applied to Education," M. Compayré opens his treatise, a schoolbook, in the following terms:

Why should the study of psychology, formerly the privilege of classical secondary institutions, have been recently introduced into our elementary instruction-into the programmes of our normal schools? Why, also, has it been even more recently inscribed to some degree upon the programme of special instruction?" and he proceeds to answer his inquiry in this fashion:

"The first and the most useful of all the sciences is that which is condensed in this simple maxim, Know yourself.' To know yourself is truly the key to all the moral sciences. To know yourself is to know all men. It is to grasp the principles upon which rest all the knowledge that relates to moral nature and humanity. History would be only a succession of incoherent facts, an enigmatic procession of uncomprehended personages for him who has not learned in the school of psychology to unravel the interior motives, ideas, feelings, and passions which set man in motion. How may one pretend to direct forces of whose nature one is ignorant ↑ "

Two questions seem to offer in connection with psychology as a study capable of giving the ability mentioned in the foregoing quotation. In the first place, will textbook psychology suffice? and in the second place, what is the connection between the practical psychology or experience of the practice or model school and the theoretical psychology of the class room?

On the first of these doubts M. Compayré speaks as follows:

"It is too frequently forgotten that a difference exists between the scientific study of psychology and the teaching of its elements. Psychology, properly so called, considered as a science, the object of profound research of philosophy, is one thing; quite another school psychology-the psychology of the class room. Long ago this distinction was made for easier sciences; history, for example. We do not confound an historian and a professor of history; a book of profound erudition, as Henri Martin's Histoire de France, and the manuals that are usually placed in the hands of students. Authors of treatises on psychology are not always conscious of the wisdom of making this distinction. Their works are pretentious, even to the extent of being scientific, rather than works of a popular nature and for general education. The professor of psychology especially considers, then, that a choice is to be made between useless facts and encumbering details and those truly useful which offer a practical interest while their simplicity and their clearness make them accessible to immature minds."

But should the practical exercises of the practice school wholly precede the study of psychology of the class room, or wholly follow it, or go hand in hand with it? If, in conformity with the usage in American normal schools, we conclude that the last is the best method, can a text-book, such as M. Compayré advocates, be made subservient to such method? It would seem that much depends upon the teacher, who should be, it seems to us, a passed master in the scientific-the real-psychology that M. Compayré claims is inappropriate in the class room. Without pursuing the idea further it may again be said that it has been remarked by another learned pedagogue and Frenchman, M. Gréard, that the application of psychology to education becomes more delicate the more ignorant the elementary pupil who is under instruction; from which it follows that the normal student should be well grounded in psychology before attempting to teach in the practice school.

By the side of psychology stand the "science of education," "methods," "school management," and, most favored of, all the so-called “history of education," which, however, is usually nothing more than a chronologically arranged résumé of the theories of education held by practical or unpractical thinkers. The historical facts that Germany has a professional corps of teachers and that we have not, may be ascribable to the influence of the theories of a Pestalozzi or a Basedow in Germany and of the monitorial system in America; but these theories are not the history of education, but a possible explanation of these historical facts.

It is not so easy to define sharply the difference between the "science of education" and psychology, especially educational psychology." It was not at all surprising to have a principal of a Wisconsin normal school say that the first four heads of the qualitative tables that follow were ambiguous. It is because they are so ambiguous, and yet so much talked about as though they were not, that has caused us to compile the tables. Other than their completeness they contain nothing new.

TABLE 1.-Theoretical and practical professional work in the public normal schools of the Eastern and Middle States.

TABLE 1.-Theoretical and practical professional work in the public normal schools of the Eastern and Middle States-Continued.

350

5

19

17

5

18

17

10

38

100

5

38

70

5

14

59

42

59

5

42

80

5

28

59

TABLE 1.-Theoretical and practical professional work in the public normal schools of the Eastern and Middle States-Continued.

NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION-Continued.