When Mill's two discussions (in widely separate parts of his book) are read for the first time, diffuseness, if not haziness, is likely enough the resulting impression. With Joyce, on the other hand, one feels delight in reading such crisp and clearcut statements fitting in so inevitably with all that has preceded. The list of topics in Professor Joyce's book is much the same as one finds in the customary book on inductive and deductive logic; Part I gives the traditional formal logic, while Part II treats of "applied logic, or the method of science." In Part I appears much the same method of treatment to be found in any book on formal logic, and yet there is a fundamental line of cleavage distinctly visible in many of the topics; for the author holds, consistently enough, that " it is impossible to deal with logical questions save in connection with definite metaphysical and epistemological principles."

Whether it is possible for neo-scholasticism to give adequate treatment to the "method of science" is an inquiry that belongs elsewhere; but this part of Professor Joyce's book seems to the reviewer the least satisfactory. The criticisms made above upon non-Catholic writers on logic as to their (alleged) comparative lack of coherency of system and precision in presentation apply with equal force, on the whole, to Professor Joyce's treatment of the more modern topics. And some unsympathetic readers will likely add the more serious criticism (if true), that there is in the discussion of these modern topics a (real or fancied) lack of spontaneity, at least; while some will doubtless conclude that modern scientific methods and results fit hardly into the scheme of neo-scholastic logic.

As a specimen of bookwriting and of bookmaking, this textbook deserves high praise; author and publisher alike are to be commended. The type and paper are excellent, and the proofreading has been done with unusual care. Appended to the book is a valuable collection of questions on logic taken from recent examinations. A good index completes the whole. W. H. KILPATRICK

TEACHERS COLLEGE

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Einleitung in die akademische Pädadogik-Von HANS SCHMIDKUNZ. Halle a S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1908. M3. The title and contents of this volume remind us that in Germany as well as in America the question of systematic teaching in college and university arouses a deep interest. The necessity of teaching ability in the lower schools is everywhere recognized; and, in the elementary school system especially, it has achieved great results. For the secondary school its need is fully admitted; the supreme value of pedagogic training, when superimposed upon excellent attainment in subject-matter, has so firmly imprest Germany that it has developed a unique system of gymnasial seminaries in which small groups of candidates are initiated by expert teachers into the practise of their profession. We in America appreciate and admit the need, but have not yet developed the method for our secondary teachers.

Beyond, in the realm of college work, there has been no attempt to require standards of pedagogic ability, and yet it is conceded that because of the neglect or contempt of pedagogic precepts much of our college instruction lacks effectiveness. It is idle to raise an issue between capacity for creative work and capacity to impart successfully. They are not antagonistic to each other, but they are, of course, not necessarily coincident.

If it is the highest aim of the teacher at college or elsewhere "to transfer his intellectual attainments to others," then, whether he is teaching lads of fourteen or young men of twenty or twenty-two, he must give attention to the methods. that make the transfer effective. There is a science of pedagogics that applies to academic work; it makes for clearness. of presentation, for precise formulation of purpose, for the same essentials, in short, that are recognized in the earlier school stages.

We are all aware of the prejudice among college instructors against the pedagogy of the schools; they resent the possible confusion of their methods (?) with those of "the mechanicals," the schoolmasters, and yet the glory of academic pursuits will not be tarnished by a knowledge of teaching method, or teaching routine.

A very remarkable contribution to this important question is the above-mentioned book of Schmidkunz; it will grow into the profound appreciation of the serious reader; it can not be read hastily, for the style is by no means attractive, but it is animated by a tremendous earnestness, and its conclusions will eventually win, I believe, acceptance. The affiliations of Schmidkunz may serve to indicate "Wess Geistes Kind er sei"; he applies to the whole field of academic teaching the motto of his friend and master Ernst Bernheim in the latter's Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, "brilliancy without method is no less injurious to true science than method without brilliancy." But it would do scant justice to this splendid book to regard it simply as a guide to teaching efficiency in college and university; incidentally it is that in its many valuable suggestions, but it is above all an introduction into a new field of scientific research. Schmidkunz demonstrates beyond question that there is a science of academic pedagogy, and his primary interest centers in establishing its principles, the theory of a pedagogy of the sciences and

arts.

