principle of the Baconian philosophy: We command Nature only by obeying
her. They are to be very cautious how they interfere, and the education
they give is to be “passive, following.” Even in teaching they must bear
in mind, that “the purpose of teaching is to bring ever more _out of_
man rather than to put more and more _into_ him.” (_Ed. of M._, 279.)
Froebel in fact taught the Pestalozzian doctrine that the function of the
educator was that of “benevolent superintendence.”[176]
§21. But if Froebel would thus limit the action of the educator he would
greatly extend the action of those educated; and here we see the great
principle with which the name of Froebel is likely to be permanently
associated. “The starting-point of all that appears, of all that exists,
and therefore of all intellectual conception, is act, action. From
the act, from action, must therefore start true human education, the
developing education of the man; in action, in acting, it must be rooted
and must spring up.... Living, acting, conceiving,—these must form a
triple chord within every child of man, though the sound now of this
string, now of that, may preponderate, and then again of two together.”
§ 22. Many thinkers before Froebel had seen the transcendent importance
of action; but Froebel not only based everything upon it, but he based
it upon God. “God creates and works productively in uninterrupted
continuity. Each thought of God is a work, a deed” (_Ed. of M._, § 23).
As Jesus has said: “My Father worketh hitherto and I work” (St. John v,
17). From this it follows that, since God created man in his own image,
“man should create and bring forth like God” (_Ed. of M._, _ib._). “He
who will early learn to recognise the Creator must early exercise his own
power of action with the consciousness that he is bringing about what
is good; for the doing good is the link between the creature and the
Creator, and the conscious doing of it the conscious connexion, the true
living union of the man with God, of the individual man as of the human
race, and is therefore at once the starting point and the eternal aim of
all education.” Elsewhere he says: “We become truly God-like in diligence
and industry, in working and doing, which are accompanied by the clear
perception or even by the vaguest feeling that thereby we represent the
inner in the outer; that we give body to spirit, and form to thought;
that we render visible the invisible; that we impart an outward, finite,
transient being to life in the spirit. Through this God-likeness we rise
more and more to a true knowledge of God, to insight into His Spirit;
and thus, inwardly and outwardly, God comes ever nearer to us. Therefore
Jesus says of the poor, ‘Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,’ if they
could but see and know it and practice it in diligence and industry, in
productive and creative work. Of children too is the kingdom of heaven;
for unchecked by the presumption and conceit of adults they yield
themselves in child-like trust and cheerfulness to their formative and
creative instinct” (_Ed. of M._, § 23. P. 31).
§ 23. This “formative and creative instinct” which as we must suppose
has existed in all children in all nations and in all ages of the world,
Froebel was the first to take duly into account for education. Pestalozzi
saw the importance of getting children to _think_, and to think about
their material surroundings. These the child can observe and search into;
and in doing this he may discover what is not at first obvious to sight
or touch and may even ascertain relations between the several parts of
the same thing or connexions between different things compared together.
All these discoveries may be made by the child’s self-activity, but
only on one condition, viz.: that the child is interested. But in the
search interest soon flags and then observation comes to an end. Besides,
even while it lasts in full vigour the activity is mental only; it is
concerned with perceiving, taking in; and for development something more
is needed; the organism must not only take in, it must also _give out_.
And so we find in children a restless eagerness to touch, pull about,
and change the condition of things around them. When this activity of
theirs, instead of being checked is properly directed, the children are
delighted in recognising desirable results which they themselves have
brought about; especially those which give expression to what is their
own thought. In this way the child “renders the inner outer;” and in thus
satisfying his creative instinct he is led to exercise some faculties
both of mind and body.
