CHAPTER II

FORERUNNERS OF COMENIUS

Traces of the intellectual development of Comenius. Vives a realist—His early training in Spain and France—Educational activity in Belgium and England—Views on the education of women—Theory of education—Comparison of Vives and Comenius. Bacon the founder of modern realism—Views on the education of his day—Attacks mediævalism—Study of nature and the inductive method—Individual differences among children. Ratke—Studies at Hamburg and Rostock—Visits England and becomes acquainted with the philosophy of Bacon—His plan of education—Its reception by the universities at Jena and Giessen—Organization of the schools at Gotha—Call to Sweden—Summary of Ratke’s views—Harmony of his teachings with those of Comenius. Campanella, Andreæ, and Bateus—Their influence on the life and teachings of Comenius.

Every educational reformer owes much, in the way of inspiration and suggestion, to his predecessors, and of none is this more true than of John Amos Comenius. Everywhere in his writings are to be found traces of the movement he championed, in the writings of Vives, Bacon, Ratke, Bateus, Campanella, and others. As Professor Nicholas Murray Butler remarks: “From Ratke he learned something of the way in which language teaching, the whole curriculum of the time, might be reformed; and from Bateus he derived both the title and the plan of his _Janua_. Campanella suggested to him the necessity of the direct interrogation of nature if knowledge was to progress, and Vives emphasized for him from the same point of view the defects of contemporary school practice. But it was Bacon’s _Instauratio Magna_ that opened his eyes to the possibilities of our knowledge of nature and its place in the educational scheme.”[13] This obligation to his predecessors Comenius was the first to recognize. And he recognized it often and specifically by his willing tributes to the help received by him from Vives, Bacon, Ratke, and others.

_Vives_

“Comenius received his first impulse as a sense-realist,” says Raumer, “from the well-known Spanish pedagogue John Lewis Vives, who had come out against Aristotle and disputation in favor of a Christian mode of philosophizing and the silent contemplation of nature.” “It is better for the pupils to ask, to investigate, than to be forever disputing with one another,” said Vives. “Yet,” adds Comenius, “Vives understood better where the fault was than what was the remedy.” In the preface to the _Janua_, Comenius quotes Vives among others as opposed to the current methods of language teaching.

The Spanish educator was born a hundred years before Comenius, of poor, but noble parentage. When fifteen years old he was considered the most brilliant pupil in the academy at Valencia. Two years later he was matriculated in the University of Paris, where, as his biographers tell us, he was surrounded by the Dialecticians, whose theology was the most abstruse and whose Latin was the most barbarous. This condition of affairs turned the young Spaniard’s thoughts toward educational reform. He realized in Paris, as he had not before, the uselessness of the empty disputations which occupied so much time in the schools.

Three years were spent in study at Paris, after which Vives travelled through portions of Spain and France, and, in 1517, he settled with the Valdura family in Bruges and married the daughter of his host. Here he wrote his allegory _Christi triumphus_, in which he holds up to ridicule the methods of teaching in the University of Paris. A year later he was installed in the University of Louvain as the instructor of the young Cardinal de Croy. While here he wrote a history of philosophy; made the acquaintance of Erasmus; and opened correspondence with Thomas More and other reformers.

In 1519 he visited Paris with Cardinal de Croy; and, in spite of his late criticisms, he was cordially received by the university, his scholarship and ability now being recorded facts. Two years later De Croy died without having made any provision for the support of his tutor. Vives began at once a commentary on St. Augustine; but his health giving way, he returned to Bruges, where, in July, he had a personal interview with Thomas More, Wolsey, and others, who were in favor with Henry VIII of England. He taught at Louvain during the winter semester of 1522–1523, after which, through the influence of the English dignitaries already mentioned, he was called to England.

In what capacity he went to England is hardly known. Some say as the tutor of King Henry’s daughter Mary; others as a lecturer in the University of Oxford. Certain it is that he gave two lectures at Oxford, which were attended by the king and queen, and that he received the honorary degree of D.C.L., in 1523. In 1526 appeared his treatise on the care of the poor, which he dedicated to the municipal council of Bruges. It was one of the first scientific treatments of pauperism. He maintained that it was incumbent upon State, and not upon the Church to care for the poor. Buisson says of it, “Its suggestions are as attractive as they are wise; and even to-day they continue in full force.”