To develop his arguments would transcend the limits of a review, but our present purpose is simply to indicate, even tho faintly, their range. "The sciences and arts can not be cultivated in their fullest sense unless they are handed. down to new interpreters "; there is a tradition of scholarly advance binding the successive generations to each other (p. 37), and this tradition is not passive, "it contains within itself a tendency, a craving for greater perfection." Moreover, “the aim of academic pedagogy is not to train merely in scientific proficiency nor for a profession, but for a calling, a vocation" (Beruf being both broader and more ideal than Fach). The university professor hands down not the sum total of his science, but within a circumscribed sphere the sum total of its methods, and yet "the exclusive cultivation of method is impossible, for method must attach itself to some subject-matter in the science under consideration" (p. 87). Hence he calls for the exhaustive study of method in a typical segment of a given field of learning, after there has preceded

an encyclopedic summary of the whole field. And because the realms of knowledge are interrelated he demands such surveys of sciences, in the last instance an encyclopedic course of science as a whole, which for convenience's sake may be divided into one course "der Geisteswissenschaften," and another of the natural sciences.

We all appreciate the danger of superficial generalizations in such courses, but a teacher of truly philosophical mind and breadth of view could effectually counteract in such a course the narrowing tendencies of overspecialization. Is it not most desirable that our academic youths should occasionally look beyond the confines of their immediate Fach to its place in the larger cycle of human knowledge? May such an encyclopedic course not serve to correct at times a premature choice of a special field of investigation and lead to a spiritually more congenial line of inquiry? The consciousness of just such a need has found some expression in the recent series of nontechnical lectures in Columbia University.

From the volume under consideration we may gather other valuable hints; Schmidkunz rejects the assumption prevalent in Germany that academic pedagogy offers only the two alternatives of the lecture course and the practise course (seminary or practicum) (p. 81). Notwithstanding the greater maturity of the student body the final success of all academic work hinges upon the reaction it calls forth in the student. The subject-matter imparted must 1. touch the student, and, 2. affect him spiritually. Evidently in Germany, as elsewhere, there is cause for the complaint; "much is taught, little is learned; incomplete grasp of subject-matter necessitates cram in place of genuine study" (p. 81). Hence he gives great prominence to the personal and conscientious advice of the teacher to the individual student; he develops four stages of the academic relations between the teacher and student; in the advisory stage the giver (the teacher) is most active, the recipient (the student), most passive; in the lecture scheme the former's personal activity diminishes as does the student's passivity; in the seminary and practicum the teacher diminishes still further his active participation in favor of the stu

dent's steadily growing activity; the fourth stage, that of the student's private personal study, represents the goal of academic teaching, the adoption by the student of the scientific method toward which he has been led.

A word may be in place in regard to the advisory function on which Schmidkunz repeatedly dwells. In view of the aimlessness in the choice of lectures which operates against the success of many a student in Germany, as the free elective system is apt to do with us, he feels justified in attaching the greatest importance to this function of the academic teacher. Mere perfunctory advice is fraught with danger; every young man will benefit by the personal suggestion that the enlarged human experience and special scientific insight of the teacher can offer, but because of the weight that attaches to such advice it should be administered with extreme conscientiousness; a hasty or superficial suggestion may mar the successful advance of a youth; human sympathy becomes at least as potent a factor as scientific capacity in the wise exercise of this duty. "Advice that recognizes the freedom of the will is the highest form of correcting control" (p. 85), and again, "well-timed advice will not rob the student of independence, but lead up to it" (p. 125).

One is tempted to quote quite as liberally from the sections that discuss the method of the lecture and the conduct of seminary work. Schmidkunz believes in the lecture; he refutes the charge that it may easily be replaced by a good textbook. "The sound lecture course will always be in advance of the latest publication, it reflects the constantly creative interest of the lecturer; by its technique, by the occasional introduction of the question-and-answer method, by the stimulus to discussion that it may furnish, it enlists the intellectual cooperation of the student." To teach in place of results the growth of results (Schleiermacher's conception) is the special province of the university lecturer.

At the university, as in the secondary school, he attaches to repetition a value which is not always completely appreciated, not mere verbal repetition, but modified repetition from a new angle of vision; this it is that secures definiteness of insight;