§ 24. The prominence which Froebel gave to action, his doctrine that
man is primarily a doer and even a creator, and that he learns only
through “self-activity,” may produce great changes in educational methods
generally, and not simply in the treatment of children too young for
schooling. But it was to the first stage of life that Froebel paid the
greatest attention, and it is over this stage that his influence is
gradually extending. Froebel held that each age has a completeness of
its own (“First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the
ear”), and that the perfection of the later stage can be attained only
through the perfection of the earlier. If the infant is what he should
be as an infant, and the child as a child, he will become what he should
be as a boy, just as naturally as new shoots spring from the healthy
plant. Every stage, then, must be cared for and tended in such a way
that it may attain its own perfection. But as Bacon says with reference
to education, the gardener bestows most care on the young plants, and it
was “the young plants” for whom Froebel designed his Kindergarten. Like
Pestalozzi he attached the very highest importance to giving instruction
to mothers. But he would not like Pestalozzi leave young children
entirely in the mother’s hands. There was something to be done for them
which even the ideal mother in the ideal family could not do. Pestalozzi
held that the child belonged to the family. Fichte on the other hand
claimed it for society and the state. Froebel, whose mind, like that of
our own theologian Frederick Maurice, delighted in harmonising apparent
contradictions, and who taught that “all progress lay through opposites
to their reconciliation,” maintained that the child belongs both to the
family and to society; and he would therefore have children prepare
for society by spending some hours of the day in a common life and in
well-organised common employments.
§ 25. His study of children showed him that one of their most striking
characteristics was restlessness. This was, first, restlessness of body,
delight in mere motion of the limbs; and, secondly, restlessness of
mind, a constant curiosity about whatever came within the range of the
senses, and especially a desire to examine with the hand every unknown
object within reach.[177] Children’s fondness for using their hands
was especially noted by Froebel; and he found that they delighted, not
merely in examining by touch, but also in altering whatever they could
alter, and further that they endeavoured to imitate known forms whether
by drawing or whenever they could get any kind of plastic material by
modelling. Besides remarking in them these various activities, he saw
that children were sociable and needed the sympathy of companions. There
was, too, in them a growing moral nature, passions, affections, and
conscience, which needed to be controlled, responded to, cultivated.
Both the restraints and the opportunities incident to a well-organised
community would be beneficial to their moral nature, and prove a cure for
selfishness.
§ 26. As all education was to be sought in rightly directed but
spontaneous action, Froebel considered how the children in this community
should be employed. At that age their most natural employment is play,
especially as Wordsworth has pointed out, games in which they imitate
and “con the parts” they themselves will have to fill in after years.
Froebel agreed with Montaigne that the games of children were “their most
serious occupations,” and with Locke that “all the plays and diversions
of children should be directed towards good and useful habits, or else
they will introduce ill ones” (_Th. c. Ed._, § 130). So he invented a
course of occupations, a great part of which consisted in social games.
Many of the names are connected with the “Gifts,” as he called the series
of simple playthings provided for the children, the first being the ball,
“the type of unity.” The “gifts” are chiefly not mere playthings but
materials which the children work up in their own way, thus gaining scope
for their power of doing and inventing and creating. The artistic faculty
was much thought of by Froebel, and, as in the education of the ancients,
the sense of rhythm in sound and motion was cultivated by music and
poetry introduced in the games. Much care was to be given to the training
of the senses, especially those of sight, sound, and touch. Intuition
(_Anschauung_) was to be recognised as the true basis of knowledge, and
though stories were to be told, and there was to be much intercourse in
the way of social chat, instruction of the imparting and “learning-up”
kind was to be excluded. There was to be no “dead knowledge;” in fact
Froebel like Pestalozzi endeavoured to do for the child what Bacon
nearly 200 years before had done for the philosopher. Bacon showed the
philosopher that the way to study Nature was not to learn what others had
surmised but to go straight to Nature and use his own senses and his own
powers of observation. Pestalozzi and Froebel wished children to learn in
this way as well as philosophers.
§ 27. Schools for very young children existed before Froebel’s
Kindergarten, but they had been thought of more in the interest of the
mothers than of the children. It was for the sake of the mothers that
Oberlin established them in the Vosges more than a century ago, his
first _Conductrices de l’Enfance_ being peasant women, Sara Banzet and
Louise Scheppler. In the early part of this century the notion was taken
up by James Buchanan and Samuel Wilderspin in this country (see James
Leitch’s _Practical Educationists_) and by J. M. D. Cochin in France.
