Part 40

[75] Here Comenius seems to be thinking of the intercourse of children when no older companion is present; Froebel made more of the very different intercourse when their thoughts and actions are led by some one who has studied how to lead them. Children constantly want help from their elders even in amusing themselves. On the other hand, it is only the very wisest of mortals who can give help enough and _no more_. Self-dependence may sometimes be cultivated by “a little wholesome neglect.”

[76] Comical and at the same time melancholy results follow. In an elementary school, where the children “took up” geography for the Inspector, I once put some questions about St. Paul at Rome. I asked in what country Rome was, but nobody seemed to have heard of such a place. “It’s geography!” said I, and some twenty hands went up directly: their owners now answered quite readily, “In Italy.”

[77] “A talent for History may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory written quite full of annals...? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men, you may observe, speak only to narrate.” (Carlyle on _History_. Miscellanies.)

[78] South Kensington, which controls the drawing of millions of children, says precisely the opposite, and prescribes a kind of drawing, which, though it may give manual skill to adults, does not “afford delight” to the mind of children.

[79] “Generalem nos intendimus institutionem omnium qui homines nati sunt, ad omnia humana.... Vernaculæ (scholæ) scopus metaque erit, ut omnis juventus utriusque sexus, intra annum sextum et duodecimum seu decimum tertium, ea addoceatur quorum usus per totam vitam se extendat.” I quote this Latin from the excellent article _Coménius_ (by several writers) in Buisson’s _Dictionnaire_. It is a great thing to get an author’s exact words. Unfortunately the writer in the _Dictionnaire_ follows custom and does not give the means of verifying the quotation. Comenius in Latin I have never seen except in the British Museum.

[80] In Sermon on Charity Schools, A.D. 1745. The Bishop points out that “training up children is a very different thing from merely teaching them some truths necessary to be known or believed.” He goes into the historical aspect of the subject. As since the days of Elizabeth there has been legal provision for the maintenance of the poor, there has been “need also of some particular legal provision in behalf of poor children for their _education_; this not being included in what we call maintenance.” “But,” says the Bishop, “it might be necessary that a burden so entirely new as that of a poor-tax was at the time I am speaking of, should be as light as possible. Thus the legal provision for the poor was first settled without any particular consideration of that additional want in the case of children; as it still remains with scarce any alteration in this respect.” And _remained_ for nearly a century longer. Great changes naturally followed and will follow from the extension of the franchise; and another century will probably see us with a Folkschool worthy of its importance. By that time we shall no longer be open to the sarcasm of “the foreign friend:” “It is highly instructive to visit English elementary schools, for there you find everything that should be avoided.” (M. Braun quoted by Mr. A. Sonnenschein. The _Old_ Code was in force.)

[81] “Adhuc sub judice lis est.” I find the editor of an American educational paper brandishing in the face of an opponent as a quotation from Professor N. A. Calkins’ “Ear and Voice Training”: “The senses are the only powers by which children can gain the elements of knowledge; and until these have been trained to act, no definite knowledge can be acquired.” But Calkins says, “act, under direction of the mind.”

[82] “What do you learn from ‘Paradise Lost’? Nothing at all. What do you learn from a cookery book? Something new, something that you did not know before, in every paragraph. But would you therefore put the wretched cookery book on a higher level of estimation than the divine poem? What you owe to Milton is not any _knowledge_, of which a million separate items are but a million of advancing steps on the same earthly level; what you owe is _power_, that is, exercise and expansion to your own latent capacity of sympathy with the infinite, where every pulse and each separate influx is a step upward—a step ascending as upon a Jacob’s ladder from earth to mysterious altitudes above the earth. All the steps of knowledge from first to last carry you further on the same plane, but could never raise you one foot above your ancient level of earth; whereas the very _first_ step in power is a flight, is an ascending into another element where earth is forgotten.” I have met with this as a quotation from De Quincey.

[83] When I visited (some years ago) the “École Modèle” at Brussels I was told that books were used for _nothing_ except for learning to read. Comenius was saved from this consequence of his realism by his fervent Christianity. He valued the study of the Bible as highly as the Renascence scholars valued the study of the classics, though for a very different reason. He cared for the Bible not as literature, but as the highest authority on the problems of existence. Those who, like Matthew Arnold, may attribute to it far less authority may still treasure it as literature, while those who despise literature and recognise no authority above things would limit us to the curriculum of the “École Modèle” and care for natural science only.

