In fact, the law of altruism is the law of existence and life in the world everywhere. Everything has its being in and thru some other thing. Evolution has taught us the great truth that nothing can live unto itself alone. The finger lives in and thru the hand, and the hand in and thru the finger. The plant lives in and thru the soil, and the soil in and thru the plant. A thing is as essential to its environment as the environment is to the thing.

Even in competition and grasping monopolies the law of altruism still holds. Competing industries and organizations to thrive must come to terms dictated by those who patronize them. No greater kindness was ever done to man than that done by a heartless, grasping railroad corporation. If some charity organization had put itself to work to do the very best thing it could do for humanity, it could do no better than has been done by so-called heartless corporations. Suppose that mankind had waited for the church and benevolent institutions to have built up the industrial system by which man attains his physical and spiritual freedom, we should still be in utter bondage. I am not claiming that it is the conscious purpose of a corporation to benefit others, but, to all intents and purposes, what is done under competition works to that end. God makes the wrath of man to praise him. There is a spirit that rules in these matters above the individual consciousness. There is such a thing as true and honest competition. It is the method by which civilization is worked out. In true competition both parties are benefited - both he who competes and the one whose patronage is sought.

No case can be found in which altruistic and egoistic duties are in conflict. The young lady who misses school to take care of her invalid mother seems to be very self-sacrificing; but what would she sacrifice if she deserted her mother? Her duty to her mother is likewise a duty to herself. Man's duty is to be polite to his fellow-man, but it is a duty which he owes to himself. An obligation on one side is equally binding on the other. Man can love his neighbor as himself. Man's standard of self-love is this: he will do nothing to mar the jewel of the soul, and he will do everything possible to realize his highest manhood. This standard of self-love applied to one's neighbor proves that one can love his neighbor as himself. For man may say, "I will do nothing to harm my fellow-man, and I will do everything in my power to aid him in the pursuit of the highest good." Altruism does not require one who has earned a dollar to give it to another. If so, it would require the other who earned a dollar to give it to the first. In this case there would be shuffling of dollars to no purpose. In fact, if the law of altruism is onesided in its requirements, the man who is offered the dollar would be compelled to refuse it. The whole movement of life is blocked on a one

sided altruism.

Now, we shall come to the root of this whole matter if we examine into the nature of self. Self is the organic unity of this self and the other self. If at this moment I should say "myself," and then, after mastering the struggle for American independence by the study of history, I should say "myself" again, I would include in myself the period of history which I had mastered. If this history is myself after its mastery, it was myself before. I read a poem and am flushed with a new life. The poem now is a part of myself, and it must have been my future, my possible self before. No conception of self can be formed which does not include both subject and object. And here we have the gist of the whole matter. A child is prompted to study by its altruistic impulse. It craves the other world as another self. The child in thinking is striving to break down the distinction between subject and object. The teacher's chief work is to set up tension between subject and object, and to stimulate such processes of thought as will release the tension.

The value of a subject of study can only be estimated in terms of the breadth of outlook which it gives into the world about. Studies cannot be estimated in terms of discipline, but in terms of outlook, and therefore of increase of self. No one would undertake to compare the disciplinary values of Choctaw and Latin. But, in terms of outlook and of subjective increase, the comparative value is strikingly in favor of Latin. Latin opens the way out into laws of language in general, and reveals to us the thought and spirit of a marvelous people.

It thus appears that no reason can be given for studying a thing except in terms of the life of the learner. It is often said that we teach history in order to make good citizens, but I think that no one ever studied history under such a motive. What he really craves is a larger life thru the touch of the spirit of the race. Man climbs the mountain and views the landscape under the rising sun; he does it again and again, and can make no explanation other than the sense of the larger life thru his broader outlook. Man sits upon the seashore and looks out into the infinite surging sea, and finds no answer, except in terms of his infinite surging self. Teachers have too long been trying to explain and justify what they do in terms which do not ultimately explain. The objects of study and fields of thought mastered must be transformed into the life of the student. It is "more life and fuller that we want." The spirit of man longs for that which is not itself; having mastered this, he is more of a self. Thus the two sides of egoism and altruism are inseparably linked in every life process. Man goes forth to realize himself, but there is no way of self-realization except thru self-sacrifice; that is, losing the self in the truth and beauty of the world about, which is the other self which every individual strives to become.

THE HIGH SCHOOL AS THE PEOPLE'S COLLEGE

G. STANLEY HALL, PRESIDENT OF CLARK UNIVERSITY, WORCESTER, MASS.

Education may fit the youth to live in the past, the present, or the future; and systems may be distinguished according to the relative influence of each. In the Renaissance, which was the golden dawn of secondary education, the past ruled. The literature and life of ancient Greece and Rome were revived. Sturm's goal was so to train his pupils that if they were suddenly transported to Rome or Athens they would be at home in the language, history, and customs. The vernacular was formed on the model of the ponderous Ciceronian sentence which set all the fashions in style. Latin was the language of the school and the playground. The games and the whole atmosphere harked back to antiquity. There was no contemporary literature, history, science deemed worth while. The fashion and the earmark of culture was to write a style interlarded with classical quotations and allusions. Liberal education consisted in reviving the dead past, and the results were remarkable. The boys became young Greeks and Romans.