But Froebel’s conception differed from that of the “Infant School.”
His object was purely educational but he would have no “schooling.” He
called these communities of children _Kindergarten_, Gardens of children,
_i.e._, enclosures in which young human plants are nurtured.[178]
The children’s employment is to be play. But any occupation in which
children delight is _play_ to them; and Froebel’s series of employments,
while they are in this sense play to the children, have nevertheless,
as seen from the adult point of view, a distinctly educational object.
This object, as Froebel himself describes it, is “to give the children
employment in agreement with their whole nature, to strengthen their
bodies, to exercise their senses, to engage their awakening mind, and
through their senses to bring them acquainted with nature and their
fellow-creatures; it is especially to guide aright the heart and the
affections, and to lead them to the original ground of all life, to unity
with themselves.”
§ 28. No less than six-and-thirty years ago Henry Barnard (in his
Report to Governor of Connecticut, 1854) declared the Kindergarten to
be “by far the most original, attractive, and philosophical form of
infant development the world has yet seen.” Since then it has spread
in all civilised lands, and in many of them there are now _public_
Kindergartens, the first I believe having been established in 1873 by Dr.
William T. Harris in St. Louis, Mo. But Froebel’s ideas are not so easily
got hold of as his “Gifts,” and the real extension of his system may be
by no means so great as it seems. “The Kindergarten system in the hands
of one who understands it,” says Dr. James Ward, “produces admirable
results; but it is apt to be too mechanical and formal. There does not
seem room for the individuality of a child, to which all free play
possible should be given in the earliest years.” (In _Parents’ Review_
Ap. 1890.) And Mr. Courthope Bowen has well said: “Kindergarten work
without the Kindergarten idea, like a body without a soul, is subject to
rapid degeneration and decay.” So perhaps it will in the end prove that
Froebel in his _Education of Man_ which is “a book with seven seals” has
left us a more precious legacy than in his “Gifts” and Occupations which
are so popular and so easily adopted.
§ 29. It has been well said that “the essence of stupidity is in the
demand for final opinions.” How our thoughts have widened about education
since a man like Dr. Johnson could assert, “Education is as well known,
and has long been as well known, as ever it can be!”[179] (Hill’s
_Boswell’s J._ ij, 407.) The astronomers of the Middle Ages might as well
have asserted that nothing more could ever be known about astronomy.
Was Froebel what he believed himself to be, the Kepler or the Newton
of the educational system? Whoso is wise will not during the nineteenth
century lay claim to a “final opinion” on this point. But the “New
Education” seems gaining ground. F. W. Parker emphatically declares “the
Kindergarten” (by which he probably means Froebel’s encouragement of
self-activity) to be “the most important far-reaching educational reform
of the nineteenth century.” We sometimes see it questioned whether the
“New Education” has any proper claim to its title; but the education
which Dr. Johnson considered final and which seems to us old aimed at
learning; and the education which aims not at learning, but at developing
through self-activity is so different from this that it may well be
called New. If we consider the platform of the New Educationists as it
stands, _e.g._, in the New York _School Journal_, we shall find that if
it is not all new in theory it would be substantially new in practice.
§ 30. Let us look at a brief statement of what the “New Education”
requires:—
1. Each study must be valued in proportion as it develops _power_; and
power is developed by self-activity.
2. The memory must be employed in strict subservience to the higher
faculties of the mind.
3. Whatever instruction is given, it must be adapted to the actual state
of the pupil, and not ruled by the wants of the future boy or man.
4. More time must be given to the study of nature and to modern language
and literature; less to the ancient languages.
5. The body must be educated as well as the mind.
6. Rich and poor alike must be taught to use their eyes and hands. 7.
The higher education of women must be cared for no less than that of men.
8. Teachers, no less than doctors, must go through a course of
professional training.
