he is certainly an anti-humanist. But he is not an anti-humanist in his conception of the ends of education as moral and religious ends, but only in the narrower meaning of Humanism that characterized the first period of the Renaissance, when art and literary form were all in all. He lived in the latter half of the second humanistic period, when textual criticism and erudition prevailed, and when men's minds were too much agitated by the success of the Catholic reaction. to find time to pick phrases and polish lines. The second epoch, even-that of Scaliger, Casaubon, and Buchanan-was already passing away.

Further, his "Janua," as a book for learning Latin, is, it must be confessed, a failure.

Finally, Comenius had no psychology to speak of, and thus he was compelled to rely on the frail support of analogy for the grounding of his principles.

Neither in his philosophy nor his erudition was Comenius profound. Joseph Scaliger and Casaubon, of the immediately preceding generation, would have had none of him: Spinoza, writing his "Ethica" round the street-corner while Comenius was carrying his cumbrous works through the press, would have smiled at his too energetic faith. The

theologians, so much in evidence in the beginning of the seventeenth century, would have deplored his vagueness and want of dogmatic system. But, in truth, he was a better theologian than any of them-Swiss Calvinist, Roman Jesuit, or Dutch Arminian; while his moral enthusiasm and educational insight almost raised him to the rank of genius. The present and the future so engrossed him that he had no time to overweight his mind by accumulating the written records of the past. He lived at a time when men of intellect were divided into two classes, those who looked back and those who looked forward; he was essentially a modern, and at once put his hand to the work that was most urgent in the interests of Europe, viz. an irenicon, scientific organization, and education.

And yet, whatever his shortcomings, Comenius remains for us the most earnest and simple-hearted worker for the education of the people, and the most penetrating writer on method whom the world has ever seen—in fact, the founder of method. The more we study the subject of education in connection with the various influences at work in the beginning of the seventeenth century, whether we take its large national, or narrower scholastic,

aspects, the more clearly do we see that the simpleminded, much-enduring, and self-denying Moravian bishop, so long forgotten, stands out as a prominent figure even in general European history, and as quite the most eminent in the history of European education. He is still a living influence, and a power that will remain. When we read the record of his days, we are amazed at the persistency of his self-imposed labours in the midst of uncertain fortunes of him it may be truly said that he "linked month with month in long-drawn chain of knitted purport."

"I thank God," he said, after a toilsome and disappointing pilgrimage of fourscore years, "that I have been a man of aspirations." But it is not as a man of aspirations alone that we honour him to-day, but as a man who laboured for us as few men have laboured; who, in all the chances and changes of his troubled life, was a unique and touching example of the Christian graces of faith, hope, and love, and who has bequeathed to us, as the solid fruit of his aspirations, the "Great Didactic"-a possession which the educational world, at least, "will not willingly let die."

NOTE.-There can be no doubt that Mulcaster (died 1611?) anticipated much of both Ratke and Comenius, but there is no evidence that he was known to them. Mr. Quick says in his "Educational Biographies," ," "The latest advances in pedagogy have established: (1) That the end and aim of education is to develop the faculties of mind and body. (2) That all teaching processes should be carefully adapted to the mental constitution of the learner. (3) That the first stage of learning is of universal importance, and requires a very high degree of skill in the teacher. (4) That the brain of children, especially clever children, should not be subjected to pressure. (5) That childhood should not be spent in learning foreign languages, but that its language should be the mothertongue, and its exercises should include handiwork, especially drawing. (6) That girls' education should be cared for no less than boys'. (7) That the only hope of improving our schools lies in the training of teachers." These were all advocated by Mulcaster.

VII.

THE SCHOOLMASTER AND UNIVERSITY (DAY) TRAINING COLLEGES.1

WHEN, owing to very numerous occupations, I was about to decline the honour of your invitation to address you on this occasion, Professor MacCunn recalled to my mind the fact that I had a good deal to do with originating the idea of Day Training Colleges in connection with universities -that I had been, as we say in Scotland, “at the biggin o't." Accordingly, I put aside other engagements, and resolved to put on paper a few observations which might pass, in the lenient judgment of friends, as an inauguration address.

First, let me say that it was from no feeling of hostility to residential training colleges that university day training colleges were advocated. That, I think, is now distinctly understood. The

1 Inaugural address delivered at the Liverpool University College.