ished, and I spent horrible to relate days, weeks without Him. . . . Seven years I believed in Christ, without thinking such an experience possible even; it came, and I cannot yet recover from the breath of poison which it brought me. I returned to Berlin like one insane; I resisted unto blood. For three weeks I have again obtained rest, faith, and an impulse to prayer, but the joyful assurance I once had is gone."

On his

way to Berlin he wrote to the Baron : —

"My dearest father! One day more and I shall be in thy paternal arms. . . . My heart is very sick, and I do not know whether I dare still call myself a Christian."

And in March, 1826, when he had already been appointed the successor of Professor Knapp, in Halle, he wrote:

"I am greatly depressed. For myself I have infinite contempt. But I cherish the belief that it is only a trial, and that in his good time He will at once give me all."

But just before starting for Halle he wrote:

"How He has strengthened my faith of late! I clearly see all my sorrow, yet I am cheerful, because He loves me, and because I feel that He is my God."

He was appointed professor (extraordinary) of theology in the University of Berlin in 1823, and from this time he abandoned all thought of becoming a missionary. Already a year before this the University of Jena had conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Just before starting for Halle he took the degree of Doctor of Theology in Berlin.

He went to Halle in 1826 with serious apprehensions. In an address delivered in London he had made severe charges against that university as the seat of rationalism, and the publication of a report of this address in Germany roused much opposition. The entire theological faculty had sent a petition to the Minister of Education against his appointment. The explanations given by Tholuck allayed the opposition somewhat; but he was appointed for the very purpose of overthrowing the prevalence of rationalism there. This, together with the fact that he had the reputation in certain circles of being pietistical, mystical, and inclined to fanaticism, made the prospect for him anything but bright. But the account of the reception that awaited him belongs to the second volume, which is to complete this extremely interesting biography.

During his stay in Berlin Tholuck had already become celebrated as an author. His first work consisted of the dissertation presented to the theological faculty. It was in Latin, entitled

"Ssufismus," and discussed the pantheistic theosophy of the Persians. The text contained 331 pages, and there were 40 pages of extracts from Arabic, Persian, and Turkish manuscripts, all written in Arabic characters. It was published in 1821. In the same year he published "Some Apologetic Hints for the Study of the Old Testament," 50 pp. The next year appeared a volume on "The Nature and Moral Influences of Heathenism, especially of the Greeks and Romans, viewed from the Christian Standpoint," 217 pp. A third edition appeared in 1867. In 1823 he published his book on "Sin and the Redeemer," 315 pp. Ninth edition, 1871. His Commentary on Romans appeared in 1824. The fifth edition in 1856. During 1824 and 1825 he also edited a journal, "The Friend of Israel," to promote the gospel among the Jews. Text, translation, and notes of important parts of the “Rabbinical Book Sohar," 1824, 74 pp. A small pamphlet against the theatre. Same year. "Selections from Oriental Mysticism, with an Introduction to Mysticism in general, especially the Oriental," 1825, 327 pp. In 1826 he published a Paraphrase of the Epistle to the Romans; and in the same year, "The Speculative Doctrine of the Trinity of the more Modern Orient," 76 pp.

An amount of literary work for a young man of twenty-seven that is simply astounding. J. H. W. Stuckenberg.

BERLIN, GERMANY.

EDITORIAL.

THE CRUSADE AGAINST COMMON SCHOOLS.

I. HEALTH.

DURING the last year a vigorous attack has been maintained in England against the methods of teaching in public schools. The attack and defense have attracted general attention, and have raised a lively issue in politics. An eminent physician and the chief of the education department have been pitted against each other with the immediate result that thus far Dr. Crichton Browne has decidedly got the better of Mr. Mundella, and with the indirect, but more important, result that the people have gained some wholesome information, and are having their eyes opened to various evils of the system of elementary education which is carried through in England.

Although in America opposition and criticism are not concentrated so sharply at one point, it is not too much to say that they have never been so serious as at the present time. Dissatisfaction with existing methods is widespread even if somewhat indefinite. When Mr. Hale writes on "Half Time in Schools," or Stanley Hall on "The New Departure in Education," they are sure of a hearing. When the physician lifts his warning voice concerning dangers to health from the school he is no longer disregarded. The supervisor finds himself rushing to the defense of the system. The teacher has fears that his craft is in danger. The essayist who replies to a critic of schools feels constrained to divert attention from the real issue and the need of improved methods by turning to ridicule the particular method recommended. These and other signs are conclusive that the common school needs to be modified in some important respects.

We do not take extreme views on this subject. We do not overlook the many excellences of the system. We recognize not only its educational but also its social and political advantages. We have no sympathy with those who see nothing to praise and everything to condemn. But neither do we concur in the opinion that the common school is the chief glory of America. It is not an idol to be worshiped, but a tool to be used. It has an important function, but is to be admired only so far as it does its work well. While we do not ignore its usefulness we consider it no sacrilege to make inquiry concerning its defects. A smile arises when a journal of education concludes its comments on overpressure in English schools with the naïve observation that we in America can watch the battle with serenity since we are pestered with no such difficulties.

