same Source, must be governed by the same laws, Froebel longed for more
knowledge of natural science. Even Pestalozzi seemed to him not to
“honour science in her divinity.” He therefore determined to continue
the university course which had been so rudely interrupted eleven years
before, and in 1811 he began studying at Göttingen, whence he proceeded
to Berlin. In his Autobiography he tells us: “The lectures for which I
had so longed really came up to the needs of my mind and soul, and made
me feel more fervently than ever the certainty of the demonstrable inner
connexion of the whole cosmical development of the universe. I saw also
the possibility of man’s becoming conscious of this absolute unity of the
universe, as well as of the diversity of things and appearances which is
perpetually unfolding itself within that unity; and then when I had made
clear to myself, and brought fully home to my consciousness the view that
the infinitely varied phenomena in man’s life, work, thought, feeling,
and position were all summed up in the unity of his personal existence I
felt myself able to turn my thoughts once more to educational problems”
(_Autob._ trans. by Michaelis and Moore, p. 89).
But again his studies were interrupted, this time by the king of
Prussia’s celebrated call “To my people.” Though not a Prussian, Froebel
was heart and soul a German. He therefore responded to the call, enlisted
in Lützow’s corps, and went through the campaign of 1813. His military
ardour, however, did not take his mind off education. “Everywhere,” he
writes, “as far as the fatigues I underwent allowed, I carried in my
thoughts my future calling as educator; yes, even in the few engagements
in which I had to take part. Even in these I could gather experience
for the task I proposed to myself.” Froebel’s soldiering showed him the
value of discipline and united action, how the individual belongs not
to himself but to the whole body, and how the whole body supports the
individual.
Froebel was rewarded for his patriotism by the friendship of two
men whose names will always be associated with his, Langethal and
Middendorff. These young men, ten years younger than Froebel, became
attached to him in the field, and were ever afterwards his devoted
followers, sacrificing all their prospects in life for the sake of
carrying out his ideas.
§ 7. At the peace of Fontainebleau (signed in May, 1814) Froebel
returned to Berlin, and became curator of the Museum of Mineralogy under
Professor Weiss. In accepting this appointment from the Government he
seemed to turn aside from his work as educator; but if not teaching he
was learning. The unity of nature and human nature seemed more and more
to reveal itself to him. Of the days past in the museum he afterwards
wrote: “Here was I at the central point of my life and strife, where
inner working and law, where life, nature, and mathematics were united
in the fixed crystaline form, where a world of symbols lay open to the
inner eye.” Again he says: “The stones in my hand and under my eye became
speaking forms. The world of crystals declared to me the life and laws of
life of man, and in still but real and sensible speech taught the true
life of humanity.” “Geology and crystallography not only opened for me
a higher circle of knowledge and insight, but also showed me a higher
goal for my inquiry, my speculation, and my endeavour. Nature and man now
seemed to me mutually to explain each other through all their numberless
various stages of development. Man, as I saw, receives from a knowledge
of natural objects, even because of their immense deep-seated diversity,
a foundation for and a guidance towards a knowledge of himself and life,
and a preparation for the manifestation of that knowledge” (_Autob._
_ut supra_, p. 97). More and more the thought possessed him that the
one thing needful for man was unity of development, perfect evolution
in accordance with the laws of his being, such evolution as science
discovers in the other organisms of nature.
