It might be hastily assumed by a reader bent on critical

consideration, that the subject of my essay had a certain levity or

fancifulness about it. Works of imagination, as by a curious

juxtaposition they are called, are apt to lie under an indefinable

suspicion, as including unbusinesslike and romantic fictions, of which

the clear-cut and well-balanced mind must beware, except for the sake,

perhaps, of the frankest and least serious kind of recreation.

Considering the part which the best and noblest works of imagination

must always play in a literary education, it has often surprised me to

reflect how little scope ordinary literary exercises give for the use

of that particular faculty. The old themes and verses aimed at

producing decorous centos culled from the works of classical

rhetoricians and poets. No boy, at least in my day, was ever

encouraged to take a line of his own, and to strike out freely across

country in pursuit of imagined adventures. Even English teaching in

its earlier stages seldom aimed at more than transcriptions of actual

experience, a day spent in the country, or a walk beside the sea.

Only quite recently have boys and girls been encouraged to write poems

and stories out of their own imaginations; and even now there are

plenty of educational critics who would consider such exercises as

dilettante things lacking in practical solidity.

But I desire in this essay to go further back into the roots of the

subject, and my first position is plainly this; that imagination, pure

and simple, is a common enough faculty; not perhaps the creative

imagination which can array scenes of life, construct romantic

experiences, and embody imaginary characters in dramatic situations,

but the much simpler sort of imagination which takes pleasure in

recalling past memories, and in forecasting and anticipating

interesting events. The boy who, weary of the school-term, considers

what he will do on the first day of the holidays, or who anxiously

forebodes paternal displeasure, is exercising his imagination; and the

truth is that the faculty of imagination plays an immense part in all

human happiness and unhappiness, considering that, whenever we take

refuge from the present in memories or in anticipations, we are using

it. The first point then that I shall consider is whether this

restless and influential faculty ought not in any case to be

_trained_, so that it may not either be atrophied or become

over-dominant; and the second point will be the further consideration

as to whether the faculty of creative imagination is a thing which

should be deliberately developed.

In the first place then, it seems to me simply extraordinary that so

little heed is paid in education to the using and controlling of what

is one of the most potent instinctive forces of the mind. We take

careful thought how to strengthen and fortify the body, we go on to

spending many hours upon putting memory through its paces, and in

developing the reason and the intelligence; we pass on from that to

exercising and purifying the character and the will; we try to make

vice detestable and virtue desirable. But meanwhile, what is the

little mind doing? It submits to the drudgery imposed upon it, it

accommodates itself more or less to the conditions of its life; it

learns a certain conduct and demeanour for use in public. Yet all the

time the thought of the boy is running backwards and forwards in

secrecy, considering the memories of its experience, pleasant or

unpleasant, and comforting itself in tedious hours by framing little

plans for the future. I remember my old schoolmastering days, and the

hours I spent with a class of boys sitting in front of me; how

constantly one saw boys in the midst of their work, with pen suspended

and page unturned, look up with that expression denoting that some

vision had passed before the inward eye--which, as Wordsworth justly

observes, constitutes "the bliss of solitude"--obliterating for a

moment the surrounding scene. I do not mean that the thought was a

distant or an exalted one--probably it was some entirely trivial

reminiscence, or the anticipation of some coming amusement. But I do

not think I exaggerate when I say that probably the greater part of a

human being's unoccupied hours, and probably a considerable part of

the hours supposed to be occupied, are spent in some similar exercise

of the imagination. What a confirmation of this is to be found in the

phenomena of sleep and dreams! Then the instinct is steadily at work,

neither remembering nor anticipating, but weaving together the results

of experience into a self-taught tale.

And then if one considers later life, it is no exaggeration to say

that the greater part of human happiness and unhappiness consists in

the dwelling upon what has been, what may be, what might be, and,

alas, in our worst moments, upon what might have been "My unhappiest

experiences," said Lord Beaconsfield, "have been those which never

happened"; and again the same acute critic of life said that half the

clever people he knew were under the impression that they were hated

and envied, the other half that they were admired and loved;--and that

neither were right!

The imaginative faculty then is a species of self-representation, the

power of considering our own life and position as from the outside;

from it arise both the cheerful hopes and schemes of the sound mind,

and the shadowy anxieties and fears of the mind which lacks

robustness. It certainly does seem singular that this deep and

persistent element in human life is left so untrained and unregarded,

to range at will, to feed upon itself. All that the teacher does is to

insist as far as possible on a certain concentration of the mind on

business at particular times, and if he has ethical purposes at

heart, he may sometimes speak to a boy on the advisability of not

allowing his mind to dwell upon base or sensual thoughts; but how

little attempt is ever made to train the mind in deliberate and

continuous self-control!