The question is whether there are evils connected with the system of education which are more than incidental. So extensive a system must

have some drawbacks. If so many persons are to be provided for, one person here and another there will not be as well provided for as they might be. But if the imperfection is only incidental, criticism will not be able to maintain itself. It is our decided opinion, however, that there are some evils which are more than incidental, and that it is the duty of those who make education their business to modify the system at the necessary points. The critic has rendered an important service when he points out serious defects, even if he can suggest no remedy. It is no reply to a critic to remind him that he proposes nothing better, or that what he proposes is impracticable. When intelligent public opinion pronounces against some of the workings of public schools it properly looks to teachers for the rectification. The head of a great publishing house called his foreman and said, "It is necessary to bring out the next number of this periodical Wednesday instead of Saturday. Now, do not tell me of the objections and difficulties, but exercise your wits so as to find a way to do it." We have no quarrel with teachers and school boards. We only try to remind them what an intelligent public is coming to think concerning certain results of the common school system, and to invite their utmost diligence in the search for improvements. They should remember that the common school is a comparatively recent creation, and can hardly be expected to have reached perfection thus early in its history. Neither should they forget that the conditions of society and the elements of population are rapidly changing, so that a system which was practically efficient ten years ago may be inadequate or defective now.

Without further preface we go at once to our somewhat ungracious task. The evils of which complaint is made are to be found in three directions. These evils have to do with the health of scholars, with the intellectual training itself, and with the moral influence of schools. We expect to discuss the evils of only the first two kinds, and in this article shall go no farther than the first. We are to consider the relation of common schools to the health of pupils.

It is well known that many physicians have but a poor opinion of public schools. They think that health is often impaired by the bad sanitary conditions, or the prolonged sessions, or the overwork of schools. It is also well known that nearly all teachers are slow to admit that the ill-health of scholars is due to those causes, and are quick to charge it upon the conditions of home or social life. Here, then, as to health, there is a serious difference of opinion.

1. Such matters as the ventilation, the drainage, and the amount of light in school-rooms, that is, the sanitary arrangements, are external conditions, to be sure, but they have much to do with the health of scholars. In some places sufficient attention is given to them. We have no doubt that there will be steady improvement, since no one denies the importance of proper sanitary appliances. But it may be doubted whether many teachers know or care very much about them. It is difficult, with the utmost vigilance, to keep the air pure several hours together in a

room occupied by only a few persons. If forty children spend six hours a day in a room not more than twenty feet square the air is almost certain to be vitiated. If children cannot be divided into smaller groups, there should be better systems of ventilation and more intelligent watch and use of them. It is not much of a reply to say that the air in schoolrooms is purer than in many houses, that the children of foreign parents are much better off in this respect than in the stifling, reeking air of tenement-houses.

It is said that near-sightedness is increasing among children, and that it is owing to the location and surroundings of school-rooms. Where there are high buildings opposite, more children become near-sighted than where there are open spaces around. If scholars face windows, or look at blackboards between windows, their sight is likely to be injured. Teachers cannot control the arrangement of school-houses, but the school boards can. If we went no farther, it could hardly be denied that attendance on common schools is accompanied with some risks to health.

2. Another source of danger to health is the number of school-hours. Five or six hours a day is not too much for some, perhaps not for the majority of scholars, but it is undoubtedly too much for young children, and for all nervous and sensitive scholars. It is thought by persons competent to know that for children from ten to twelve years old four hours a day is a long enough time to spend in school; for children from seven to ten years, three or three and a half hours; for children under seven years, two or two and a half hours. Evidently young scholars should not have as many hours as older scholars have, yet it is generally true that the primary schools are in session as long as the grammar schools, and in some places a little longer than the high schools. We venture to say that a visitor to almost any primary school during the last hour of the second session could not fail to be impressed with the restlessness and weariness of the children.

Under the English system children can take half time in order to spend the other half in factories and shops, or on farms, to learn industrial pursuits. Over one hundred thousand children were thus taught last year. It is very significant that these children have made as much progress in their studies as those who spend six hours in school.

Worst of all is the existing custom in high schools of a continuous session of five hours. Many scholars eat no lunch at the recess, all eat dinner when they are tired, and a cold, solitary dinner at that. Here also it is no reply to say that in the aggregate only 25 or 30 hours a week are spent in school, leaving a clear margin of 130 or 140 hours out of school, for these hours are the best part of the working day.

Should there not be a sliding-scale of attendance, so that scholars may take two hours or three hours only, instead of full time, one study or two studies instead of the complete curriculum, and be entitled to certificates corresponding to the amount of work done? It might make additional labor in the arrangement of classes and in the keeping of records, but the