In 1528 he published his pedagogic classic on the Christian education of women. The mother, says Vives, like Cornelia, should regard her children as her most precious jewels. She should nurse her own children because of possible physical influences on the child. The mother should instruct her girl in all that pertains to the household; and early teach her to read. She should relate to her stories, not empty fables, but such as will instruct and edify her and teach her to love virtue and hate vice. The mother should teach her daughter that riches, power, praise, titles, and beauty are vain and empty things; and that piety, virtue, bravery, meekness, and culture are imperishable virtues. Strong discipline in the home is urged. Lax discipline, says Vives, makes a man bad, but it makes a woman a criminal. Dolls should be banished from the nursery because they encourage vanity and love of dress. Boys and girls should not be instructed together, not even during the earliest years of childhood. But women require to be educated as well as men. This work, which presented in stronger terms than hitherto the claims of the education of women, was dedicated to Catherine of Aragon. It was widely republished and had large influence.

For five years Vives had been a distinguished figure at the court of Henry VIII, but with the king’s application for divorce, in 1528, came a rupture of these pleasant relations. In a letter to a friend he says: “You must have heard of the troubles between the king and the queen, as it is now talked of everywhere. I have taken the side of the queen, whose cause has seemed to me just, and have defended her by word and pen. This offended his Majesty to such degree that I was imprisoned for six weeks, and only released upon condition that I would never appear in the palace again. I then concluded it safest to return home [to Bruges]; and, indeed, the queen advised me to in a secret letter. Shortly after Cardinal Campeggio was sent to Britain to judge the cause. The king was very solicitous that the queen appoint counsel to defend her side before Campeggio and Wolsey. She, therefore, called me to her aid; but I told her plainly that any defence before such a court was useless, and that it would be much better to be condemned unheard, than with the _appearance_ of defence. The king sought only to save appearances with his people, that the queen might not appear to have been unjustly treated; but he had little regard for the rest. At this the queen was incensed that I did not obey her call instead of following my own good judgment, which is worth more to me than all the princes of the world together. So it has come about that the king regards me as his adversary, and the queen regards me as disobedient and opinionated; and both of them have withdrawn my pension.”

His closing years were passed at Bruges with his wife’s family; at Breda with the Duchess of Nassau, a Spanish lady who had formerly been his pupil; and at Paris, where he gave some courses of lectures. He had struggled against a weak constitution all his life, and after his return from England other diseases developed. He died on May 6, 1540, in his forty-eighth year, and was buried in the Church of St. Donat at Bruges.

His most considerable contribution to the philosophy of education appeared after his return from England. It was entitled _De disciplinis_; was published in three parts, in 1531; and was dedicated to the King of Portugal. As Dr. Lange remarks, this work alone entitles Vives to large consideration as an educational reformer.

Vives justifies, in the introduction, the position he assumes in regard to Aristotle; while he regards the Greek as a great philosopher, he declares that the world has gained in experience since Aristotle wrote, and he sees no reason why his teachings should not be set aside if found to be incorrect. He has no doubt but that later generations will find theories better adapted to their ends than those he himself advocates, but he greets as a friend the one who shall point out his errors.

In the first part he treats of the decline of the sciences. The causes of this decline he considers twofold: (1) Moral; and here he notes an unwillingness to search for truth for truth’s sake. Pride is the root of this evil. A student in the University of Paris had remarked to him, “Sooner than not distinguish myself by founding some new doctrine, I would defend one of whose falsity I was convinced.” This moral weakness he thought altogether inconsistent with the advancement of the sciences. (2) Historical and material, including as causes the migration of nations by which existing orders of civilization have been annihilated; the obscurity of ancient manuscripts, requiring more time to decipher their meaning than it would take to discover from nature their meaning; the ever increasing use of commentaries in the study of originals, in which the diverse opinions of the commentators lead farther from the original sense; the practice of scholastic disputation which is taught the pupils before they know what they are disputing about; and the practice of regarding teaching as a trade rather than a profession, thus causing many bright minds to select other vocations, and to bring to the work incompetent and coarse minds.