In this country we are fortunately able to advocate some reforms which were suggested by the realism of Comenius without incurring any suspicion of rejecting his Christianity. It is singular to see how the highest authorities of to-day—men conversant with the subject on the side of practice as well as theory—hold precisely the language which practical men have been wont to laugh at as “theoretical nonsense” ever since the days of Comenius. A striking instance will be found in a lecture by the Principal of the Battersea Training College (Rev. Canon Daniel) as reported in _Educational Times_, July, 1889. Compare what Comenius said (_supra_ p. 151) with the following: “Children are not sufficiently required to use their senses. They are allowed to observe by deputy. They look at Nature through the spectacles of Books, and through the eyes of the teacher, but do not observe for themselves. It might be expected that in object lessons and science lessons, which are specially intended to cultivate the observing faculty, this fault would be avoided, but I do not find that such is the case. I often hear lessons on objects that are not object lessons at all. The object is not allowed to speak for itself, eloquent though it is, and capable though it is of adapting its teaching to the youngest child who interrogates it. The teacher buries it under a heap of words and second-hand statements, thereby converting the object lesson into a verbal lesson and throwing away golden opportunities of forming the scientific habit of mind. Now mental science teaches us that our knowledge of the sensible qualities of the material world can come to us only through our senses, and through the right senses. If we had no senses we should know nothing about the material world at all; if we had a sense less we should be cut off from a whole class of facts; if we had as many senses as are ascribed to the inhabitants of Sirius in Voltaire’s novel, our knowledge would be proportionately greater than it is now. Words cannot compensate for sensations. The eloquence of a Cicero would not explain to a deaf man what music is, or to a blind man what scarlet is. Yet I have frequently seen teachers wholly disregard these obvious truths. They have taught as though their pupils had eyes that saw not, and ears that heard not, and noses that smelled not, and palates that tasted not, and skins that felt not, and muscles that would not work. They have insisted on taking the words out of Nature’s mouth and speaking for her. They have thought it derogatory to play a subordinate part to the object itself.”

This subject has been well treated by Mr. Thos. M. Balliet in a paper on shortening the curriculum (_New York School Journal_, 10th Nov., 1888). “Studies,” says he, “are of two kinds (1) studies which supply the mind with thoughts of images, and (2) those which give us ‘labels,’ _i.e._ the means of indicating and so communicating thought. Under the last head come the study of language, writing (including spelling), notation, &c.” Mr. Balliet proposes, as Comenius did, that the symbol subjects shall not be taken separately, but in connexion with the thought subjects. Especially in the mother-tongue, we should study language for thought, not thought for the sake of language.

But after all though we may and _should_ bring the young in connexion with the objects of thought and not with words merely, we must not forget that the scholastic aspect of things will differ from the practical. When brought into the schoolroom the thing must be divested of details and surroundings, and used to give a conception of one of a class. The fir tree of the schoolboy cannot be the fir tree of the wood-cutter. The “boiler” becomes a cylinder subject to internal or external pressure. It is not the thing that the engine-driver knows will burn and corrode, get foul in its tubes and loose in its joints, and be liable to burst. (See Mr. C. H. Benton on “Practical and Theoretical Training” in _Spectator_, 10th Nov., 1888). The school knowledge of things no less than of words may easily be over-valued. It should be given not for itself but to excite interest and draw out the powers of the mind.

[84] Ruskin seems to be echoing Comenius (of whom perhaps he never heard) when he says “To be taught to see is to gain word and thought at once, and both true.” (_Address at Camb. Sch. of Art_, Oct. 1858.)

[85] As far as my experience goes there are few men capable both of teaching and being taught, and of these rare beings Comenius was a noble example. The passage in which he acknowledges his obligation to the Jesuits’ _Janua_ is a striking proof of his candour and open-mindedness.

As an experiment in language-teaching this _Janua_ is a very interesting book, and will be well worth a note. From Augustin and Alois de Backer’s _Bibliothèque des Ecrivains de la C. de Jésus_, I learn that the author William Bath or Bathe [Latin Bateus] was born in Dublin in 1564, and died in Madrid in 1614. “A brief introduction to the skill of song as set forth by William Bathe, gent.” is attributed to him; but we know nothing of his origin or occupation till he entered on the Jesuit noviciate at Tournai in 1596. Either before or after this “he ran” as he himself tells us “the pleasant race of study” at Beauvais. After studying at Padua he was sent as Spiritual Father to the Irish College at Salamanca. Here, according to C. Sommervogel he wrote two Latin books. He also designed the _Janua Linguarum_, and carried out the plan with the help of the other members of the college. The book was published at Salamanca “apud de Cea Tesa” 1611, 4to. Four years afterwards an edition with English version added was published in London edited by Wm. Welde. I have never seen the Spanish version, but a copy of Welde’s edition (wanting title page) was bequeathed to me by a friend honoured by all English-speaking students of education, Joseph Payne. The _Janua_ must have had great success in this country, and soon had other editors. In an old catalogue I have seen “_Janua Linguarum Quadrilinguis_, or a Messe of Tongues, Latine, English, French, Spanish, neatly served up together for a wholesome repast to the worthy curiositie of the studious, sm. 4to, Matthew Lowndes, 1617.” This must have been the early edition of Isaac Habrecht. I have his “_Janua Linguarum Silinguis_. _Argentinæ_ (Strassburg), 1630,” and in the Preface he says that the first English edition came out in 1615, and that he had added a French version and published the book at London in four languages in 1617. I have seen “sixth edition 1627,” also published by Lowndes, and edited “opera I. H. (John Harmar, called in Catalogue of British Museum ‘Rector of Ewhurst’) Scholæ Sancti Albani Magistri primarii.” Harmar, I think, suppressed all mention of the author of the book, but he kept the title. This seems to have been altered by the celebrated Scioppius who published the book as _Pascasii Grosippi Mercurius bilinguis_.

