nthlies; American Periodicals, &c., &c.

THE MASSACHUSETTS TEACHER: A Journal of School and Home
Education. Resident Editors: Charles Ansorge, Dorchester; Wm. T.
Adams, Boston; W. E. Sheldon, West Newton, New Series, October,
1863. Boston: Published by the Massachusetts Teachers' Association,
No. 119 Washington street, Boston.

EDITOR'S TABLE.

THE LAW OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.

In the articles contributed to our pages, we do not always exact a
precise conformity to our own views. If we are satisfied with the
general scope and tendency of thought presented by respectable writers
who appear in their own names, we do not care to make known any minor
differences of opinion, or to criticise what we consider the errors of
their productions. Nevertheless, we suppose that a calm and friendly
expression of our own thoughts, on any subject discussed in our pages,
will not be out of place or unkindly received in any quarter.

In the very able and interesting article in our last number, by Mr.
Freeland, that writer announced the doctrine that 'the social,
political, religious, and scientific development of the world proceeds
under the operation of two grand antagonistic principles,' which he
calls respectively, 'Unity,' and 'Individuality.' 'The first of these,'
he says, 'tends to bring about cooeperation, consolidation, convergence,
dependence; the second to produce separation, isolation, divergence, and
independence. Unity is the principle which tends to order; Individuality
to freedom.'

We are prepared to admit the existence and operation of these principles
as stated. They constitute the active tendencies of society, and they
perform in the social world precisely what the antagonistic forces of
attraction and repulsion do in the physical. They are the principles of
aggregation and organization, as well as of agitation, conflict, and all
revolutionary or progressive activity. In a more perfect state of
development, they will exhibit themselves as the centripetal and
centrifugal forces of a beautiful system arrived at that stage of
regulated motion which constitutes a stable equilibrium.

But while we admit the universal operation of these two principles, we
think Mr. Freeland has made a serious mistake in the application of
them,--a mistake which seems to run through his entire essay, and to
pervade the whole system of his philosophy. We shall venture upon a
brief criticism, solely with the