To these there must in time be added another:
9. All methods shall have a scientific foundation, _i.e._, they shall be
based on the laws of the mind, or shall have been tested by those laws.
§ 31. When this program is adopted, even as the object of our efforts,
we shall, indeed, have a New Education. At present the encouragement
of self-activity is thought of, if at all, only as a “counsel of
perfection.” Our school work is chiefly mechanical and will long
remain so. “From the primary school to the college productive creative
doing is almost wholly excluded. Knowledge in its barrenest form is
communicated, and tested in the barrenest, wordiest way possible. Never
is the learner taught or permitted to apply his knowledge to even
second-hand life-purpose.... So inveterate is the habit of the school
that the Kindergarten itself, although invented by the deep-feeling and
far-seeing Froebel for the very purpose of correcting this fault, has
in most cases fallen a victim to its influence.” So says W. H. Hailmann
(_Kindergarten_, May, 1888) and those who best know what usually goes on
in the school-room are the least likely to differ from him.
§ 32. During the last thirty years I have spent the greatest part of my
working hours in a variety of school-rooms; and if my school experience
has shown me that our advance is slow, my study of the Reformers
convinces me that it is sure.
“Ring out the old, ring in the new!”
It has been well said that to study science is to study the thoughts
of God; and thus it is that all true educational Reformers declare the
thoughts of God to us. “A divine message, of eternal regulation of the
Universe, there verily is in regard to every conceivable procedure and
affair of man;” and it behoves us to ascertain what that message is in
regard to the immensely important procedure and affair of bringing up
children. After innumerable mistakes we seem by degrees to be getting
some notion of it; and such insight as we have we owe to those who have
contributed to the science of education. Among these there are probably
no greater names than the names of Pestalozzi and Froebel.
Froebel’s _Education of Man_, trans. by W. N. Hailmann, is
a vol. of Appleton’s Series, ed. by Dr. W. T. Harris. The
_Autobiography_ trans., by Michaelis and Moore, is published
by Sonnenschein. The _Mutter-u-K.-lieder_ have been trans.
by Miss Lord (London, Rice). _Reminiscences of Froebel_ by
the Baroness Marenholtz-Bülow, is trans. by Mr. Horace Mann.
_The Child and Child Nature_ is trans. from the Baroness by
Miss A. M. Christie. The Froebel lit. is now immense. I will
simply mention some of those who have expounded Froebel in
_English_: Miss Shirreff, Miss E. A. Manning, Miss Lyschinska,
Miss Heerwart, Mdme. De Portugall, Miss Peabody, H. G Bowen,
F. W. Parker, W. N. Hailmann, Joseph Payne, W. T. Harris,
are the names that first suggest themselves. Henry Barnard’s
_Kindergarten and Child Culture_ is a valuable collection of
papers.
XVIII.
JACOTOT, A METHODIZER.
1770-1840.
§ 1. We are now by degrees becoming convinced that teachers, like
everyone else who undertakes skilled labour, should be trained before
they seek an engagement. This has led to a great increase in the
number of Normal Schools. In some of these schools it has already been
discovered that while the study of principles requires much time and
the application of much intellectual force, the study of methods is a
far simpler matter and can be knocked off in a short time and with no
intellectual force at all. Methods are special ways of doing things, and
when it has been settled what is to be done and why, a knowledge of the
methods available adds greatly to a teacher’s power; but the what and
the why demand our attention before the how, and the study of methods
disconnected from principles leads straight to the prison-house of all
the teachers’ higher faculties—routine.
§ 2. I have called Jacotot a methodizer because he invented a special
method and wished everything to be taught by it. But in advocating this
method he appeals to principles; and his principles are so important that
at least one man great in educational science, Joseph Payne, always
spoke of him as his master.
§ 3. In the following summary of Jacotot’s system I am largely indebted
to Joseph Payne’s Lectures, which he published in the _Educational Times_
in 1867, and which I believe Dr. J. F. Payne has lately reprinted in a
volume of his father’s collected papers.