§ 8. He at first intended to become a teacher of natural science, but
before long wider views dawned upon him. Langethal and Middendorff were
in Berlin, engaged in tuition. Froebel gave them regular instruction in
his theory, and at length, counting on their support, he resolved to
set about realising his own idea of “the new education.” This was in
1816. Three years before one of his brothers, a clergyman, had died of
fever caught from the French prisoners. His widow was still living in
the parsonage at Griesheim, a village on the Ilm. Froebel gave up his
post in Berlin, and set out for Griesheim on foot, spending his very
last groschen on the way for bread. Here he undertook the education of
his orphan niece and nephews, and also of two more nephews sent him by
another brother. With these he opened a school, and wrote to Middendorff
and Langethal to come and help in the experiment. Middendorff came at
once, Langethal a year or two later, when the school had been moved to
Keilhau, another of the Thuringian villages, which became the Mecca of
the new faith. In Keilhau, Froebel, Langethal, Middendorff, and Barop,
a relation of Middendorff’s, all married and formed an educational
community. Such zeal could not be fruitless, and the school gradually
increased, though for many years its teachers, with Froebel at their
head, were in the greatest straits for money, and at times even for
food. Karl Froebel, who was brought up in the school, tells how, on one
occasion, he and the other children were sent to ramble in the woods
till some of the seed-corn provided for the coming year had been turned
into bread for them. Besides these difficulties the community suffered
from the panic and reaction after the murder of Kotzebue (1819), and
were persecuted as a nest of demagogues. But “the New Education” was
sufficiently successful to attract notice from all quarters; and when he
had been ten years at Keilhau (1826) Froebel published his great work,
_The Education of Man_.
§ 9. Four years later he determined to start other institutions in
connexion with the parent institution at Keilhau; and being offered by
a private friend the use of a castle on the Wartensee, in the canton of
Lucerne, he left Keilhau under the direction of Barop, and with Langethal
made a settlement in Switzerland. The ground, however, was very ill
chosen. The Catholic clergy resisted what they considered as a Protestant
invasion, and the experiment on the Wartensee and at Willisau in the
same canton, to which the institution was moved in 1833, never had a
fair chance. It was in vain that Middendorff at Froebel’s call left his
wife and family at Keilhau, and laboured for four years in Switzerland
without once seeing them. The Swiss institution never flourished. But
the Swiss Government wished to turn to account the presence of the great
educator; so young teachers were sent to Froebel for instruction, and
finally he removed to Burgdorf (a town already famous from Pestalozzi’s
labours there thirty years earlier) to undertake the establishment of
a public orphanage, and also to superintend a course of teaching for
schoolmasters. The elementary teachers of the canton were to spend three
months every alternate year at Burgdorf, and there compare experiences,
and learn of distinguished men such as Froebel and Bitzius.
§ 10. In his conferences with these teachers Froebel found that the
schools suffered from the state of the raw material brought into them.
Till the school age was reached the children were entirely neglected.
Froebel’s conception of harmonious development naturally led him to
attach much importance to the earliest years, and his great work on _The
Education of Man_, published as early as 1826, deals chiefly with the
education of children. At Burgdorf his thoughts were much occupied with
the proper treatment of _young_ children, and in scheming for them a
graduated course of exercises modelled on the games in which he observed
them to be most interested. In his eagerness to carry out his new plans
he grew impatient of official restraints; and partly from this reason,
partly on account of his wife’s ill health, he left Burgdorf without even
actually becoming “Waisenvater” (father of the orphans).[174] After a
sojourn of some months in Berlin, where he was detained through family
affairs, but used the opportunities thus afforded of examining the
recently founded infant schools, Froebel returned to Keilhau, and soon
afterwards opened the first _Kindergarten_, or “Garden of Children,”
in the neighbouring village of Blankenburg (A.D. 1837). Not only the
thing but the name seemed to Froebel a happy inspiration, and it has
now become inseparably connected with his own. Perhaps we can hardly
understand the pleasure he took in it unless we know its predecessor,
_Kleinkinderbeschäftigungsanstalt_.
§ 11. Firmly convinced of the importance of the Kindergarten for the
whole human race, Froebel described his system in a weekly paper (his
_Sonntagsblatt_) which appeared from the middle of 1837 till 1840. He
also lectured in great towns; and he gave a regular course of instruction
to young teachers at Blankenburg.
§ 12. But although the principles of the Kindergarten were gradually
making their way, the first Kindergarten was failing for want of funds.