The latest school of pathologists, in the treatment of obsessed or

insane persons, pay very close attention to the subjects of their

dreams, and attribute much nerve-misery to the atrophy, or suppression

by circumstances, of instincts which betray themselves in dreams. I am

inclined to think that the educators of the future must somehow

contrive to do more--indeed they cannot well do less than is actually

done--in teaching the control of that secret undercurrent of thought

in which happiness and unhappiness really reside. Those who have lived

much with boys will know what havoc suspense or disappointment or

anxiety or sensuality or unpopularity can make in an immature

character. It seems to me that we ought not to leave all this without

guidance or direction, but to make a frontal attack upon it. I do not

mean that it is necessary to probe too deeply into the imagination,

but I believe that the subject should be frankly spoken about, and

suggestions made. The point is to get the will to work, and to induce

the mind, in the first place, to realise and practise its power of

self-command; and in the second place, to show that it is possible to

evict an unwholesome thought by the deliberate welcoming and

entertaining of a wholesome one. The best of all cures is to provide

every boy with some occupation which he indubitably loves. There are

a good many boys whose work is not interesting to them, and a certain

number to whom the prescribed games are a matter of routine rather

than of active pleasure. Indeed it may be said that hardly any boys

enjoy either work or games in which they see no possibility of any

personal distinction. It is therefore of great importance that every

boy whose chances of successful performance are small should be

encouraged to have a definite hobby; for an occupation which the mind

can remember with pleasure and anticipate with delight supplies the

food for the restless imagination, which may otherwise become dreary

from inaction, or tainted by thoughts of baser pleasure. A

schoolmaster only salves his conscience by supplying a strict

time-table and regular games. A house master ought to be most careful

in the case of boys whose work is languid and proficiency in games

small, to find out what the boy really likes and enjoys, and to

encourage it by every means in his power. That is the best corrective,

to administer wholesome food for the mind to digest. But I believe

that good teachers ought to go much further, and speak quite plainly

to boys, from time to time, on the necessity of practising control of

thought. My own experience is that boys were always interested in any

talk, call it ethical or religious, which based itself directly upon

their own actual experience. I can conceive that a teacher who told a

class to sit still for three minutes and think about anything they

pleased, and added that he would then have something to tell them,

might have an admirable object-lesson in getting them to consider how

swift and far-ranging their fancies had been; or again he might

practise them in concentration of thought by asking them to think for

five minutes on a perfectly definite thing--to imagine themselves in a

wood, or by the sea, or in a chemist's shop, let us say, and then

getting them to put down on paper a list of definite objects which

they had imagined. The process could be infinitely extended; but if it

were done with some regularity, it would certainly b possible to train

boys to concentrate themselves in reflection and recollected

observation. Or again a quality might be propounded, such as

generosity or spitefulness, and the boys required to construct an

imaginary anecdote of the simplest kind to illustrate it. This would

have the effect of training the mind at all events to focus itself,

and this is just what drudgery pure and simple will not do. The aim is

not to train mere memory or logical accuracy, but to strengthen that

great faculty which we loosely call imagination, which is the power of

evoking mental images, and of migrating from the present into the past

or the future.

I believe it to be a very notable lack in our theory of education that

so little attempt is made to bring the will to bear upon what may be

called the subconscious mind. It is that strange undercurrent of

thought which is so imprudently neglected which throws up on its

banks, without any apparent purpose or aim, the ideas and images which

lurk within it. I do not say that such a training would immediately

give self-control, but most peoples' worst sufferings are caused by

what is called "having something on their mind"; and yet, so far as I

know, in the process of education, no attempt whatever is made, except

quite incidentally, to dispossess the strong man armed by the stronger

victor, or to help immature minds to hold an unpleasant or a pleasant

thought at arm's length, or to train them in the power of resolutely

substituting a current of more wholesome images. The subconscious mind

is too often treated as a thing beyond control, and yet the

pathological power of suggestion, by which a thought is implanted like

a seed in the mind, which presently appears to be rooted and

flowering, ought to show us that we have within our reach an

extraordinarily potent psychological implement.

So far then on the more negative side. I have indicated my strong

belief that much may be done to train the mind in self-control. Indeed

our whole education is built upon the faith that we can, perhaps not

implant new faculties, but develop dormant ones; and I am persuaded

that when future generations come to survey our methods and processes

of education, they will regard with deep bewilderment the amazing fact

that we applied so careful a training to other faculties, and yet left

so helplessly alone the training of the imaginative faculty, upon

which, as I have said, our happiness and unhappiness mainly depend. We

must, all of us be aware of the fact that there have been times in our

lives when all was prosperous, and when we were yet overshadowed with

dreary thoughts; or again times when in discomfort, or under the

shadow of failure, or at critical or tragic moments, we have had an

unreasonable alertness and cheerfulness. All that is due to the

subconscious mind, and we ought at least to try experiments in making

it obey us better.