§ 4. Jacotot was born at Dijon, of humble parentage, in 1770. Even as
a boy he showed his preference for “self-teaching.” We are told that
he rejoiced greatly in the acquisition of all kinds of knowledge that
could be gained by his own efforts, while he steadily resisted what was
imposed on him by authority. He was, however, early distinguished by his
acquirements, and at the age of twenty-five was appointed sub-director
of the Polytechnic School. Some years afterwards he became Professor
of “the Method of Sciences” at Dijon, and it was here that his method
of instruction first attracted attention. “Instead of pouring forth a
flood of information on the subject under attention from his own ample
stores—explaining everything, and thus too frequently superseding in a
great degree the pupil’s own investigation of it—Jacotot, after a simple
statement of the subject, with its leading divisions, boldly started it
as a quarry for the class to hunt down, and invited every member of it
to take part in the chase.” All were free to ask questions, to raise
objections, to suggest answers. The Professor himself did little more
than by leading questions put them on the right scent. He was afterwards
Professor of Ancient and Oriental Languages, of Mathematics, and of
Roman Law; and he pursued the same method, we are told, with uniform
success. Being compelled to leave France as an enemy of the Bourbons,
he was appointed, in 1818, when he was forty-eight years old, to the
Professorship of the French Language and Literature at the University
of Louvain. The celebrated teacher was received with enthusiasm, but he
soon met with an unexpected difficulty. Many members of his large class
knew no language but the Flemish and Dutch, and of these he himself was
totally ignorant. He was, therefore, forced to consider how to teach
without talking to his pupils. The plan he adopted was as follows:—He
gave the young Flemings copies of Fénelon’s “Télémaque,” with the French
on one side, and a Dutch translation on the other. This they had to study
for themselves, comparing the two languages, and learning the French by
heart. They were to go over the same ground again and again, and as soon
as possible they were to give in French, however bad, the substance of
those parts which they had not yet committed to memory. This method was
found to succeed marvellously. Jacotot attributed its success to the
fact that the students had learnt _entirely by the efforts of their own
minds_, and that, though working under his superintendence, they had
been, in fact, their own teachers. Hence he proceeded to generalise, and
by degrees arrived at a series of astounding paradoxes. These paradoxes
at first did their work well, and made noise enough in the world; but
Jacotot seems to me like a captain who in his eagerness to astonish his
opponents takes on board guns much too heavy for his own safety.
§ 5. “_All human beings are equally capable of learning_,” said Jacotot.
The truth which Jacotot chose to throw into this more than doubtful form,
may perhaps be expressed by saying that the student’s power of learning
depends, in a great measure, on his _will_, and that where there is no
will there is no capacity.
§ 6. “_Everyone can teach; and, moreover, can teach that which he does
not know himself._”
Let us ask ourselves what is the meaning of this. First of all, we
have to get rid of some ambiguity in the meaning of the word _teach_.
To teach, according to Jacotot’s idea, is to cause to learn. Teaching
and learning are therefore correlatives: where there is no learning
there can be no teaching. But this meaning of the word only coincides
partially with the ordinary meaning. We speak of the lecturer or preacher
as teaching when he gives his hearers an opportunity of learning, and
do not say that his teaching ceases the instant they cease to attend.
On the other hand, we do not call a parent a teacher because he sends
his boy to school, and so causes him to learn. The notion of teaching,
then, in the minds of most of us, includes giving information, or showing
how an art is to be performed, and we look upon Jacotot’s assertion as
absurd, because we feel that no one can give information which he does
not possess, or show how anything is to be done if he does not himself
know. But let us take the Jacototian definition of teaching—causing to
learn—and then see how far a person can cause another to learn that of
which he himself is ignorant.
§ 7. Subjects which are _taught_ may be divided into three great
classes:—1, Facts; 2, reasonings, or generalisation from facts, _i.e._,
science; 3, actions which have to be performed by the learner, _i.e._,
arts.