when a man is asked to write down what he really thinks on education, a certain gravity grips and stiffens his soul, which might be mistaken by the superficial for disgust. if it be really true that men sickened of sacred words and wearied of theology, if this largely unreasoning irritation against “dogma” did arise out of some ridiculous excess of such things among priests in the past, then i fancy we must be laying up a fine crop of cant for our descendants to grow tired of. probably the word “education” will some day seem honestly as old and objectless as the word “justification” now seems in a puritan folio. gibbon thought it frightfully funny that people should have fought about the difference between the “homoousion” and the “homoiousion.” the time will come when somebody will laugh louder to think that men thundered against sectarian education and also against secular education; that men of prominence and position actually denounced the schools for teaching a creed and also for not teaching a faith. the two greek words in gibbon look rather alike; but they really mean quite different things. faith and creed do not look alike, but they mean exactly the same thing. creed happens to be the latin for faith.

now having read numberless newspaper articles on education, and even written a good many of them, and having heard deafening and indeterminate discussion going on all around me almost ever since i was born, about whether religion was part of education, about whether hygiene was an essential of education, about whether militarism was inconsistent with true education, i naturally pondered much on this recurring substantive, and i am ashamed to say that it was comparatively late in life that i saw the main fact about it.

of course, the main fact about education is that there is no such thing. it does not exist, as theology or soldiering exist. theology is a word like geology, soldiering is a word like soldering; these sciences may be healthy or no as hobbies; but they deal with stone and kettles, with definite things. but education is not a word like geology or kettles. education is a word like “transmission” or “inheritance”; it is not an object, but a method. it must mean the conveying of certain facts, views or qualities, to the last baby born. they might be the most trivial facts or the most preposterous views or the most offensive qualities; but if they are handed on from one generation to another they are education. education is not a thing like theology, it is not an inferior or superior thing; it is not a thing in the same category of terms. theology and education are to each other like a love-letter to the general post office. mr. fagin was quite as educational as dr. strong; in practice probably more educational. it is giving something—perhaps poison. education is tradition, and tradition (as its name implies) can be treason.

this first truth is frankly banal; but it is so perpetually ignored in our political prosing that it must be made plain. a little boy in a little house, son of a little tradesman, is taught to eat his breakfast, to take his medicine, to love his country, to say his prayers, and to wear his sunday clothes. obviously fagin, if he found such a boy, would teach him to drink gin, to lie, to betray his country, to blaspheme and to wear false whiskers. but so also mr. salt the vegetarian would abolish the boy’s breakfast; mrs. eddy would throw away his medicine; count tolstoi would rebuke him for loving his country; mr. blatchford would stop his prayers, and mr. edward carpenter would theoretically denounce sunday clothes, and perhaps all clothes. i do not defend any of these advanced views, not even fagin’s. but i do ask what, between the lot of them, has become of the abstract entity called education. it is not (as commonly supposed) that the tradesman teaches education plus christianity; mr. salt, education plus vegetarianism; fagin, education plus crime. the truth is, that there is nothing in common at all between these teachers, except that they teach. in short, the only thing they share is the one thing they profess to dislike: the general idea of authority. it is quaint that people talk of separating dogma from education. dogma is actually the only thing that cannot be separated from education. it is education. a teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.