regrets that “unfortunately his schematizations and applications were not only premature but overdone.” Froebel, as a man and a thinker, was a mystic, a pantheistic or theosophic mystic; in his training and vocation he had been a civil engineer before he became a teacher. This strange combination is reflected upon his kindergarten pedagogy, ingenious schemes and devices dignified by esoteric speculations. Yet behind these unworthy “pedagogic scarecrows” one cannot but discern the immortal starlight of his genius brightening the highway of future education. The great idea of developmental stages introduced into the educational world by Comenius was chiefly in the line of instruction, and rather artificial. Rousseau’s great genius made it more vital and real, but he viewed it chiefly from the standpoint of training. Froebel took a more comprehensive and philosophical view of the matter, and combined the tendencies of both. And while the Frenchman excels in his treatment after the age of the teens, the German confines his study to the age of childhood, best supplementing the former. Rousseau as a Romanticist, unfettered by the conventions of society, called to us: “Give back to the child its world.” Froebel, whose childhood was a life misunderstood and mistreated, says: “Find the child’s soul and restore it to him.” Pestalozzi wanted to restore home to the child and make it its school. Froebel wanted to make it the ideal nursery by organizing all the educative forces in and around it into a unity or system. Pestalozzi tried to systematize the groundwork of sense-education, Froebel that of instinct-cultivation. For Pestalozzi the domestic life was the chief agent of the child’s natural development; Froebel added to it free play in the lap of nature. For Pestalozzi, education was the development of man by the exercise of his powers; for Froebel it was the unfolding of the germinal spirit by self-active creation. Fichte’s creative soul formed the cosmos within itself; it was mainly the creation of the world of ideas; but Froebel’s produces its creation in the world of objects. Pestalozzi became an educator by the way of a social reformer; Froebel, by the way of a teacher. The former aimed to unite education with society; the latter aimed to unite instruction with education. Pestalozzi’s heart throbbed for degraded humanity as a whole, and wanted to make out of it a people with economic independence, political equality, enlightened intellect, and pure, loving, and pious heart; Froebel’s eyes penetrated to the ungratified longings of an individual soul, not understood even by itself, and “sought to give to man himself” (7: p. 49) by leading him to what his inner nature craves to be. If Pestalozzi was the greater educator, Froebel was the greater teacher.