I now pass on to consider a further possibility, and that is of

training and developing a higher sort of creative imagination. It is

all in reality part of the same subject, because it seems to be

certain that most human beings suffer by the suppression or the

dormancy of existing faculties. It is here, I believe, that much of

our intellectual education fails, from the tendency to direct so much

attention to purely logical and reasoning faculties, and to the

resolute subtraction from education of pure and simple enjoyment. I

used to try many experiments as a schoolmaster, and I remember at one

time bribing a slow and unintelligent class into some sort of

concentration by promising that I would tell a story for a few minutes

at the end of school, if a bit of work had been satisfactorily

mastered. It certainly produced a lot of cheerful effort; my story was

simple enough, description as brief and vivid as I could make it, and

brisk tangible incidents. But the silence, the luxurious abandonment

of small minds to an older and more pictorial imagination, the dancing

light in open eyes, did really give me for once a sense of power which

I never had in teaching Latin Prose or the Greek conditional sentence.

I always told stories for an hour on Sunday evenings to the boys in my

house, and though few of my intellectual and ethical counsels are

remembered by old pupils, I never met one who did pot recollect the

stories.

Now we have here, I believe, a source of intellectual pleasure which

is consistently neglected and even despised. It is regarded as a mere

luxury; but we do not make the mistake of substituting gymnastics for

games, and removing the pleasure of personal performance. Why can we

not also do something to encourage what old Hawtrey used so

beautifully to call "the sweet pride of authorship"? The worst of it

all is that we look so much to tangible results. I do not mean that we

must try to develop Shakespeares, Shelleys, Thackerays; such airy

creatures have a way of catering for themselves! I do riot at all want

to turn out a generation of third-rate writing amateurs. But many boys

have a distinct pleasure not only in listening to imaginations, and

riding like the beetle on the engine, but in evoking and realising

some little vision and creation of their own brains. Of course there

are boys to whom mental activity is all of the nature of a cross laid

upon them for some purpose, wise or unwise. But there are also a good

many shy boys, who will not venture to make themselves conspicuous by

literary and imaginative feats, and who yet if it were a matter of

course and wont, would throw themselves with intense pleasure into

literary creation. The work done, for instance, at Shrewsbury, at the

Perse School, at Carlisle Grammar School, in this direction--I daresay

it is done elsewhere, but I have seen the work of these three schools

with my own eyes--show what quite average boys are capable of in both

English poetry and English prose.

One of the best points of such a system of literary composition is

that even if slower boys cannot effect much, it gives a most wholesome

opening to the creative faculties of boys, whose minds, if stifled and

compressed, are most likely to work in unwholesome and tormenting

directions.

My suggestion then becomes part of a larger plea, the plea for more

direct cultivation of enjoyment in education. Some of our worst

mistakes in education arise from our not basing it upon the actual

needs and faculties of human nature, but upon the supposed

constitution of a child constructed by the starved imagination of

pedants and moralists and practical men.

