Leibniz, the great German philosopher, who recognized Locke’s Essay on “Human Understanding,” as “one of the most beautiful and most esteemed work” of his time, was disposed to rate his “Thoughts on Education” still higher. Even to-day, after we have become familiar with a host of great and modern thinkers, he finds such an admirer as Professor Laurie, of Edinburgh, who thinks “that no educational writer surpasses him.” Rousseau’s indebtedness to him is a well-known fact, and through Rousseau his influence extends to the whole continental development of educational thought down to the present day. As to the wide and deep effect which his thought directly exerted upon England there can be no question. Oscar Browning, of Cambridge, believes that Locke’s ideas “determine the character of our most characteristic educational institution, the English public school” (2: p. 118). And yet Locke had little interest in the public school of his day. England produced in him her ideal type of a gentleman, and he, as the incarnation of her genius, has formed the gentlemen of England. Thus, the two greatest educational writers of the seventeenth century, standing at the fountainhead of the pedagogical stream of the modern era, present a very interesting contrast, which is not insignificant in its effects. If one is the harbinger of the idealistic and the theorizing pedagogy of the German type, the other is the champion of the realistic and empirical school of the English type. A religious tendency predominates in the former, a secular tendency in the latter. If Comenius may be called the pedagogue of public education, Locke is to be called that of private education. In the former, the emphasis is on the order, system, and method; in the latter, the stress is laid on the personal influence of the educator. While in the former, instruction is the main thing; in the latter, discipline and training are essential.