The second part treats of the decline of grammar, and the third part of the art of teaching, in which he gives some most sane directions. Schools should be located in the most healthy part of the community. They should not be too near commercial centres; at the same time, they should not be too distant from the centre of population. As to teachers, they should have good academic training; they should be skilled in the art of imparting knowledge; and their morals should be such as would furnish examples to their pupils. Covetousness and ambition, above all things, should be unknown to them. Teachers who have ambition and reputation in their minds are thereby unfitted for the work of teaching. On this account, the state should fix the salaries, and the compensation should be the wage of honest men. There should be a school in every community. Before pupils should be assigned tasks, teachers should ascertain their mental capacities and characteristics. They should also be privately tested four times a year; and when children are found who possess no taste for study they should be dismissed from the school. Corporal punishment should seldom be applied, and never to such a degree as to humiliate the pupils. Children should be given plenty of play time; and hearty, romping games are especially recommended. In the matter of method, Vives heartily commends the inductive,—from particulars to generals,—and he urges such a grouping of studies that each new subject studied may naturally grow out of the preceding lesson. While he strongly advises the study of the natural sciences, he is less enthusiastic here than Bacon, fearing, as he admits, that a contemplation of nature may prove dangerous to those not deeply grounded in faith.

But Vives was essentially a realist in his doctrines of education; and when his views are compared with those of Comenius, community of ideas is at once apparent. Both would begin education in the home and make the mother the first teacher. Both realized the need of better organization and classification of the schools. Both urged reforms in the matter of language teaching. Both considered education a matter of state concern, and urged pedagogical training for teachers. Both presented the claims of science and urged the coördination and correlation of the different subjects of study. Both emphasized the value of play and the need of physical training. Both advocated education for all classes of both sexes, and both exaggerated the need and importance of the religious training of the child.

_Bacon_

“Though there were many before Bacon, and especially artists and craftsmen,” says Raumer, “who lived in communion with nature, and who, in manifold ways, transfigured and idealized her, and unveiled her glory; and, though their sense for nature was so highly cultivated that they attained to a practical understanding of her ways, yet this understanding was at best merely instinctive: for it led them to no scientific deductions and yielded them no thoughtful and legitimate dominion over her.”

The founder of modern realism was born in London on the 22d of January in the year 1561. When sixteen years of age he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, where he studied under Dr. John Whitgift, a noted professor of theology, and afterward archbishop of Canterbury. He studied diligently the writings of Aristotle, but was convinced of their inadequacy. Writing of this period he says: “Amid men of sharp and strong wits, and abundance of leisure, and small variety of reading, their wits being shut up in the cells of a few authors, chiefly Aristotle, their dictator, as their persons are shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges; and who knowing little history, either of nature or time, did out of no great quantity of matter, and infinite agitation of wit, spin cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of the thread and work, but of no substance or profit.”

The checkered career of Bacon is extraneous to his writings and may be passed over in silence. As noted in the first chapter, the educational institutions of the sixteenth century concerned themselves wholly with the acquisition and display of Latin eloquence. Grammar was studied with infinite labor and sorrow for years that students might acquire correct forms of speech; logic that they might express themselves with precision; and a minimum of history was taught that ancient records might furnish ornate illustrations in speaking and writing.