One of the first requisites in cultivating intellectual and artistic

pleasure is to build up taste out of the actual perceptions of the

child. That is a factor which has been most stubbornly and

unintelligently disregarded in education. Developments in character

are of the nature of living things; they cannot be superimposed they

must be rooted in the temperament and they must draw nurture and

sustenance out of the spirit, as the seed imbibes its substance from

the unseen soil and the hidden waters. But what has been constantly

done is to introduce the broadest effects and the simplest romance,

directly and suddenly to the biggest masterpieces. The absence of all

gradation and reconciliation has been characteristic of our literary

education. Of course there is an initial difficulty in the case of the

classics, that there is very little in either Greek or Latin which

really appeals to an immature taste at all; and such books as might

appeal to inquisitive and inexperienced minds, such as Homer or the

_Anabasis_ of Xenophon, are made unattractive by the method of giving

such short snippets, and insisting on what used to be called thorough

parsing. Even _Alice in Wonderland_, let me say, could only prove a

drearily bewildering book, if read at the rate of twenty lines a

lesson, and if the principal tenses of all the verbs had to be

repeated correctly. It is absolutely essential, if any love of

literature is to be superinduced, that something should be read fast

enough to give some sense of continuity and range and horizon. The

practice of dictionary-turning is sufficient by itself to destroy

intellectual pleasure, but it used to be defended as a base sort of

bribe to strengthen memory: it was argued that boys would try to

remember words to save themselves the trouble of looking them up. But

this has no origin in fact. Boys used not to be encouraged to guess at

words, but to be punished for shirking work if they had not looked

them out. It is to be hoped that English will be in the future

increasingly taught in schools; but even so there is the danger of

connecting it too much with erudition. The old _Clarendon Press

Shakespeare_ was an almost perfect example of how not to edit

Shakespeare for boys; the introductions were learned and scholarly,

the notes were crammed with philology, derivation, illustration. As a

matter of fact there is a good deal that is interesting, even to small

minds, in the connection and derivation of words, if briskly

communicated. Most boys are responsive to the pleasure of finding a

familiar word concealed under a variation of shape; but this should be

conveyed orally. What is really requisite is that boys should be

taught how to read a book intelligently. In dealing with classical

books, vocabulary must be always a difficulty, and I myself very much

doubt the advisability in the case of average boys of attempting to

teach more than one foreign language at a time, especially when in

dealing, say, with three kindred languages, such as Latin, French, and

English, the same word, such as _spiritus_, _esprit_, and _spirit_

bear very different significations. The great need is that there

should be some work going on in which the boys should not be conscious

of dragging an ever-increasing burden of memory. Let me take a

concrete case. A poem like the _Morte d'Arthur_, or _The Lay of the

Last Minstrel_, is well within the comprehension of quite small boys.

These could be read in a class, after an introductory lecture as to

date, scene, dramatis personae, with perfect ease, words explained as

they occurred, difficult passages paraphrased, and the whole action of

the story could pass rapidly before the eye. Most boys have a distinct

pleasure in rhyme and metre. Of course it is an immense gain if the

master can really read in a spirited and moving manner, and a training

in reading aloud should form a part of every schoolmaster's outfit. I

should wish to see this reading lesson a daily hour for all younger

boys, so as to form a real basis of education. Three of these hours

could be given to English, and three to French, for in French there is

a wide range both of simple narrative stories and historical romances.

The aim to be kept in view would be the very simple one of proving

that interest, amusement and emotion can be derived from books which,

unassisted, only boys of tougher intellectual fibre could be expected

to attack. The personalities of the authors of these books should be

carefully described, and the result of such reading, persevered in

steadily, would be, what is one of the most stimulating rewards of

wider knowledge, the sudden realisation, that is, that books and

authors are not lonely and isolated phenomena, but that the literature

of a nation is like a branching tree, all connected and intertwined,

and that the books of a race mirror faithfully and vividly the ideas

of the age out of which they sprang. What makes books dull is the

absence of any knowledge by the reader of why the author was at the

trouble of expressing himself in that particular way at that

particular time. When, as a small boy, I read a book of which the

whole genesis was obscure to me, it used to appear to me vaguely that

it must have been as disagreeable to the author to write it as it was

for me to read it. But if it can be once grasped that books are the

outcome of a writer's interest or sense of beauty or emotion or joy,

the whole matter wears a different aspect.

The same principle applies with just the same force to history and

geography; both of these studies can be made interesting, if they are

not regarded as isolated groups of phenomena, but are approached from

the boy's own experience as opening away and outwards from what is

going on about him. The object is or ought to be slowly to extend the

boy's horizon, to show him that history holds the seeds and roots of

the present, and that geography is the life-drama which he sees about

him, enacting itself under different climatic and physiographical

conditions. The dreariness and dreadfulness of knowledge to the

immature mind is because it represents itself as a mass of dry facts

to be mastered without having any visible or tangible connection with

the boy's own experience. The aim should rather be to teach him to

look with zest and interest at what is going on outside his own narrow

circle, and to help him to move perceptively along the paths of time

and space which diverge in all directions from the scene where he

finds himself.

It may be indisputably stated that all connected knowledge is

stimulating, and that all unconnected knowledge is at best mechanical.

Perhaps one of the most fruitful of all subjects is vivid biography,

and no serious educator could perform a more valuable task than in

providing a series of biographies of great men, really intelligible to

youthful minds. As a rule, biographies of the first order require an

amount of detailed knowledge in the reader which puts them out of the

reach of ill-stored minds. But I have again and again found with boys

that simple biographical lectures are among the most attractive of all

lessons. At one time, with my private pupils, I would take a book at

random out of my shelves, read an interesting extract or two, and then

say that I would try to show why the author chose such a subject, why

he wrote as he did, and how it all sprang out of his life and

character and circumstances.

Cambridge Essays on Education · 第 3 / 15 段