suddenly prohibited by the Prussian government, (and afterward in Saxony,) "because they formed a part of Froebel's socialistic system, and trained the children to atheism." This was an error; Charles Froebel, Friedrich's nephew, was the socialist, and the kindergarten had no connection with him.

A meeting of educationalists was called by Diesterweg, at Liebenstein, when the following resolutions were adopted :

1. Froebel intends a universal development of the talents given by God to the child.

2. For this purpose he intends,

a.

To cultivate the body by a series of gymnastic exercises.

b. To cultivate the senses, particularly the more spiritual; the sense for form and color by instruction, and the rhythmical and musical sense by songs and melodies.

C. To cultivate the desired want of action, as well as the mental faculties in general, by a series of exercises furnished by plays of his own invention.

d. To stimulate the moral and religious sense by addresses and narratives, and especially by the child's communion with the educating nurse.

e. To extinguish the children's bad habits, and to accustom them to childlike virtues by keeping them by themselves in social circles and merry plays.

Soon after this the garden at Marienthal was visited by an officer of the Prussian government, school-counselor Bormann of Berlin, who declared its tendency rather anti-revolutionary than otherwise, and bestowed upon it much praise. In the fifth general assembly of German teachers, in Salzungen, May 16–19, 1853, the following resolutions were adopted by a majority: that Froebel's educational method is in true accordance with nature, as developing and promoting independent action; and that his kindergarten is an excellent preparation for the common school. The Volksfreund of Hesse, however, says that it furthers revolution, and that every one who agrees with it by word or deed, is himself revolutionary.

There are in Germany a great many klein-kinder-bewahranstelten, (institutions for keeping little children,) e. g, in Bavaria, in 1852, 182, with 6,796 children, (2,740 gratis,) and an income of 51,772 florins. In Berlin there are 33, the first of which was founded in 1830 by private charity, to keep little children whose parents are in daytime absent from home, under a good inspection, to accustom them to order, cleanliness and morality, and to fit them for attendance at school. These charity schools are provided, as to the age of children, by the well-known "Krippen," (crèches,) founded in 1844 by M. Marbeau in Paris, the author of" Les crèches, ou moyen de diminuer la misère en augmentant la population," a little book that received a price of 3000 francs from the French Academy. Filling a gap between the lying-in-institutions and the kindergarten, they were rapidly adopted by governments and cities, for children from a fortnight to two years old; and in 1852 Paris had already 18. The first in London dates from March, 1850; in Vienna, from 1849, (in 1852 there were 8;) in Belgium, from 1846; in Dresden, from 1851, etc. Further information is given in the Bulletin des crèches, published monthly in Paris. On the education of little children, Mr. Foelsing, at the head of a kindergarten in Darmstadt on Froebel's principles but in a somewhat different way, publishes at Darmstadt a monthly paper called "Home and the Infant School." The Sunday and weekly papers published formerly by Froebel in Liebenstein, might be still read with advantage.

It must be observed, that the kindergarten are for the most part not charity nor public schools, as are the other institutions mentioned; and this may in part account for this small increase compared with that of other schools. Yet no one can doubt, that Froebel's work has not been lost; it has influenced education generally and that of infant schools in particular, to a great extent.

GERMAN VIEWS ON FEMALE TEACHING IN AMERICA.-Dr. Vogel makes the following remarks on this subject, in the Leipziger Zeitung, July 16, 1857.

"Among the many interesting communications from the United States, which we owe partly to the kindness of private friends, and partly to the liberality of the Smithsonian Institution, through the kind mediation of the American consul at Leipsic, in a statement in the 37th Report on the Public Schools of the City and County of Philadelphia. This brings to our notice a very important fact, to which we deem it the more our duty to draw general attention through this gazette, because it throws a warning light on the future of our own schools, and especially of city and country teachers.

We premise the general statement, that among our transatlantic cousins in North America, a most praiseworthy effort has been made during a series of years, to found and extend a well-organized national school system. Men well qualified for the task, and justly appreciating the wants of their country, so rich in material resources,-Alexander Dallas Bache, Horace Mann, and above all, at a later period, Dr. Henry Barnard of Hartford, in Connecticut, so wisely and perseveringly active in laboring to raise the standard of American schools, and whose American Journal of Education, elegant in form and rich in matter, we propose shortly to discuss—have traveled in Europe with the express purpose of observing and knowing for themselves, the school systems of the different countries, and of applying the results of their observations to the benefit of their country, by the improvement of existing schools and systems, or the foundation of new ones.

We return to the Philadelphia report for 1850. This contains all necessary information respecting organization, number of teachers and scholars, gradation of schools in different districts, supervision by district authorities, salaries, other expenses, school interiors, (with cuts of several new ones,) &c., &c., all as clear and definite in names and numbers, as is to be expected from such a practical nation.