Erasmus and Melanchthon had disputed this ideal of culture, but it remained for Bacon to demolish this idol of mediævalism. “Forsooth,” he says, “we suffer the penalty of our first parents’ sin, and yet follow in their footsteps. They desired to be like God, and we, their posterity, would be so in a higher degree. For we create worlds, direct and control nature, and, in short, square all things by the measure of our own folly, not by the plummet of divine wisdom, nor as we find them in reality. I know not whether, for this result we are forced to do violence to nature or to our own intelligence the most; but it nevertheless remains true, that we stamp the seal of our own image upon the creatures and works of God, instead of carefully searching for, and acknowledging, the seal of the Creator manifest in them. Therefore have we lost, the second time, and that deservedly, our empire over the creatures, yea, when after and notwithstanding the fall, there was left to us some title to dominion over the unwilling creatures, so that they could be subjected and controlled, even this we have lost, in great part through our pride, in that we have desired to be like God, and to follow the dictates of our own reason alone. Now then, if there be any humility in the presence of the Creator, if there be any reverence for and exaltation of his handiwork, if there be any charity toward men, any desires to relieve the woes and sufferings of humanity, any love for the light of truth, and hatred toward the darkness of error,—I would beseech men again and again, to dismiss altogether, or at least for a moment to put away their absurd and intractable theories, which give to assumptions the dignity of hypotheses, dispense with experiment, and turn them away from the works of God. Let them with a teachable spirit approach the great volume of creation, patiently decipher its secret characters, and converse with its lofty truths; so shall they leave behind the delusive echoes of prejudice, and dwell within the perpetual outgoings of divine wisdom. This is that speech and language whose lines have gone out into all the earth, and no confusion of tongues has ever befallen it. This language we should all strive to understand, first condescending, like little children, to master its alphabet.”

Instead of training children to interrogate nature for themselves, and to interpret the answers to these interrogations, instead of going straight to nature herself, the schools are forever teaching what others have thought and written on the subject. This procedure, according to Bacon, not only displays lack of pedagogic sense, but gives evidence of ignorance and self-conceit, and inflicts the greatest injury on philosophy and learning. Such methods of instruction, moreover, tend to stifle and interrupt all inquiry. We must, says Bacon, “come as new-born children, with open and fresh minds, to the observation of nature. For it is no less true in this human kingdom of knowledge than in God’s kingdom of heaven, that no man shall enter into it except as he becomes first as a little child.”

Bacon’s notion, as summarized by Raumer, was that “man must put himself again in direct, close, and personal contact with nature, and no longer trust to the confused, uncertain, and arbitrary accounts and descriptions of her historians and would-be interpreters. From a clear and correct observation and perception of objects, their qualities, powers, etc., the investigator must proceed, step by step, till he arrives at laws, and to that degree of insight that will enable him to interpret the laws and to analyze the processes of nature. To this end Bacon proffers to us his new method—the method of induction. With the aid of this method we attain to an insight into the connection and natural relation of the laws of matter, and thus, according to him, we are enabled through this knowledge to make nature subservient to our will.”

This was, according to Comenius, the true key to the human intellect. But he laments that Bacon should have given us the key and failed to unlock the door to the treasure-house. But Bacon did more than formulate the laws of scientific induction for pedagogic purposes: he made possible the enrichment of the courses of study by the addition of a wide range of school studies. His thrusts at the Latin and Greek, as the sole exponents of culture, were telling in their effect and made possible the recognition of the vernacular themes in Comenius’ day. “The wisdom of the Greeks,” he says, “was rhetorical; it expended itself upon words, and it had little to do with the search after truth.” Speaking again of classical culture, he says: “These older generations fell short of many of our present knowledges; they know but a small part of the world, and but a brief period of history. We, on the contrary, are acquainted with a far greater extent of the world, besides having discovered a new hemisphere, and we look back and survey long periods of history.”

Bacon recognized great individual differences in the mental capacities of children, and he urged that these differences and special tastes be taken into account by the teachers. He says: “The natural bent of the individual minds should be so far encouraged that a student who shall learn all that is required of him may be allowed time in which to pursue a favorite study. And, furthermore, it is worth while to consider, and I think this point has not hitherto received the attention which its importance demands, that there are two distinct modes of training the mind to a free and appropriate use of its faculties. The one begins with the easiest, and so proceeds to the more difficult; the other, at the outset, presses the pupil with the more difficult tasks, and, after he has mastered these, turns him to pleasanter and easier ones: for it is one method to practise swimming with bladders, and another to practise dancing with heavy shoes. It is beyond all estimate how a judicious blending of these two methods will profit both the mental and the bodily powers. And so to select and assign topics of instruction as to adapt them to the individual capabilities of the pupils,—this, too, requires a special experience and judgment. A close observation and an accurate knowledge of the different natures of the pupils are due from teachers to the parents of these pupils, that they may choose an occupation in life for their sons accordingly. And note further, that not only does every one make more rapid progress in those studies to which his nature inclines him, but, again, that a natural disinclination, in whatever direction, may be overcome by the help of special studies. For instance, if a boy has a light, inattentive, inconstant spirit, so that he is easily diverted, and his attention cannot be readily fixed, he will find advantage in the mathematics, in which a demonstration must be commenced anew whenever the thought wanders even for a moment.”

