thereafter my rocks and crystals served me as a mirror wherein I might discern mankind, and man's development and history.” For about a year the work of Froebel was interrupted by service in the army to repel the Napoleonic aggressions. Here he met his enthusiastic young friends and lifelong assistants, Heinrich Langethal and Wilhelm Middendorf, who had been students of theology at Berlin. Then, in 1814, he returned to the university, and, as an assistant to Professor Weiss, for a time became completely immersed in crystallography as a key to the organization of the universe. In 1816, with Lange thal and Middendorf, German In stitute' at Keilhau. His School at Keilhau and the Education of Man But Froebel had never lost sight of his original purpose of educational reform. While at the university he continued his study of child nature by teaching he started his in the Pestalozzian school of Plamann,1 and his in- 'Universal sight into natural science only intensified his belief in the possibility of "a more human, related, affiliated, connected treatment and consideration of the subjects of education." He declined a professorship at Stockholm, and, in 1816, against the advice of his friendly chief, he even resigned from Berlin, to take charge of the education of five young nephews and thus work out his pedagogical theories. In this venture he was soon joined by Middendorf and Langethal, and with them he founded 'The Universal German Institute of Education' at the Thürin 1 See footnote on p. 156. Here he trained his expression through play, construction, nature study, and romances and ballads; gian village of Keilhau.1 The education here aimed to depupils to self- velop the pupils harmoniously in all their powers through the exercise of their own activity in subjects whose relations with one another and with life had been carefully thought out. Self-expression and free development were the watchwords of the school. Much of the training was obtained through play, and, except that the pupils were older, the germ of the kindergarten was already present. There was much practical work in the open air, in the garden about the schoolhouse, and in the building itself. The lads built dams and mills, fortresses and castles, and searched the woods for animals, birds, insects, and flowers. They learned to work out practical problems in form and number, and had the world of imagination opened to them through romances, ballads, and war songs. and, to popularize his principles, To popularize the Institute, Froebel published in 1826 a complete account of the theory practiced at Keilhau in his famous Education of Man. While this work is 1 Die allgemeine deutsche Erziehungsanstalt. It was first located at Griesheim, where Froebel's deceased brother, the father of three of the pupils, had been pastor, but the following year the widow bought a small property at Keilhau and the 'Institute' was moved there with her household. 2 The title in full is: Die Menschenerziehung, die Erziehungs-, Unterrichts-, und Lehrkunst, angestrebt der allgemeinen deutschen Erziehungsanstalt zu Keilhau, dargestellt von dem Vorsteher derselben, F. W. A. Froebel. I Band bis zum begonnenen Knabenalter. Froebel intended to carry the 'education of man' also through youth, but he never found time to go beyond this period of early boyhood. lished his Education of Man. compressed, repetitious, and vague, and its doctrines had in 1826 pubafterward to be corrected by experience, it contains the most systematic statement of his educational philosophy that Froebel ever made. It consists in an application to education of the idealistic philosophy and the evolutionary theory of the time. It describes Froebel's interpretation of the universe and the consequent meaning of human life, makes an exposition of his chief principles of education, and applies them to the various stages of life and to the chief school subjects. But the times were not ripe for such radical positions, and the Education of Man influenced but few people in their estimate of the Keilhau community or the doctrines of Froebel. The Institute was even suspected of revolutionary tendencies, and the government inspector of schools was ordered to investigate. This official,1 however, made a most favorable report, saying in part : "I found here a closely united family of some sixty members held together in mutual confidence and every member seeking the good of the whole. . . . That this union must have the most salutary influence on instruction and training and on the pupils themselves, is self-evident. . . . No slumbering power remains unawakened; each finds the stimulus it needs in so large a family. . . The aim of the institution is by no means knowledge and science merely, but free self-active development of the mind from within." ... 1 This discriminating inspector was a Dr. Zeh. Unjust suspicions and His Work in Switzerland Nevertheless, gossip and detraction did not cease, and Froebel's own a disloyal assistant added fuel to the flames. Froebel, failings eventually produced financial disasters, and Froebel transferred his work to Switzerland. moreover, was dogmatic and irascible, and possessed little practical sense. While a financial crisis was for a time averted, the school soon found itself in serious straits. Froebel, meanwhile, strove to secure some place where he might not only rehabilitate himself, but even extend his work and give it a firmer basis.1 Finally, a friend 2 offered his castle at Wartensee in the canton of Lucerne as the seat for the new educational institute, and in 1832 the reformer began his work in Switzerland. The castle was soon found unsuitable, and Froebel accepted an invitation to locate in the neighboring town of Willisau. Here he met with bitter opposition from the conservative clergy of the vicinity, but, at a public examination held in 1833, his work was shown to be a striking success and his 1 It was during this period of uncertainty that Froebel wrote the outline of what he had been attempting in his Letter to the Duke of Meiningen (1827) and his Letter to Krause (1828), the Göttingen philosopher, and from these autobiographical works most of our ideas concerning his early life have been derived. He expected at one time to be granted the estate of the duke at Helba for his enlarged school, but the offer was to a large extent withdrawn, and Froebel in anger broke off negotiations. 2 Schnyder of Frankfurt, a pupil of Pestalozzi and a composer of music. The school at Keilhau was meanwhile left in charge of Barop, a relative of Middendorf, and under his prudent administration soon recovered all its prosperity. reputation as an educationalist became firmly established. In 1835 the progressive government of Berne induced him to come to the castle of Burgdorf, where Pestalozzi had been, and start training courses for teachers of the canton. The 'Kindergarten' at Blankenburg and the Mother and Play Songs While at Burgdorf, he began to devise play things, games, songs, and as a means of training; he started garten' at his 'Kinder Blanken burg, and It was while conducting a model school at Burgdorf that it became more obvious to Froebel that "all school education was yet without a proper initial foundation, and that, until the education of the nursery was reformed, nothing solid and worthy could be attained." movements Through his friend, the idealistic philosopher, Krause, the School of Infancy of Comenius1 had been called to his attention and "the necessity of training gifted and capable mothers" had been growing upon him. The educational importance of play now appealed to him more strongly than ever. He began to study and devise playthings, games, songs, and bodily movements that would Play Songs. be of value in the development of small children, although at first he did not organize his materials into a system. Two years later, however, when his wife's failing health compelled him to return to Germany, he established a regular school for children between the ages of three and 1 For Comenius and The School of Infancy, see pp. 33 f. six years later pub lished his Mother and |