The number of children from six to fifteen years of age, was 54,813; of which 28,152 were boys, and 26,661 girls. These attended 303 schools, in 24 districts. Among these schools are; a high school with 601 pupils and 16 teachers; a normal school for females, with 196 pupils and 2 male and 6 female teachers; and a school of practice, with 244 pupils, and 4 female teachers. The remainder, primary, secondary, grammar, and unclassified schools, all belong to the category which we call Elementary Schools, People's Schools, (Volksschulen,) and Burgher Schools. The sexes are partly separate and partly mixed, often very unequally. E. g., in one secondary school there are 170 girls, and only 14 boys. Generally, however, the proportions are nearly equal; and the whole number of pupils is in no school greater than 400, and in most not more than 200. Schools grown like an avalanche to 2000 pupils and upwards, are unknown there.

But in respect to the teachers we find the important and altogether abnormal fact, to which this communication is intended to call attention. The whole body of teachers in the common schools of Philadelphia, including the normal school and school of practice, amounts in all to 935 persons, a number relatively not very

large; but hear and wonder:-Among the 935, there are only EIGHTY-ONE

MEN.

All the rest are women. Hear! Hear! A city of more than 400,000 inhabitants, the second of the United States in importance, commits the education of its male and female youth, until the 14th and 15th year of age, almost exclusively to female hands! Ladies teach not only languages, history and geography, but also rhetoric, geometry and algebra, natural philosophy and chemistry; are at the head of large boys' schools, and guide bodies of teachers. And the reason for this is to be found, not at all in a different pedagogical system, as might be supposed, but rather,—as a glance at the teachers' salaries shows-solely or principally, because man's capacity values itself at a price higher than the school and financial officers wish to pay. A well trained and able man will not sell himself at a price below that demanded by his self-consciousness, and by his modest and reasonable claims to a sufficient living; i. e., he will not devote himself with all he has, is, knows, and is able to do, to the teacher's profession, if more is offered from another, perhaps less agreeable, side; he will not be valued at less by the school than by the counting house, the railroad, or the farmer. Hence we see, in the list of teachers, no man at less than 600 dollars, (800 thalers,) income. He would consider such a one below the dignity of the place to which he should be called, or below his own dignity, or as foolish, or something like it. And who can blame him for it, how high-soever the "ideals" of life are to be valued?

But what may we in Germany, our school boards, parishes, the state—which must have as much interest in possessing a body of able teachers as in possessing an able army-what may they all learn from the fact spoken of? To endeavor, by every means, and in good season, that the German Common School may not fall into a like situation, which would endanger its inmost life. For, highly as we esteem the work of women in general, and particularly in the field of education, we refuse decidedly, to permit them so abundant a share in the proper school work and teacher's office, as that granted—as it appears, by necessity-in Philadelphia. The boy who has passed his eighth year, especially, needs a severer discipline; stronger food for his mind, than women can afford him. Single exceptions make no rule; wherefore we dare to entertain some modest doubts of the "superior character of the instruction and the high state of discipline," 'which the report, (p. 15,) asserts of the public schools of Philadelphia. We want men in our German school, and men in the fullest and best sense of the word: sure in the needed knowledge, firm in character, decided and persevering in their endeavor for higher objects, warm and faithful in their love of children, men of clear mind, of noble and pious heart; religious without hypocrisy, or fear of man, genuine and true sons of their country, whose welfare and honor is their own. To gain and to keep such men for the school, state and parish, must not be niggard; else the best will leave it, and only the weak will remain; the women, and the woman-like, who indeed will do far less than women who strive with enthusiasm after the high aim of their vocation. Let us then no longer hesitate, when the values of money and of the necessities of life, have undergone such important changes, to re-adjust and increase the salaries of teachers, in order to escape the danger which threatens that they will sink into poverty and distress, and that thus the inner life of the schools, and with it that of our youth, the hope of future ages, will be necessarily destroyed. Thus we conclude, with the warn ing call of the Roman state in time of danger: Videant consules, ne quid detri· menti respublica capiat!"

THE KINDERGARTEN SYSTEM.*

Froebel first gave the name of Kindergarten about the year 1840 to his school of young children between three and seven years of age at Blankenburg, near Rudolstadt. Its purpose is thus briefly indicated by himself:-"To take the oversight of children before they are ready for school life; to exert an influence over their whole being in correspondence with its nature; to strengthen their bodily powers; to exercise their senses; to employ the awakening mind; to make them thoughtfully acquainted with the world of nature and of man; to guide their heart and soul in a right direction, and lead them to the Origin of all life and to union with Him." To secure those objects, the child must be placed under the influence of a properly trained governess for a portion of the day after reaching the age of three.

