body as a whole, though they can not belong to every individual. To the first class belong religion and all those treasures represented by what might be termed the inheritance of the nation: viz., its spirit, history, and ideals. To the second class belong all those sciences that are of basic importance for the higher life with us, therefore, the classical studies and philosophy with mathematics, its preparatory discipline—and thus we recognize here the basic sciences. In one respect, we may say that it is the duty of society to conserve all the knowledge and skill acquired and to capitalize all the intellectual content acquired by the race, but in most cases this is done by depositing whatever is to be conserved with a certain class or profession. But in the case of those sciences that we have termed basic and whose cultivation determines the standard of all scientific work, this provision would be inadequate, and hence they must be cultivated to such an extent as to be a social factor. Consequently, the study of the ancient classics and of philosophy may not be confined to specialists, for they represent treasures which are of momentous, though unequal, importance for all classes of society, because they alone insure the unity and continuity of the development of science and, indirectly, of our whole culture."

7. But a still broader range must be allowed to the religious and national elements, for they are the link between education and morality, consequently also between culture and civilization, and must, therefore, be transmitted to each and every member of the social body. They are the basis for the most general concepts of right and duty and social relations in general; and the extent to which these concepts are assimilated determines the degree of intellectual and moral strength to which education is to raise the individual.3

The accessory disciplines and the fine arts represent what is ornamental and desirable in the educational content. If the basic sciences supply the mental life of the race as a whole with the elements that make for solidity and thoroughness, then the accessory disciplines and the fine arts give it a tendency toward many-sidedness, which, rightly conceived, plays an important rôle in education.* Many-sidedness will result in many and varied points of contact, will lead us to understand and ap

preciate what our neighbors are doing, and will thus connect the different individuals. Many-sided instruction will touch the mind at different points, and will, therefore, establish points of contact between the subject-matter of instruction and the different faculties; and by evoking the various powers of the individual it will secure their service for the whole course. In this way it opens up new sources of strength and enlarges the field of social usefulness, provided, of course, that the many-sidedness entail no loss in concentration and thoroughness.

There is no knowledge and no skill which might not be regarded as useful and which might not, because useful, inspire men with the desire to acquire it. Yet there are two groups of subjects that are particularly useful: on the one side are the arts (Fertigkeiten) most generally in use, namely, reading, writing, and arithmetic; and on the other are the applied sciences which must be pursued in training for the different professions. These two groups must be considered from the social viewpoint, for it is through them that education is correlated with economics; but in doing so we may not allow too much scope to the applied sciences, lest what is derived and special appear as the end of education instead of what is basic and of universal value.

CHAPTER LXIII.

The Social Unions.

1. We have found that the social unions are the agencies as well as the points of relationship in the transmission of the intellectual treasures; and we have already named a few of the social unions. We shall now show them as a whole and as interrelated with one another-a point which is the more important as the understanding of the social unions is essential to the understanding of the system of education.

In associating together men obey, like the brutes, the instincts of self-preservation and species-preservation. But men alone band together so as to constitute society, and the specifically human elements in society are, first, the subjection of the will to authority and, secondly, the accumulation of the intellectual work by the process of tradition. Authority assigns to every man his share in the common work of the community, and tradition makes him a historical being. Authority effects an

organic association, and tradition is the basis of the sequence of heredity. The former assures a union of labor, the latter assures its continuity (Th. Petermann). The former gives life a legal basis, the latter gives it a historical bedding.

Both authority and tradition presuppose liberty, for it is this which enables one not only to receive with the will whatever the authority demands but also to become self-active in intellectual work. But if the liberty degenerates into license, the foundations of society are endangered: men will rebel against legitimate authority and, being overwise, they will scorn tradition. The rebellion against authority will destroy the living unity of every association, and the conceit of the overwise will put an end to the continuity of life and work. Anarchy proclaims "the changing of all values," and attacks authority with its defiant cry: "All is permitted"; and with Nietzsche's phrase: "Nothing is true," it turns its back upon the treasures of knowledge hoarded up by tradition. The other battlecry of the anarchists: "Do what you please; seize what you can," denies the authority of law and the historical character of property.