This Jesuits’ _Janua_ is one of the most interesting experiments in language teaching I ever met with. Bathe and his co-adjutors collected as they believed all the common root words in the Latin language; and these they worked up into 1,200 short sentences in the form of proverbs. After the sentences follows a short Appendix _De ambiguis_ of which the following is a specimen: “Dum malum comedis juxta malum navis, de malo commisso sub malo vetita meditare. While thou eatest an apple near the mast of a ship, think of the evil committed under the forbidden apple tree.” An alphabetical index of all the Latin words is then given, with the number of the sentence in which the word occurs.

Prefixed to this _Janua_ we find some introductory chapters in which the problem: What is the best way of learning a foreign language? is considered and some advance made towards a solution. “The body of every language consisteth of four principal members—words, congruity, phrases, and elegancy. The dictionary sets down the words, grammar the congruities, Authors the phrases, and Rhetoricians (with their figures) the elegancy. We call phrases the proper forms or peculiar manners of speaking which every Tongue hath.” (Chap. 1 _ad f._) Hitherto, says Bathe, there have been in use, only two ways of learning a language, “regular, such as is grammar, to observe the congruities; and irregular such as is the common use of learners, by reading and speaking in vulgar tongues.” The “regular” way is more certain, the “irregular” is easier. So Bathe has planned a middle way which is to combine the advantages of the other two. The “congruities” are learnt regularly by the grammar. Why are not the “words” learned regularly by the dictionary? 1st, Because the Dictionary contains many useless words; 2nd, because compound words may be known from the root words without special learning; 3rd, because words as they stand in the Dictionary bear no sense and so cannot be remembered. By the use of this _Janua_ all these objections will be avoided. Useful words and root words only are given, and they are worked up into sentences “easy to be remembered.” And with the exception of a few little words such as _et_, _in_, _qui_, _sum_, _fio_ no word occurs a second time; thus, says Bathe, the labour of learning the language will be lightened and “as it was much more easy to have known all the living creatures by often looking into Noe’s Ark, wherein was a selected couple of each kind, than by travelling over all the world until a man should find here and there a creature of each kind, even in the same manner will all the words be far more easily learned by use of these sentences than by hearing, speaking or reading until a man do accidentally meet with every particular word.” (Proeme _ad f._) “We hope no man will be so ingrateful as not to think this work very profitable,” says the author. For my own part I feel grateful for such an earnest attempt at “retrieving of the curse of Babylon,” but I cannot show my gratitude by declaring “this work very profitable.” The attempt to squeeze the greater part of a language into 1,200 short sentences could produce nothing better than a curiosity. The language could not be thus squeezed into the memory of the learner.

[86] This book must have had a great sale in England. Anchoran’s version (the Latin title of which is _Porta_ not _Janua_) went through several editions. I have a copy of _Janua Linguarum Reserata_ “formerly translated by Tho. Horn: afterwards much corrected and amended by Joh. Robotham: now carefully reviewed and exactly compared with all former editions, foreign and others, and much enlarged both in the Latine and English: together with a Portall ... by G. P. 1647.” “W. D.” was a subsequent editor, and finally it was issued by Roger Daniel, to whom Comenius dedicates from Amsterdam in 1659 as “Domino Rogero Danieli, Bibliopolæ ac Typographo Londinensi celeberrimo.”