Froebel differs from Pestalozzi, who thought that the mother, as the natural educator of the child, ought to retain the sole charge up to the sixth or seventh year. This necessarily narrows the child's experience to the family circle, and excludes in many cases the mutual action and reaction of children upon each other-under conditions most favorable to development. Mr. Payne embodies the genesis of Froebel's system in his own mind as follows:

Let us imagine Fræbel taking his place amidst a number of children disporting themselves in the open air without any check upon their movements. After Jooking on the pleasant scene awhile, he breaks out into a soliloquy :

"What exuberant life! What immeasurable enjoyment! What unbounded activity! What an evolution of physical forces! What a harmony between the inner and the outer life! What happiness, health, and strength! Let me look a little closer. What are these children doing? The air rings musically with their shouts and joyous laughter. Some are running, jumping, or bounding along, with eyes like the eagle's bent upon its prey, after the ball which a dexterous hit of the bat sent flying among them; others are bending down towards the ring filled with marbles, and endeavoring to dislodge them from their position; others are running friendly races with their hoops; others again, with arms laid across each other's shoulders, are quietly walking and talking together upon some matter in which they evidently have a common interest. Their natural fun gushes out from eyes and lips. I hear what they say. It is simply expressed, amusing, generally intelligent, and often even witty. But there is a small group of children yonder. They seem eagerly intent on some subject. What is it? I see one of them has taken a fruit from his pocket. He is showing it to his fellows. They look at it and admire it. It is new to them. They wish to know more about it-to handle, smell, and taste it. The owner gives it into their hands; they feel and smell, but do not taste it. They give it back to the owner, his right to it being generally admitted. He bites it, the rest looking eagerly on to watch the result. His face shows that he likes the taste; his eyes grow brighter with satisfaction. The rest desire to make his experience their own. He sees their desire, breaks or cuts the fruit in pieces, which he distributes among them. He adds to his own pleasure by sharing in theirs. Suddenly a loud shout from some other part of the ground attracts the attention of the group, which scatters in all directions. Let me now consider. What does all this manifold movement-this exhibition of spontaneous energyreally mean? To me it seems to have a profound meaning.

"It means

"1. That there is an immense external development and expansion of energy of various kinds-physical, intellectual, and moral. Limbs, senses, lungs, tongues, minds, hearts, are all at work-all coöperating to produce the general effect.

Lecture delivered at the College of Preceptors at London, Feb. 25th, 1874, by Joseph Payne, Professor of the Science and Art of Education to the College.

"2. That activity-doing-is the common characteristic of this development of force.

"3. That spontaneity-absolute freedom from outward control-appears to be both impulse and law to the activity.

"4.

That the harmonious combination and interaction of spontaneity and activity constitute the happiness which is apparent. The will to do prompts the doing; the doing reacts on the will.

"5.

That the resulting happiness is independent of the absolute value of the exciting cause. A bit of stick, a stone, an apple, a marble, a hoop, a top, as soon as they become objects of interest, call out the activities of the whole being quite as effectually as if they were matters of the greatest intrinsic value. It is the action upon them-the doing something with them-that invests them with

interest.

"6. That this spontaneous activity generates happiness because the result is gained by the children's own efforts, without external interference. What they do themselves and for themselves, involving their own personal experience, and therefore exactly measured by their own capabilities, interests them. What another, of trained powers, standing on a different platform of advancement, does for them, is comparatively uninteresting. If such a person, from whatever motive, interferes with their spontaneous activity, he arrests the movement of their forces, quenches their interest, at least for the moment; and they resent the interference.

"Such, then, appear to be the manifold meanings of the boundless spontaneous activity that I witness. But what name, after all, must I give to the totality of the phenomena exhibited before me? I must call them Play. Play, then, is spontaneous activity ending in the satisfaction of the natural desire of the child for pleasure-for happiness. Play is the natural, the appropriate business and occupation of the child left to his own resources. The child that does not play, is not a perfect child. He wants something-sense organ, limb, or generally what we imply by the term health-to make up our ideal of a child. The healthy child plays-plays continually-cannot but play.

"But has this instinct for play no deeper significance? Is it appointed by the Supreme Being merely to fill up time-merely to form an occasion for fruitless exercise?-merely to end in itself? No! I see now that it is the constituted means for the unfolding of all the child's powers. It is through play that he learns the use of his limbs, of all his bodily organs, and with this use gains health and strength. Through play he comes to know the external world, the physical qualities of the objects which surround him, their motions, action, and re-action upon each other, and the relation of these phenomena to himself; a knowledge which forms the basis of that which will be his permanent stock for life. Through play, involving associateship and combined action, he begins to recognize moral relations, to feel that he cannot live for himself alone, that he is a member of a community, whose rights he must acknowledge if his own are to be acknowledged. In and through play, moreover, he learns to contrive means for securing his ends; to invent, construct, discover, investigate, to bring by imagination the remote near, and, further, to translate the language of facts into the language of words, to learn the conventionalities of his mother tongue. Play, then, I see, is the means by which the entire being of the child develops and grows into power, and, therefore, does not end in itself.

"But an agency which effects results like these is an education agency; and Play, therefore, resolves itself into education; education which is independent of the formal teacher, which the child virtually gains for and by himself. This, then, is the outcome of all that I have observed. The child, through the spontaneous activity of all his natural forces, is really developing and strengthening them for future use; he is working out his own education.

"But what do I, who am constituted by the demands of society as the formal educator of these children, learn from the insight I have thus gained into their nature? I learn this-that I must educate them in conformity with that nature. I must continue, not supersede, the course already begun; my own course must be based upon it. I must recognize and adopt the principles involved in it, and frame my laws of action accordingly. Above all, I must not neutralize and deaden that spontaneity which is the mainspring of all the machinery; I must rather encourage it, while ever opening new fields for its exercise, and giving it