tive skill with the fingers, which should be developed simply as a means of expression for the use of genius.

And this idea of drawing is a very common one, for we not unfrequently see teachers of drawing chosen, because like teachers of writing they know how to train pupils to do imitative work with their fingers. Drawing in this sense requires but the possession of ordinary nerves of feeling and of sight. Speaking broadly therefore, all children can be taught to draw as well as to write. This is a fact which may now be regarded as settled.

But is this the whole of drawing? As educators, are we content with such a definition? If so, the matter of teaching it might well be relegated to the teachers of writing.

Pardon me for dwelling at this point. So much misconception exists just here and the whole question is so involved in a mist of finger-practice, genius, nature, æsthetics, and science, that our first duty is to come to some general understanding as to what is meant, especially that our first duty is to come to some general understanding as to what is meant, es pecially in education, by Drawing, The name is a misnomer for what is taught under it. In one sense it is regarded as a language, in another as a science, in another as an art, and the difficulty is that all these features are apt to be mixed up together, and it not unfrequently happens that it is difficult to distinguish between what is taught as skill, as language, as science, or as art.

Now if drawing is to come into public education in the fundamental way proposed, it cannot be introduced in this "hurly-burly" mixed-up manner, it must be submitted to a process of educational disintegration, a process which will provide suitable exercises for developing the necessary skill of hand and eye, and a process which at the same time will present the language feature in such a manner as to appeal to the understanding of pupils and lead them to trace its application in science, in nature, and in art, and also be the means for expressing their own ideas in these directions. Drawing therefore becomes a very comprehensive, far-reaching study, and a proper course of instruction in it should teach pupils what to draw as well as how to draw, and thus the subject is at once lifted above the plane of mere writing, and to the highest significance in education.

If drawing is coming into education in this manner, as a language, with a science and an art back of it, these different features of language, science, and art must be presented in some definite and tangible manner, we must know what is taught as skill and language, we must know what is taught as science, we must know what is taught as art.

I do not think it will be disputed that instruction in drawing, so far as it relates to skill, language, and science, can be distinctly formulated and arranged. The doubt is about the artistic feature, and this, in the minds of many people, overshadows all the others.

Criticisms, such as I have referred to, come generally from the artistic side and are made without an acquaintance with the other features, or a knowledge of the requirements of general education, or even of art education itself.

I know it is a very common opinion that beauty which it is the aim of

art to express, is not amenable to rule. I am aware that beauty in its highest manifestation of form eludes exact scientific analysis; but there are forms which are positively ugly, while there are many which are more or less beautiful. The highest form of beauty can be appreciated only when we can distinguish the difference between it and less beautiful ones, and it would seem therefore that the best and surest way to secure an appreciation of beauty in its highest form would be to develop the power of analyzing it in its lower or simpler manifestation.

Again, art to be of any value, must be the expression of truth in regard to form. Truth of form requires for its expression a knowledge of both the language and the science of representation. Geometry is the foundation for both the language and the science. If we were to leave Geometry out of the study, we should at once take out the only tangible educational basis it has to rest upon. It is this element in the study which enables us to bring it within the province of education, and elevate the instruction above mere individual caprice, or rule of thumb.

A very superficial observation of what is taught in public schools shows us that only such subjects can be successfully taught to children as possess elements capable of disintegration and formulation and illustration. No subject of education with which I am acquainted is taught in its elementary features by guessing at them. This is so much of an educational truism, that I feel like begging pardon for stating it before an educational body like this; and yet simple and self-evident as is the proposition, we see on every hand claims made for the introduction of drawing as a fundamental element, accompanied with emphatic denunciation of all efforts to place the instruction upon a rational educational foundation.

The time has passed when it may be thought necessary to discuss drawing as a language. If the discussion of the subject for the last few years has done nothing more, it may be said to have accomplished this-secured a recognition for the study as a language, as a means of receiving and expressing thought hardly second to any other language we possess, and as it has been demonstrated that all children can learn to draw as readily as they can learn to write, the real educational problem is:- What shall they be taught to draw; how shall they apply this language? This it seems to me is the fundamental question to be decided, and in looking at the results now coming up from the public schools of Massachusetts and from cities in various parts of the country, it is worth while for us as educators to go back of the pleasing lines which represent certain degrees of mere individual skill and taste, and note the nature of the work to which this language is being applied. In applying our language of drawing in industry and in art, we have two distinct matters to deal with. We have facts of form, and the modification which those facts undergo as they appear to the eye. Sound instruction in drawing should educate to a knowledge of the facts as they are, and also to a knowledge of the laws which govern their appearance.

I cannot stop to point out how completely geometry underlies all forms, both natural and industrial. Geometry is the key to all beauty of form whatsoever. But I may be permitted to say that we can never perceive the full beauty of natural forms until we are able to perceive the beauty

of geometric forms. In art, geometry is the known, nature is the unknown. We can intelligently study the latter only through a knowledge of the former. It is upon a full recognition of Drawing as a language, with geometry as the basis of its applications in science and art, that the scheme of instruction in Massachusetts is based.

Speaking from a practical experience of many years in teaching all phases of the subject, and with a full understanding of what European experience for the past fifty years has to show in regard to methods of instruction, I am prepared to maintain that only on the general plan of disintegrating the subject and reducing each feature to its elements, as has been done in Massachusetts, can a sound basis for art education be laid in common schools.