[87] Eilhardus Lubinus or Eilert Lueben, born 1565; was Professor first of Poetry then of Theology at Rostock, where he died in 1621. This projector of the most famous school-book of modern times seems not to be mentioned in K. A. Schmid’s great _Encyklopädie_, at least in the first edition. (I have not seen the second.) I find from F. Sander’s _Lexikon d. Pädagogik_ that Ratke declared he learnt nothing from Lubinus, while Comenius recognised him gratefully as his predecessor. This is just what we should have expected from the character of Ratke and of Comenius. Lubinus advocated the use of interlinear translations and published (says Sander) such translations of the New Testament, of Plautus, &c. The very interesting Preface to the New Test., was translated into English by Hartlib and published as “The True and Readie Way to Learne the Latine Tongue by E. Lubinus,” &c., 1654. The date given for Lubinus’ preface is 1614. L. finds fault with the grammar teaching which is thrashed into boys so that they hate their masters. He would appeal to the senses: “For from these things falling under the sense of the eyes, and as it were more known, we will make entrance and begin to learn the Latin speech. Four-footed living creatures, creeping things, fishes and birds which can neither be gotten nor live well in these parts ought to be painted. Others also, which because of their bulk and greatness cannot be shut up in houses may be made in a lesser form, or drawn with the pencil, yet of such bigness as they may be well seen by boys even afar off.” He says he has often counselled the Stationers to bring out a book “in which all things whatsoever which may be devised and written and seen by the eyes, might be described, so as there might be also added to all things and all parts and members of things, its own proper word, its own proper appellation or term expressed in the Latin and Dutch tongues” (pp. 22, 23). “Visible things are first to be known by the eyes” (p. 23), and the joining of seeing the thing and hearing the name together “is by far the profitablest and the bravest course, and passing fit and applicable to the age of children.” Things themselves if possible, if not, pictures (p. 25). There are some capital hints on teaching children from things common in the house, in the street, &c. One Hadrianus Junius has made a “nomenclator” that may be useful. In the pictures of the projected book there are to be lines under each object, and under its printed name. (The excellent device of corresponding numbers seems due to Comenius.) For printing below the pictures L. also suggests sentences which are simpler and better for children than those in the Vestibulum, _e.g._ “Panis in Mensa positus est, Felis vorat Murem.”

In the Brit. Museum there is a copy of _Medulla Linguæ Græcæ_ in which L. works up the root words of Greek into sentences. He was evidently a man with ideas. Comenius thought of them so highly that he tried to carry out another at Saros-Patak, the plan of a “Cœnobium” or Roman colony in which no language should be used but Latin.

[88] For full titles of the books referred to see p. 195.

[89] The solitaries of Port-Royal used to vary their mental toil with manual. A Jesuit having maliciously asked whether it was true that Monsieur Pascal made shoes, met with the awkward repartee, “Je ne sais pas s’il fait des souliers, mais je crois qu’il _vous a porté une fameuse botte_.”

[90] A master in a great public school once stated in a school address what masters and boys felt to be true. “It would hardly be too much to say that the whole problem of education is how to surround the young with good influences. I believe we must go on to add that if the wisest man had set himself to work out this problem without the teaching of experience, he would have been little likely to hit upon the system of which we are so proud, and which we call “the Public School System.” If the real secret of education is to surround the young with good influences, is it not a strange paradox to take them at the very age when influences act most despotically and mass them together in large numbers, where much that is coarsest is sure to be tolerated, and much that is gentlest and most refining—the presence of mothers and sisters for example—is for a large part of the year a memory or an echo rather than a living voice? I confess I have never seen any answers to this objection which _apart from the test of experience_ I should have been prepared to pronounce satisfactory. It is a simple truth that the moral dangers of our Public School System are enormous. It is the simple truth that do what you will in the way of precaution, you do give to boys of low, animal natures, the very boys who ought to be exceptionally subject to almost despotic restraint, exceptional opportunities of exercising a debasing influence over natures far more refined and spiritual than their own. And it is further the simple but the sad truth, that these exceptional opportunities are too often turned to account, and that the young boy’s character for a time—sometimes for a long time—is spoiled or vulgarized by the influence of unworthy companions.” This is what public schoolmasters, if their eyes are not blinded by routine, are painfully conscious of. But they find that in the end good prevails; the average boy gains a manly character and contributes towards the keeping up a healthy public opinion which is of great effect in restraining the evil-doer.

[91] “The number of boarders was never very great, because to a master were assigned no more than he could have beds for in his room.” (Fontaine’s _Mémoire_, Carré, p. 24.)

[92] “Plerisque placet media quædam ratio, ut apud unum Præceptorem quinque sexve pueri instituantur: ita nec sodalitas deerit ætati, cui convenit alacritas; neque non sufficiet singulis cura Præceptoris; et facile vitabitur corruptio quam affert multitudo. Many take up with a middle course, and would have five or six boys placed with one preceptor; in this way they will not be without companionship at an age when from their liveliness they seem specially to need it, and the master may give sufficient care to each individual; moreover, there will be an easy avoidance of the moral corruption which numbers bring.” Erasmus on _Christian Marriage_ quoted by Coustel in Sainte-Beuve, P.Riij, bk. 4, p. 404.

[93] Lancelot’s “New way of easily learning Latin (_Nouvelle Méthode pour apprendre facilement la langue Latine_)” was published in 1644, his method for Greek in 1655. This was followed in 1657 by his “Garden of Greek Roots (_Jardin des racines grecques_)” (see Cadet, pp. 15 ff.)