It had to be given up; and Froebel, now a widower (he had lost his wife
in 1839), carried on his course for teachers first at Keilhau, and from
1848, for the last four years of his life, at or near Liebenstein, in
the Thuringian Forest, and in the duchy of Meiningen. It is in these
last years that the man Froebel will be best known to posterity; for in
1849 be attracted within the circle of his influence a woman of great
intellectual power, the Baroness von Marenholtz-Bülow, who has given us
in her _Recollections of Friedrich Froebel_ the only life-like portrait
we possess. In these records of personal intercourse we see the truth
of Deinhardt’s words: “The living perception of universal and ideal
truth which his talk revealed to us, his unbounded enthusiasm for the
education and happiness of the human race, his willingness to offer up
everything he possessed for the sake of his idea, the stream of thoughts
which flowed from his enthusiasm for the ideal as from an inexhaustible
fountain, all these made Froebel a wonderful appearance in the world, by
whom no unprejudiced spectator could fail to be attracted and elevated.”
§ 13. These seemed likely to be Froebel’s most peaceful days. He married
again; and having now devoted himself to the training of women as
educators, he spent his time in instructing his class of young female
teachers. But trouble came upon him from a quarter whence he least
expected it. In the great year of revolutions, 1848, Froebel had hoped to
turn to account the general eagerness for improvement, and Middendorff
had presented an address on Kindergartens to the German Parliament.
Besides this a nephew of Froebel’s published books which were supposed
to teach socialism. True the uncle and nephew differed so widely that
“the New Froebelians” were the enemies of the “Old.” But the distinction
was overlooked, and Friedrich and Karl Froebel were regarded as the
united advocates of “some new thing.” In the reaction which soon set
in, Froebel found himself suspected of socialism and irreligion; and
in 1851 the _Cultus-minister_ Raumer issued an edict forbidding the
establishment of schools “after Friedrich and Karl Froebel’s principles”
in Prussia. It was in vain that Froebel proved that his principles
differed fundamentally from his nephew’s. It was in vain that a congress
of schoolmasters, presided over by the celebrated Diesterweg, protested
against the calumnious decree. The Minister turned a deaf ear, and the
decree remained in force ten years after the death of Froebel (_i.e._,
till 1862). But the edict was a heavy blow to the old man, who looked to
the Government of the “_Cultus-staat_” Prussia for support, and was met
with denunciation. Of the justice of the charge brought by the Minister
against Froebel the reader may judge from the account of his principles
given below.
Whether from the worry of this new controversy, or from whatever cause,
Froebel did not long survive the decree. His seventieth birthday was
celebrated with great rejoicings in May, 1852, but he died in the
following month, and lies buried at Schweina, a village near his last
abode, Marienthal.
§ 14. Throughout these essays my object has been to collect what seemed
to me the most valuable lessons of various Reformers. In doing this I
have had to judge and decide what was most valuable, and at times to
criticise and differ from my authorities. This may perhaps give rise
to the question, Do you then think yourself the superior or at least
the equal of the great men you criticise? and I could only reply in all
sincerity, I most certainly do not. If I am asked further, what then is
my attitude towards them? I reply, it differs very much with different
individuals. I cannot say I am prepared to sit at the feet of Mulcaster,
or Dury, or Petty. In writing of these men I simply point out very early
expression of ideas that following generations have developed partially
and we are developing still. When we come to the great leaders we see
among them men like Comenius who unite a thorough study of what has
already been thought and done with a genius for original thinking, men
like Locke with splendid intellectual gifts and a power of happy and
clear expression, men like Rousseau with a talent for shaking themselves
free from “custom”—custom which “lies upon us with a weight, Heavy as
frost and deep almost as life,” and besides this (in his case at least)
endowed with a voice to be heard throughout the world. Then again we
have men like Pestalozzi who with a genius for investigating, devote
their lives to the investigation, and men like Froebel who seem to
penetrate to a region above us or at least beyond us, and to talk about
it in language which at times only partially conveys a meaning. From all
these men we have much to learn; and that we may do this we must come as
learners to them. When we thus come we find that the great lessons they
teach become clearer and clearer as each takes up wholly or in part what
has been taught by his predecessors and adds to it. Some of these lessons
we may now receive as established truths and seek to conform our practice
to them. But in following our leaders we dare not close our eyes. Before
we can know anything we must see it, as Locke says, with our mind’s eye.
