In regard to the intellectual side of education, too, Dr. Harris gives his defense to its traditional form. In his view, learning proper is nothing else but the learning of books. The printed page is “an instrumentality of intercommunication,” the storehouse of race experience, the immortalized form of civilization. Thus training in letters naturally should form the center of instruction in the elementary school. Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, and grammar are the first studies of the school, which have the sanction of tradition and have stood the test of time. Natural science, vocal music, drawing, gymnastics, and the like may be introduced only as subordinate subjects. As to the disciplinary value of manual training Dr. Harris is skeptical. Its possible use he recognizes only as a preparation for productive industry. However, for this purpose he does not see the wisdom or need of teaching it in the school. For, “if youth can be taught to bring their powers to bear on such subjects as arithmetic, grammar, history, and literature, they certainly can with ease give their mind to any form of manual training or the work of external observation, because the greater includes the less, and the studies of pure science are far more difficult to carry on than studies in applied science” (6: p. 16). Thus he disposes of the question of pure “cultural” training _versus_ “practical” training by saying: “Cultivate the humanities first, and afterwards the industrial faculties” (6: p. 20). Dr. Harris does not see the inherent worth of elementary education nor glorify its function, as Pestalozzi or Froebel did. For him it is confessedly a “defective sort of education.” Not only the knowledge it conveys is superficial and scanty, but the method of instruction and training is “necessarily crude and inadequate.” To speak of the spontaneous learning of the child is nonsense. In the language of Dr. Harris, everything must be “served up” to him, and this in a “fragmentary manner.” This, however, is “not an objectionable feature”; “or if it is to be regarded as an evil, it is at least a necessary evil” (5: pp. 144-145). It is in the second stage of intellectual culture that larger facts are given in a systematic form and mutual correlation; that the pupil’s own observation, reflection, and “organic thinking” are encouraged and required. In a still higher stage--i. e., in the university--original investigation and independent thinking will have become its characteristic features. Dr. Harris fears that these higher forms of education, which he terms “the system of education by insight,” would foster an excessive conceit of self unless it is built on the safe foundations of what he calls “the education of authority,” or “the education by means of memory.” “There is this danger,” he thinks, “in the system of education by insight, if begun too early, that the individual tends to become so self-conceited with