These citations will suggest parallels in the aims of the two great reformers. Both sought to introduce the student to nature at first hand. Both aimed to reorganize the sciences into one great body of coördinated knowledge. Both emphasized the value of the inductive method in the development of subjects of study. Bacon said: “A good method will solve all problems. A cripple on the right path will beat a racer on the wrong path.” Said Comenius: “The secret of education lies in method.” Again: “There is no difficulty in learning Latin: what we want is a good method.”

_Ratke_

Although but little more than twenty years the senior of Comenius, Ratke’s mental development was less tardy, so that when the Moravian was a young collegian at Herborn, Ratke was enjoying the full flush of popularity as an educational reformer. Born at Wilster in Holstein (Germany), in 1571, he trained in the gymnasium at Hamburg, and later studied philosophy at Rostock. Later he travelled in England and Holland; studied Hebrew and Arabic, and formulated the plan of education which made him famous as a reformer. He attached great value to his plan and expressed great unwillingness to divulge it without adequate remuneration. He made known his contemplated reforms at a diet of the German Empire, held at Frankfort on the 12th of May, 1612. They were threefold: (1) To teach Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, or any other language, to young or old in a very short time; (2) to establish schools in which the arts and sciences should be taught and extended; (3) to introduce a uniform speech throughout the empire, and, at the same time, uniform government and religion. He proposed to follow the order and course of nature, and teach first the mother-tongue, after this Hebrew and Greek, as being the tongues of the original text of the Bible, and, lastly, Latin.

Through the influence of the princes (and more especially by the encouragement of the Duchess Dorothea of Weimar), the plans of Ratke were submitted to a commission selected from the faculties of the universities at Jena and Giessen,—Professors Grawer, Brendel, Walther, and Wolf representing Jena and Professors Helwig and Jung, Giessen. The report was favorable to Ratke. Professor Helwig, who was one of the best linguists of his day, was the spokesman for Giessen, and he accepted Ratke’s views with great enthusiasm. “By diligent reflection and long practice,” he says, “Ratke has discovered a valuable method by which good arts and languages can be taught and studied more easily, quickly, and correctly than has been usual in the schools. Ratke’s method is more practicable in the arts than in the sciences, since arts and sciences are by their nature consistent with themselves, while the languages, on the contrary, by long use have acquired many inaccuracies.”

Professor Helwig commends especially the methodology in Ratke’s plan, and urges that we must consider not only the knowledge to be imparted, but as well the method of imparting knowledge. He says: “Nature does much, it is true, but when art assists her, her work is much more certain and complete. Therefore it is necessary that there should be an especial art to which any one who desires to teach can adhere, so that he shall not teach by mere opinion and guess, nor by native instinct alone, but by the rules of his art; just as he who would speak correctly by the rules of grammar, and he who would sing correctly by the rules of music. This art of teaching, like the art of logic, applies to all languages, arts, and sciences. It discusses among other things how to distinguish among minds and gifts, so that the quicker may not be delayed, and that, on the contrary, those who are by nature not so quick may not remain behind; how and in what order to arrange the exercises; how to assist the understanding; how to strengthen the memory; how to sharpen the intellect without violence and after the true course of nature. This art of teaching, no less than other arts, has its fixed laws and rules, founded not only upon the nature and understanding of man, but upon the peculiarities of languages, arts, and sciences; and it admits of no ways of teaching which are not deduced from sure grounds and founded upon proof.” The Jena professors were no less favorable with regard to this new art of teaching.