How have we fallen away! Years of the study of Latin and Greek do not accomplish what months did then. Methods and results alike are degenerate. The baby Latin and Greek taught in our high schools is but a sanctified relic, the ghost of a ghost; and we find today almost every degree of degeneration from the golden age of secondary classical training. This is confessed even by its representatives in the German Gymnasia, where the old ideal is still best maintained in the modern world. An informed writer says that this high-school fetich no more revives antique culture than the soil is fertilized by the smell of the dung-cart driven over it; says that he has been incapacitated for his duties in modern life by the seductions of this phantom, and that his grandfather, the president of the United States, was injured by it, altho, pathetic to relate, he always praised it. The German emperor, in his famous rescript, declared it a shame to the modern youth to excel in Latin composition, and declared that he would have no more Gymnasia or Professor Hintzpeters. Norway forbids and Sweden has almost banished it from the secondary schools. The well-known Frankfurt method substitutes three years of modern languages for this, and finds at the end of five years pupils have more than made up. Mr. Reddie at Abbotsholme, Lietz at Ilsenburg, Demolins at L'école de Roche, have set back fires that are spreading in their respective countries. Booker T. Washington says the two chief desires of the colored youth during all the reconstruction period were to hold office and to study Latin, and that his life-work for his race has been directed against these two evils.

I raise no question of the great value of these studies for those who

go deeply into them. I acknowledge an inestimable debt to antiquity. I believe in humanistic culture. But when I find that during the past ten years, in which our high-school population has more than doubled, Latin has increased from 34 per cent. in 1890 to about 50 per cent. in 1900, while the proportion of those who go to college has decreased from 14 to 11 per cent., I believe the educational waste and devastation, in view of the growing claims and growing neglect of modern subjects, are calamitous to the point of pathos.

Despite vigorous denials, I am convinced that the general complaint of imperfect command of the mother-tongue by high-school youth is due largely to translation English, and I cite the report of the Harvard entrance committee which challenges comparison for slovenness and mutilation of good English style; and yet it is just at this stage, before the power to read without translating is acquired, that a recent writer says the chief benefit for the vernacular is acquired. Most high-school Latinists do not go on to college. Beginnings that leave abandoned tracks in the brain because there is no relation to after-life are evil. Moreover, it is a purely formal discipline with almost no content as now taught. Its practical relations to life, arts, literature, which are so magnified, are of the slightest. Thirty-four per cent. of those who drop out of the high school do so from loss of interest and enchantment, and this is true mainly with the classics.

What keeps these studies alive? First, their traditional respectability. The high school was the Latin school, and children and parents feel they have launched on a higher stage in development when they are known to be students of Latin and perhaps algebra; especially is this true of Catholics. Moreover, Latin is often required in the first high-school year, still more often strongly advised. Again, it is probably the easiest and cheapest of all subjects to teach. I would undertake to hire a hundred female Latin teachers at shorter notice and for less cost than in any other topic. Again, college requirements and possibilities are an enormous bribe, and our secondary education is losing its independence by the excessive interference and dominance from above; and, finally, one can teach Latin and break in the youthful mind with more authority and ease. than in any other topic. The voice of its defects is either hoarse or thin and piping with age. They are the rear guard in the retreat of what was once a great army; but the grasp of this dead hand from the tombs of culture must be relaxed.

How different when we turn from the too exclusive dominance of the past, which has its stronghold in that most conservative of all institutions, perhaps the church not excepted, to the training that fits for modern life in the present! Happily there is always a rapidly growing tendency in every modern race and nation to make its schools in its own image, and to measure their efficiency by how well they fit for the

domestic, social, political, industrial present. It is the burden of the German Kaiser's complaint that the schools do not give him good soldiers, well-trained civil servants, competent administrators, intelligent patriots. The ministry, and still more the law, show progressive inadequacy to the demands laid upon them. Mr. Kidd would test schools by the maximal social efficiency. Our own Dr. Harris measures them by the thoroness with which they prepare for the life of state, church, school, and home. We often imagine the enormous stimulus which would follow if educational requirements were as thoroly enforced here for our 120,000 office-holders as they are in Germany, where, to fill the lowest office, one must have attained a certain state schooling, and each higher stage up thru secondary and university grades opens the possibility of higher and higher government appointments. Business and trades also have their requirements.

To interpret "fitting for life" to mean fitting for the best service' in existing institutions of the present, altho immeasurably better than fitting for the past, brings, along with all its inspiration, a growing danger of narrowness. It is a Roman postulate dear to organizers and to those who love to impart prepared knowledge, which the mature intellect selects as most useful. It tends to utilitarianism and is illiberal, whether one is fitting for a trade or for college. Standards are external, and the question is: Will it pay, whether in money or in passing examinations? Those who thus conceive education place the social organism first and subordinate the individual to his place in it. Citizenship bulks large compared with manhood and womanhood. Their philosophy of education, if they have one, is clear and convenient. Napoleon organized French education on this plan that it might give him good officials. Three-fourths of the students of the lycées look forward to snug little berths, and those who fail, after weary years of eating their hearts out, turn to independent careers from necessity, as a last resort. An office, with badge, uniform, and permanence, is the French parent's ideal. The hopelessness of reforms in secondary education here is due to the excessive surveillance of the school to the needs of the social and political community. The French boy's spur to graduate early is that he may get in the line of promotion in office, which is always by seniority. Families have to be small, because every addition diminishes each child's share of the parents' property, and no girl and few boys can marry without a dowry. The French schoolboy thus foresees everything in his career at the start, save only the date of his death, unless he fails of appointment and remains a candidate for starvation. In China the evils of this system are more fully developed. Demolins well says: "That system of education which attempts to adapt the young to existing institutions is bad and must fail." It tends to make young graduates tuft-hunters and placeseekers, hoping to secure by influence soft berths, instead of launching.