To sum up the whole question I should say that the object of teaching drawing is

First, Utility-its application in industry:

Next, Culture-its application in Art.

The first requires a thorough knowledge of the facts of form-the second an equally-thorough knowledge of the science of the facts and the laws of their appearance.

In discussing this subject before such an Association, I am loath to confine the presentation to the merely practical, utilitarian considerations involved. The great tendency at the present time is to make our education too material or utilitarian in character, and I should prefer to dwell upon the higher educational, æsthetic, and political considerations which I believe are to flow from this art educational movement which has set in so strongly in America.

I do not think any of us fully realize as yet what an influence it is destined to extend in these directions. Time however does not permit of such discussion, but I cannot close without urging, even against the charge of tiresome repetition, the duty, which is laid upon educators, of insisting upon the necessity of maintaining the scientific features of drawing in public education on account of their industrial bearing.

I have said that without this knowledge there could be no industrial development, without a knowledge of drawing as applied in industry modern civilization could not be. No intelligent observer can fail to note the increasing growth of industrial occupations, and the increasing number of people pursuing these occupations. Success in these occupations is coming to depend more and more on a knowledge of the science which underlies the industrial arts. Education, to be practical, must absorb drawing as applied to industry as one of its main features, and when this has been done, and workingmen can see that as the outcome of your system of public education pupils are taught the language of industry as well as the language of trade, commerce, and the professions, they will come to look upon the public schools as the bulwark of their salvation.

As for Art, the culminating expression of a nation's civilization, we may safely leave it to be the outcome of an education which trains to truth, imagination, and complete means of expression. An art which cannot absorb these elements as the basis for its creations, an art which finds science a hindrance to its development is an art which cannot stand.

We have only to remember that MICHAEL ANGELO and LEONARDO DA VINCI were both among the most scientific men of their age, whilst they were also the greatest artists, to see that art and science are closely related and never antagonistic.

From weak and unreasoning people, whether in religion or in art, we hear Science and scientific investigation treated as an iconoclastic monster which is to destroy their creed or their craft; but men with calmer nerves regard Science as a Divine, handmaid who will banish superstition and mystery, and substitute for them truth and knowledge.

The art which we should strive after in education is that which goes hand in hand with science, capable of being understood and appreciated by all intelligent people, and it is this phase of the subject which we as educators have to naturalize in this country.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Pennsylvania, told of excellent results in drawing in Millersville. Ample time can be saved and not affect the study in the other branches injuriously.

Mr. JOHN D. PHILBRICK, of Boston, Mass., Commissioner of Education to the Paris Exposition, gave the results of two experiments now in progress in Paris regarding technical education. In one of them, the speaker thought, the chief end of the system was rendered impossible on account of the physical weakness of the boys. A lad of sufficient strength could not be found in the blacksmith shop to wield the hammer. It was the same way among the embryo carpenters-they could not push the plane. In the machine shop, one would work the treadle and another hold the tools. That was the result of one experiment. In the other the boys were larger and stronger, and the system the same as that which, in Massachusetts some seven years ago, was called "the shop in the school." It was a school of applied technical industry. The pupils were taught that which would be of practical immediate value to them in after life; and, although a better judgment could be given after considering more varied evidence, still the results were gratifying.

The nominating committee reported the following officers who were unanimously elected.

For President, Hon. JAS. H. SMART, of Indiana.

For Vice-President, Miss SUSAN E. BLOW, of Missouri.

For Secretary, Miss LELIA E. PATRIDGE, of Pennsylvania.

The persons who engaged in discussions were requested to furnish the secretary with a synopsis of their remarks, but many of them failed to do so, hence the meagre report of what they said.

GEO. P. BROWN, President.

W. A. BELL, Secretary.

INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT.

First Day's Proceedings.

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1879.

The Department of Industrial Education of the eighteenth meeting of the National Educational Association met on Tuesday, July 29, at 3 P. M., in the gymnasium of the Normal School, and organized for busi

ness.

In the absence of the chairman J. D. RUNKLE, of Boston, Mass., Prof, L. S. THOMPSON, of Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., vice-president, presided.

On motion of ALEX. HOGG, Professor of Mathematics in the Agricultural College, Texas, H. B. WHITTINGTON, Principal of public school in the twenty-sixth ward, Philadelphia, was elected secretary.

The inaugural address was then delivered by the chairman, L. S. THOMPSON,-subject:

EDUCATED LABOR.

The subject of Practical or Industrial Education under several different titles has been thrusting itself into public notice and the notice of teachers' conventions for several years. Those who attended our National Association two years ago at Louisville, Ky., will remember that the great burden of many of the addresses and discussions was the relation of Education to the working classes; I mean those who work with their hands.

Because those who work with their hands and bodies are more numerous than all others put together, and because they are indispensable to the very existence of the human race, and because those who do not need to perform manual labor are generally able to procure such education as they wish outside of the public schools, it is claimed, and justly, we think, that the education given in the people's schools, or as they are sometimes called, "the people's colleges," supported by the people, should be adapted to the wants of labor. We think it one of the favorable signs of the times that in the distribution of the good things of this world the common people are not to be slighted in the matter of education.

In the earlier ages of the world's history, whatever has been considered valuable, such as wealth, power, religion, and learning, has been concentrated in the hands of the few. For thousands of years, the many have been taught that they were created to be ruled by a few favored individuals who were born with the God-given right to govern. For ages the world was taught by the Priesthood that religion was not to be studied