 
 (106) The Correlation of Subjects, N. E. A., 1890, 200-208. 
 
 (107) Ufer, Chr. : Introduction to the Pedagogy of Herbart, tr. by j. C. 
 
 Zinsen ; edited by DeGarmo, Boston, 1896. 
 
 (108) Van Liew, C. C. : Training for Citizenship, Third Year Book. 
 
 117-122. 
 
 (109) The Educational Theory of the Culture Epochs. First \'ear 
 
 Book, 67-113. 
 aiO) .1 Reply to Sonw Conniu'uts on the Culture Epochs Theory, 
 
 Second Year Book, 1 30- 1 40. 
 (HI) .4 Review of the "Method of the Recitation" , Ed. Rew, \r>,:\><H- 
 
 193. 
 
 (112) \'oin Amerikanischen Ersiehungswesen . Zeitschrift fuer Philoso- 
 phic u. Paedagogik, 1894, 375. 
 
 {113) Xeue Erscheinungen aus Paed., Lit. der \'. S. von N. .1., 
 Paedagogische Studien, 14, 93-109. 
 
 ClM^i Welton, J. A.: Synthesis of Herbart and Froebel, Ed. Rev., 25, 
 109-122. 
 
 (115) White, E. A.; Moral Training in the Public Schools, N. E. A., 
 
 1896, 128-148. 
 
 (116) Isolation and Unification as Basis of Courses of Study, Report 
 of U. S. Com. of Ed. 1895-'6, 929-933. 
 
 (117) Woodbridge, F. J. E.: Pragmati.sm and Education, Ed. Rev., 34, 
 
 227-240. 
 
LiBRftRY OF CONGRESS