The great thing is to keep the eye of the mind wide open and always on
the lookout for truth. Acting on this conviction I have not blindly
accepted the dicta even of the greatest men but have selected those of
their lessons which are taught if not by all at least by most of them,
and which also seem to evoke “the spontaneous spring of the intelligence
towards truth” (see p. 362, _supra_).
§ 15. In reading Froebel however I am conscious that this “spring” is
wanting. Before one can accept teaching one must at least understand it,
and this preliminary is not always possible when we would learn from
Froebel. At times he goes entirely out of sight, and whether the words
we hear are the expression of deep truth or have absolutely no meaning
at all, I for my part am at times totally unable to determine. But where
I can understand him he seems to me singularly wise; and working in the
same lines as Pestalozzi he in some respects advances far beyond his
great predecessor.
§ 16. Both these men were devotees of science; but instead of finding
in science anything antagonistic to religion they looked upon science
as the expression of the mind of God. Their belief was just that which
Sir Thomas Browne had uttered more than 200 years before in the _Religio
Medici_: “Though we christen effects by their most sensible and nearest
causes yet is God the true and infallible cause of all, whose concourse
[_i.e._, concurrence, co-operation] though it be general, yet doth it
subdivide itself into the particular actions of everything, and is that
spirit by which each singular essence not only subsists but performs its
operation.”[175] With this belief Froebel sought to trace everything back
to the central Unity, to God. The author of the _De Imitatione Christi_
has said: “The man to whom all things are one, who refers all things to
one and sees all things in one, he can stand firm and be at peace in
God. Cui omnia unum sunt, et qui omnia ad unum trahit, et omnia in uno
videt, potest stabilis esse et in Deo pacificus permanere” (_De Im. Xti._
lib. i; cap. 3, § 2). So thought Froebel, and his great longing was to
refer all things to one and see all things in one. However little we may
share this longing we must admit that it is a natural outcome from the
Christian religion. If there is One in Whom all “live and move and have
their being,” everything should be referred to Him. As Froebel says, “In
Allem wirkt und schafft _Ein_ Leben, Weil das Leben All’ ein einz’ger
Gott gegeben. (In everything there works and stirs _one_ life, because
to all One God has given life.)” So long then as we remain Christians we
must agree with Froebel that all true education is founded on Religion.
Perhaps in the end we may adopt his high ideal and say with him,
“Education should lead and guide man to clearness concerning himself and
in himself, to peace with nature, and to unity with God; hence, it should
lift him to a knowledge of himself and of mankind, to a knowledge of God
and of Nature, and to the pure and holy life to which such knowledge
leads.” (_E. of M._, Hailmann’s t., 5.) “The object of education is the
realization of a faithful, pure, inviolate, and hence holy life” (_Ib._
4).
§ 17. This is indeed a high ideal: and we naturally ask, If we would work
towards it what road would Froebel point out to us? This brings us to his
theory of development or, as it has been called since Darwin, evolution.
The idea of organic growth was first definitely applied to the young by
Pestalozzi, but it was more clearly and consistently applied by Froebel.
It has gone forth conquering and to conquer; and though far indeed from
being accepted by the teaching profession of this age, it is likely
to have a vast influence on the practice of those who will come after
them. I therefore give the following statement of it, which seems to me
excellent:—
“The first thing to note in the idea of development is that it indicates,
not an increase in bulk or quantity (though it may include this), but
an increase in complexity of structure, an improvement in power, skill,
and variety in the performance of natural functions. We say that a thing
is fully developed when its internal organisation is perfect in every
detail, and when it can perform all its natural actions or functions
perfectly. If we apply this distinction to mind, an increase in bulk
will be represented by an increase in the amount of material retained
in the mind, in the memory; development will be a perfecting of the
structure of the mind itself, an increase of power and skill and variety
in dealing with knowledge, and in putting knowledge to all its natural
uses. The next thing to consider is how this development is produced.