The influence of this report on the fame of Ratke was far-reaching. The following year (1614) he was invited to Augsburg to reform the schools of that city. This invitation was the outgrowth of a study of his plan by David Höschel, the principal of St. Anne’s School, and two other teachers appointed by the city to accompany him to Frankfort and aid him in the investigation. They reported that Ratke had so far explained his method to them that they were satisfied and pleased with it; and the invitation to Ratke promptly followed. Beyond a few monographs by the Augsburg disciples, based on his method, and inspired doubtless by his sojourn there, we are altogether without evidence of the success or failure of the reforms at Augsburg.

Early in 1616, Prince Ludwig of Anhalt-Gotha yielded to the persuasions of his sister, the Duchess Dorothea of Weimar, and invited Ratke to Gotha to organize the schools there in accordance with his views. He engaged to organize and supervise the schools and to instruct and train the teachers, but he bound the prince to exact from each teacher a promise not to divulge his method to any one.

A printing-office was established at Gotha to supply the books required by the new order. Fonts of type in six languages were imported from Holland, and four compositors and two pressmen were brought from Rostock and Jena. The people of Gotha were required by the prince to send their children to the schools organized by Ratke. Two hundred and thirty-one boys and two hundred and two girls were enrolled.

The school was graded into six classes. The mother-tongue was taught in the lowest classes; Latin was begun in the fourth, and Greek in the sixth. He required that the teacher in the lowest class should be a man of kind manners, and that he need know no language but the German. This scandalized the whole German nation. A schoolmaster ignorant of Latin! Critics appeared from the first with the most cogent reasons for distrusting the “new methods.” But Ratke had the confidence of the prince, and all went merrily for a time. The instruction was simplified; and, besides the mother-tongue, arithmetic, singing, and religion were taught.

But he encountered numerous obstacles at Gotha: the teachers of the town, it would appear, did not fully share his views; the town adhered to the Reformed Church and Ratke was a Lutheran,—a fact which caused no end of trouble; and the prince was not altogether satisfied with the fulfilment of Ratke’s promises of reform. The pastor of the Reformed Church of Gotha preferred formal charges of heterodoxy against him, and maintained, besides, that Ratke made too little provision for the study of music and the catechism; that too much time was given to recreation; that the discipline was altogether too mild; and that the children were permitted to pass from one study to another too rapidly. Singular charges, these! And the more singular when one recalls the long hours and the harsh discipline of the seventeenth century.

The opposition was strong, and at the end of eighteen months the Gotha experiment was brought to an abrupt close. Ratke was not only dismissed, but was imprisoned on the charge that he “had claimed and promised more than he knew that he could bring to pass.” After spending the best of a year in prison, he signed a declaration in which he assented to the charges. Then the prince released him. He went to Magdeburg, where he was well received by the school authorities; but the ecclesiastical dignitaries of the city were soon at war with him, and he moved on to Rudolstadt, where he was cordially received by the Princess Anna Sophia, wife of Prince Gunther of Swarzburg-Rudolstadt.

Subsequently Oxenstiern, the chancellor of Sweden, sought his services in the reformation of the Swedish schools; but instead of the requested interview, he sent the chancellor a thick quarto. “I accomplished this wearisome labor,” says Oxenstiern; “and after I had read the whole book through, I found that he had not ill displayed the faults of the schools, but his remedies did not seem to me adequate.” Ratke died shortly afterward at the age of sixty-four years.

