Chapter XVIII: Part 18

[45] Mayor’s is beautifully printed and costs 1_s._ (London, Bell and Sons.)

[46] “Utile imprimis ut multi præcipiunt, vel ex Græco in Latinum vel ex Latino vertere in Græcum; quo genere exercitationis proprietas splendorque verborum, copia figurarum, vis explicandi, præterea imitatione optimorum similia inveniendi facultas paratur: simul quæ legentem fefellissent transferentem fugere non possunt. Intelligentia ex hoc et judicium acquiritur.”—_Epp._ vii. 9, § 2. So the passage stands in Pliny. Ascham quotes “_et_ ex Græco in Latinum _et_ ex Latino vertere in Græcum.” with other variations.

[47] _Teaching of Languages in Schools_, by W. H. Widgery, p. 6.

[48] Much information about our early books, with quotations from some of them, will be found in Henry Barnard’s _English Pedagogy_, 1st and 2nd series. Some notice of rare books is given in _Schools, School-books, and Schoolmasters_, by W. Carew Hazlitt (London, Jarvis, 1888), but in this work there are strange omissions.

[49] The paging is that of the reprint. It differs slightly from that of first edition.

[50] Mulcaster goes on to talk about the brain, &c. Of course he does not anticipate the discoveries of science, but his language is very different from what we should expect from a writer in the pre-scientific age, _e.g._, “To serve the turn of these two, both _sense_ and _motion_, Nature hath planted in our body a _brain_, the prince of all our parts, which by spreading sinews of all sorts throughout all our parts doth work all those effects which either _sense_ is seen in or _motion_ perceived by.” (_El._, p. 32.) But much as he thinks of the body Mulcaster is no materialist. “Last of all our soul hath in it an imperial prerogative of understanding beyond sense, of judging by reason, of directing by both, for duty towards God, for society towards men, for conquest in affections, for purchase in knowledge, and such other things, whereby it furnisheth out all manner of uses in this our mortal life, and bewrayeth in itself a more excellent being than to continue still in this roaming pilgrimage.” (p. 33.) The grand thing, he says, is to bring all these abilities to perfection “which so heavenly a benefit is begun by education, confirmed by use, perfected with continuance which crowneth the whole work.” (p. 34.) “Nature makes the boy toward; nurture sees him forward.” (p. 35.) The neglect of the material world which has been for ages the source of mischief of all kinds in the schoolroom, and which has not yet entirely passed away, would have been impossible if Mulcaster’s elementary course had been adopted. “Is the body made by Nature nimble to run, to ride, to swim, to fence, to do anything else which beareth praise in that kind for either profit or pleasure? And doth not the Elementary help them all forward by precept and train? The hand, the ear, the eye be the greatest instruments whereby the receiving and delivery of our learning is chiefly executed, and doth not this Elementary instruct the hand to write, to draw, to play; the eye to read by letters, to discern by line, to judge by both; the ear to call for voice and sound with proportion for pleasure, with reason for wit? Generally whatsoever gift Nature hath bestowed upon the body, to be brought forth or bettered by the mean of train for any profitable use in our whole life, doth not this Elementary both find it and foresee it?” (_El._, p. 35). “_The hand, the ear, the eye, be the greatest instruments_,” said the Elizabethan schoolmaster. So says the Victorian reformer.

[51] I wish some good author would write a book on _Unpopular Truths_, and show how, on some subjects, wise men go on saying the same thing in all ages and nobody listens to them. Plato said “In every work the beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with anything young and tender.” (_Rep._, bk. ii, 377; Davies and Vaughan, p. 65.) And the complaints about “bad grounding” prove our common neglect of what Mulcaster urged three centuries ago: “For the _Elementarie_ because good scholars will not abase themselves to it, it is left to the meanest, and therefore to the worst. For that the first grounding would be handled by the best, and his reward would be greatest, because both his pains and his judgment should be with the greatest. And it would easily allure sufficient men to come down so low, if they might perceive that reward would rise up. No man of judgment will contrary this point, neither can any ignorant be blamed for the contrary: the one seeth the thing to be but low in order, the other knoweth the ground to be great in laying, not only for the matter which the child doth learn: which is very small in show though great for process: but also for the manner of handling his wit, to hearten him for afterward, which is of great moment. The first master can deal but with a few, the next with more, and so still upward as reason groweth on and receives without forcing. It is the foundation well and soundly laid, which makes all the upper building muster, with countenance and continuance. If I were to strike the stroke, as I am but to give counsel, the first pains truly taken should in good truth be most liberally recompensed; and less allowed still upward, as the pains diminish and the ease increaseth. Whereat no master hath cause to repine, so he may have his children well grounded in the _Elementarie_. Whose imperfection at this day doth marvellously trouble both masters and scholars, so that we can hardly do any good, nay, scantly tell how to place the too too raw boys in any certain form, with hope to go forward orderly, the ground-work of their entry being so rotten underneath.” (_PP._, pp. 233, 4.)