Authority and tradition are the bonds that hold together the largest organism of society as well as its smallest tissue. When we arrive at them, we may be sure that we have arrived at the sociative elements; and thus they may show the analyst where to stop, lest he destroy the last living elements and dissect the seminulum. This mistake is made by all those who proceed from the individual and look upon society as an aggregate of individuals. They ought to recall the old adage: "Unus homo nullus homo." The last element of the social body is not the individual, but the smallest social unit, the family.'

2

2. The family is the first of the social units and at the same time the prototype of all social unions. The social body is reconstructed in the family, and the stages of this reconstruction are the following: generation, rearing, education. Only after the child has been assimilated with the family, does the process of its assimilation with the larger social unions begin. The family or the home is the first member of the following three series that show the structure of society: family, tribe, nation; home, native place, native country; family, parish, Church. Domestic economy deals with the domestic affairs of the State or of a household; and in the household we meet with the first

1 Aristotle, Pol., I, 2; Oec., I, I.

2 Vol. I, Introduction, I, 2 and 7.

division of labor in the interest of production, and this division foreshadows the different classes and professions in society. The father's authority is, in the eyes of the child, the prototype of authority in general, and all languages use the term father for designating those who are entitled to special respect. Corresponding to the threefold relationship which the family involves, viz., between husband and wife, between parents and children, and between master and servants, Aristotle attributed a threefold authority to the head of the family: he governs the servants as master (SEσTOTIK@S), the children as king (Baoiλik@s), and his wife as a magistrate (πoλɩɩк@s).1

Thus the principle of authority is brought out in the family in several ways. Still, the family has not body enough to be the basis of tradition. The agency that hands down the traditions must be broader and must be constituted of homogeneous, social materials. Language, which is at one and the same time the object and the best vehicle of tradition, is borne down the ages, not by the family, not even by the tribe, but by the people; and, similarly, manners and customs receive their fixed form only when they become broadly national. The transmission of faith, knowledge, and skill, even if carried on within the family circle, presupposes-except in the primitive age of the race-a community of life which includes and supports the family. This community of life is intermediate between the separate life of the family and the community constituted by the State. It is the home of the production as well as the transmission of all treasures, intellectual and material. It is the life of the nation in so far as it expresses and represents the national ideals and characteristics. But at the same time it signifies the social field in a narrow sense, because the production of the treasures results in the formation of the social groups, which by supplementing one another constitute society in the sense in which the latter is placed beside the State.

3. These groups unite individuals possessing similar, or at least, kindred desires, interests, and tendencies. But the groups themselves depend on one another because of their different positions and activities; and the more marked their difference the greater is the dependence of the agencies (representing the respective functions) upon the whole.

1 Pol., I, 12.

"Kit will to kind," is an old proverb. But it is no less true that differences supplement each other.' The relation between the parts of society suggested even in the earliest times the analogy of society to the living body, and it is only when the organic character of society is recognized that one realizes also the condition that is indispensable to the preservation of the social body, which is no other than that each member should humbly rest satisfied with performing what is his work. The passing beyond one's sphere, the superficial dabbling in many fields, the wild hunt after wealth and honor, the measureless ambition, the envy of the more successful neighbor—these will, if allowed to run their course, eventually disintegrate society, so that each individual will be following his own selfish bent, while only the force of necessity will preserve a semblance of co-operation.

The demand that each individual do his share of work, presupposes that he be at home in his work, i. e., possess the necessary amount of knowledge and skill. Hence society must insist on special ability and vocational activity. The further demand that each man be content with his individual sphere raises another issue: a man can not content himself with his lot unless he have an understanding of the whole and realize clearly that what constitutes his immediate aim is but a small portion of the sum-total of the treasures of the race, for beside the material treasures there are the intellectual, and over and above all temporal goods and treasures are the eternal and religious boons. Among the great variety of callings we can distinguish two main classes: the first devotes itself to the pursuit of the immaterial treasures; and the second, to the pursuit of the material. Hence we have the teaching class and the working class. These two classes flow from the nature of society itself, while other classes are the result either of higher social unions or, as in the case of the nobility and the common people, of historical development.

4. Society can not exist without material goods. But the intellectual treasures modify and control the development of society. The spiritual treasures, which proceed from the supernatural, are the core of the immaterial treasures. There is no form of religious belief but has, by reason of the revelation granted to the First Parents, such a supernatural starting-point. But the threads that extend from that point are in the natural

1 Aristotle, Eth. Nic., VIII, 1 and 2.