Ratke’s contribution to education was chiefly in the matter of methodology. His leading principles were: (1) In everything we should follow the order of nature. There is a certain natural sequence along which the human intelligence moves in the acquisition of knowledge. This sequence must be studied, and instruction must be based on a knowledge of it. (2) One thing at a time. Each subject of study should be orderly developed and thoroughly dealt with before proceeding to the next. (3) There should be frequent repetition. It is astonishing what may be accomplished by the frequent repetition of one thing. (4) Everything first in the mother-tongue. The first thinking should always be in the vernacular. Whatever the vocation, the pupil should learn to express himself in the mother-tongue. After the mother-tongue has been mastered, the other languages may be studied. (5) Everything without compulsion. Children cannot be whipped into learning or wishing to learn; by compulsion and blows they are so disgusted with their studies that study becomes hateful to them. Moreover, it is contrary to nature to flog children for not remembering what has been taught them. If they had been properly taught they would have remembered, and blows would have been unnecessary. Children should be taught to love and reverence—not to fear their teachers. (6) Nothing should be learned by rote. Learning by heart weakens the understanding. If a subject has been well developed, and has been impressed upon the mind by frequent repetition, the memory of it will follow without any pains. Frequent hours of recreation are advised; in fact, no two lessons should come immediately together. (7) A definite method (and a uniform method) for all studies. In the languages, arts, and sciences, there must be a conformity in the methods of teaching, text-books used, and precepts given. The German grammar, for instance, must agree with the Hebrew and the Greek as far as the idioms of the language will permit. (8) The thing itself should first be studied, and then whatever explains it. Study first the literature of a language and then its grammar. A basis of material must first be laid in the mind before rules can be applied. He admits that many of the grammars furnish examples with the rules; but these examples “come together from all sorts of authors, like mixed fodder in a manger.” (9) Everything must be learned by experience and examination. Nothing is to be taken on authority. It will be recalled that Ratke visited England after the completion of his studies at Rostock; and it is altogether likely that while there he became a convert to induction and the philosophy of Bacon.

In most particulars Ratke and Comenius were in harmony. Both urged that the study of things should precede or be united with the study of words; that knowledge should be communicated through appeals to the senses; that all linguistic study should begin with the mother-tongue; that methods of teaching should be in accordance with the laws of nature; and that progress in studies should be based not on compulsion, but on the interest aroused in the pupils.

_Campanella, Andreæ, and Bateus_

Comenius derived many of his philosophic concepts from the Dominican reformer, Thomas Campanella, whose writings influenced him powerfully, at least during his student years at Herborn and Heidelberg. The writings of Campanella convinced him of the unwisdom of the study of nature from the works of Aristotle. Books, Campanella had declared, are but dead copies of life, and are full of error and deception. We must ourselves explore nature and write down our own thoughts, the living mirror which shows the reflection of God’s countenance. These protests against scholasticism found a responsive chord in the thoughts of the young Comenius.

In the preface to the _Prodromus_ Comenius is unreserved in his expression of obligations to his predecessors. “Who, indeed, should have the first place,” he says, “but John Valentine Andreæ, a man of nimble and clear brain.” The court preacher of Stuttgart had strongly impressed Comenius by his deep love for Christian ideals and his warm enthusiasm for their realization in practical life, as well as by his humorous polemics against the dead scholasticism of his day. Comenius incorporates in his _Great didactic_ a brief by Andreæ on “the use of the art of teaching,” in which he maintains (1) that parents up to this time have been uncertain how much to expect from their children; (2) that schoolmasters, the greater number of whom have been ignorant of their art, have exhausted their energies and worn themselves out in their efforts to fulfil their duty; (3) that students should master the sciences without difficulty, tedium, or blows, as if in sport and in merriment; (4) that schools should become places of amusement, houses of delight and attraction, and the work so adjusted that students of whatever capacity might attain a high standard of development; (5) that states should exist for the development of the young; (6) that schools should be so efficient that the Church may never lack learned doctors, and the learned doctors lack suitable hearers; and (7) that the schools may be so reformed that they may give a more exact and universal culture of the intellect, and that Christian youths may be more fervently stirred up to vigor of mind and love of heavenly things. “Let none, therefore,” says Andreæ, “withdraw his thoughts, desires, strength, and resources from such a sacred undertaking. It is inglorious to despair of progress and wrong to despise the counsel of others.”

The obligation of Comenius to William Bateus, the Irish Jesuit, was not great, although he makes free acknowledgment of the same in the _Janua_. Indeed, the plan of the _Janua_ was well formulated before he knew of the existence of the Jesuit father’s book. He made known the plan of his _Janua_ to some friends, who told him that Bateus had already published a similar work. He was not content until he had procured a copy of the book. “The idea,” says Comenius, “was better than the execution. Nevertheless, as he was the prime inventor, I thankfully acknowledge it, nor will I upbraid him for those errors he has committed.” This willing recognition of his obligation to a wide range of educational writers is proof of the declaration he often made, “I care not whether I act the part of teacher or learner.”