to the next higher step of development and culture. In this way Froebel,
whose own notes, collected from different sources, we are here following,
hopes to guard against a defective or misdirected education; for what the
pupil knows and can do has sprung, as it were, from his own brain.
Nothing has been learned, but developed from within. Therefore the boy
who is sent into the world will understand how to use it, and possess the
means for his own further development and perfection from step to step.

Every human being has a talent for some calling or vocation, and strength
for its development. It is the task of the institute to cultivate the
powers which are especially requisite for the future fulfilment of the
calling appointed by Nature herself. Here, too, the advance must be step
by step. Where talent or inclination lead, every individual will be
prepared to deal with even the greatest obstacles, and must possess even
the capacity to represent externally what has been perceived and thought
--that is, to speak and write clearly and accurately--for in this way the
intellectual power of the individual will first be made active and
visible to others. We perceive that Froebel strongly antagonizes the
Roman postulate that knowledge should be imparted to boys according to a
thoroughly tested method and succession approved by the mature human
intellect, and which seem most useful to it for later life.

The systematic method which, up to the time of Pestalozzi, prevailed in
Germany, and is again embodied in our present mode of education, seemed
to him objectionable. The Swiss reformer pointed out that the mother's
heart had instinctively found the only correct system of instruction, and
set before the pedagogue the task of watching and cultivating the child's
talents with maternal love and care. He utterly rejected the old system,
and Froebel stationed himself as a fellow-combatant at his side, but went
still further. This stand required a high degree of courage at the time