How can we aid in promoting this change from germ to complete organism,
from partially developed thing to more highly developed thing? The
answer comes from every part of creation with ever-increasing clearness
and emphasis—development is produced by exercise of function, use of
faculty. Neglect or disuse of any part of an organism leads to the
dwindling, and sometimes even to the disappearance, of that part. And
this applies not only to individuals, but stretches also from parent to
child, from generation to generation, constituting then what we call
heredity, or what Froebel calls the connectedness of humanity. Slowly
through successive generations a faculty or organ may dwindle and decay,
or may be brought to greater and greater perfection. As Froebel puts
it, humanity past, present, and future is one continuous whole. The
_amount_ of development, then, possible in any particular case plainly
depends partly on the original outfit, and partly (and as a rule in a
greater measure) on the opportunities there have been for exercise, and
the use made of those opportunities. If we wish to develop the hand, we
must exercise the hand. If we wish to develop the body, we must exercise
the body. If we wish to develop the mind, we must exercise the mind.
If we wish to develop the _whole_ human being, we must _exercise the
whole_ human being. But will _any_ exercise suffice? Again the answer
is clear. Only that exercise which is always in harmony with the nature
of the thing, and which is always proportioned to the strength of the
thing, produces true development. All other exercise is partially or
wholly hurtful. And another condition, evident in every case, becomes
still more evident when we apply these laws to the mind. To produce
development most truly and effectively, the exercise must arise from
and be sustained by the thing’s own activity—its own natural powers,
and all of them (as far as these are in _any_ sense connected with the
activity proposed) should be awakened and become naturally active. If,
for instance, we desire to further the development of a plant, what we
have to do is to induce the plant (and the whole of it) to become active
in its own natural way, and to help it to sustain that activity. We may
abridge the time; we may modify the result; but we must act through and
by the plant’s own activity. This activity of a thing’s own self we call
_self-activity_ (_E. of M._, § 9). We generally consider the mind in the
light of its three activities of _knowing, feeling, and willing_. The
exercise which aims at producing mental development must be in harmony
with the nature of _knowing_, _feeling_, and _willing_, and continually
in proportion to their strength. And, further, it is found that the more
the activity is that of the _whole_ mind, the more it is the mind’s _own_
activity—self-produced, and self-maintained, and self-directed—the better
is the result. In other words, knowing, feeling, and willing must _all_
take their rightful share in the exercise; and, in particular, feeling
and willing—the mind’s powers of prompting and nourishing, of maintaining
and directing its own activities—must never be neglected” (H. C. Bowen on
_Ed. of M._).
§ 18. “A divine message or eternal regulation of the Universe there
verily is, in regard to every conceivable procedure and affair of man;
faithfully following this, said procedure or affair will prosper ... not
following this ... destruction and wreck are certain for every affair.”
These words of Carlyle’s express Froebel’s thought about education.
Before attempting to educate we must do all we can to ascertain the
divine message and must then direct our proceedings by it. The divine
message must be learnt according to Froebel by studying the nature of the
organism we have to assist in developing. Each human being must “develop
from within, self-active and free, in accordance with the eternal law.
This is the problem and the aim of all education in instruction and
training; there can be and should be no other” (_Ed. of M._, 13). For
“all has come forth from the Divine, from God, and is through God alone
conditioned. To this it is that all things owe their existence—to the
Divine working in them. The Divine element that works in each thing is
the true idea (_das Wesen_) of the thing.” Therefore “the destiny and
calling of all things is to develop their true idea, and in so doing to
reveal God in outward and through passing forms.”
§19. What we must think of then is the “true idea” which each child
should develop. How is this idea to be ascertained? In other words, how
are we to learn the Divine Message about the bringing up of children?
This Message is given us through the works of God. “In the creation,
in nature and the order of the material world, and in the progress of
mankind, God has given us the true type (_Urbild_) of education.”