[52] Quaint as we find Mulcaster in his mode of expression, the thing expressed is sometimes rather what we should expect from Herbert Spencer than from a schoolmaster of the Renascence. I have met with nothing more modern in thought than the following: “In time all learning may be brought into one tongue, and that natural to the inhabitant: so that schooling for tongues may prove needless, as once they were not needed; but it can never fall out that arts and sciences in their right nature shall be but most necessary for any commonwealth that is not given over unto too too much barbarousness.” (_PP._, 240.)

[53] “Subject to a regulation like that of the ancient Spartans, the theft of knowledge in our sex is only connived at while carefully concealed, and if displayed [is] punished with disgrace.” So says Mrs. Barbauld, and I have met with similar passages in other female writers.

[54] John Brinsley (the elder) who married a sister of Bishop Hall’s and kept school at Ashby-de-la-Zouch (was it the _Grammar School_?) was one of the best English writers on education. In his _Consolation for our Grammar Schooles_, published early in the sixteen hundreds, he says: “Amongst others myself having first had long experience of the manifold evils which grow from the ignorance of a right order of teaching, and afterwards some gracious taste of the sweetness that is to be found in the better courses truly known and practised, I have betaken me almost wholly, for many years unto this weighty work, and that not without much comfort, through the goodness of our blessed God.” (p. 1.) “And for the most part wherein any good is done, it is ordinarily effected by the endless vexation of the painful master, the extreme labour and terror of the poor children with enduring far overmuch and long severity. Now whence proceedeth all this but because so few of those who undertake this function are acquainted with any good method or right order of instruction fit for a grammar school?” (p. 2.) It is sad to think how many generations have since suffered from teachers “unacquainted with any good method or right order of instruction.” And it seems to justify Goethe’s dictum, “_Der Engländer ist eigentlich ohne Intelligenz_,” that for several generations to come this evil will be but partially abated.

[55] At Cambridge (as also in London and Edinburgh) there is already a Training College for Women Teachers in Secondary Schools.

[56] All we know of his life may soon be told. Richard Mulcaster was a Cumberland man of good family, an “esquier borne,” as he calls himself, who was at Eton, then King’s College, Cambridge, then at Christ Church, Oxford. His birth year was probably 1530 or 1531, and he became a student of Christ Church in 1555. In 1558 he settled as a schoolmaster in London, and was elected first headmaster of Merchant Taylors’ School, which dates from 1561. Here he remained twenty-five years, _i.e._ till 1586. Whether he then became, as H. B. Wilson says, surmaster of St. Paul’s, I cannot determine, but “he came in” highmaster in 1596, and held that office for twelve years. Though in 1598 Elizabeth made him rector of Stanford Rivers, there can be no doubt that he did not give up the highmastership till 1608, when he must have been about 77 years old. He died at Stanford Rivers three years later. While at Merchant Taylors’, viz., in 1581 and 1582, he published the two books which have secured for him a permanent place in the history of education in England. The first was his _Positions_, the second “The first part” (and, as it proved, the only part) of his _Elementarie_. Of his other writings, his _Cato Christianus_ seems to have been the most important, and a very interesting quotation from it has been preserved in Robotham’s Preface to the _Janua_ of Comenius; but the book itself is lost: at least I never heard of a copy, and I have sought in vain in the British Museum, and at the University Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. His _Catechismus Paulinus_ is a rare book, but Rev. J. H. Lupton has found and described a copy in the Bodleian.

[57] _Lectures and Essays_: _English in School_, by J. R. Seeley, p. 222. Elsewhere in the same lecture (p. 229) Professor Seeley says: “The schoolmaster might set this right. Every boy that enters the school is a _talking_ creature. He is a performer, in his small degree, upon the same instrument as Milton and Shakespeare. Only do not sacrifice this advantage. Do not try by artificial and laborious processes to give him a new knowledge before you have developed that which he has already. Train and perfect the gift of speech, unfold all that is in it, and you train at the same time the power of thought and the power of intellectual sympathy, you enable your pupil to think the thoughts and to delight in the words of great philosophers and poets.” I wish this lecture were published separately.

[58] _Rep._ bk. vii, 536, _ad f._; Davies and Vaughan, p. 264.

[59] In Buisson (_Dictionnaire_) No. 7 is “The children must have frequent play, and a break after every lesson.” Raumer connects this with No. 6, and says: “breaks were rendered necessary by Ratke’s plan, which kept the learners far too silent.”

[60] In the matter of grammar Ratke’s advice, so long disregarded, has recently been followed in the “Parallel Grammar Series,” published by Messrs. Sonnenschein.

[61] The ordinary teaching of almost every subject offers illustrations of the neglect of this principle. Take, _e.g._, the way in which children are usually taught to read. First, they have to say the alphabet—a very easy task as it seems to us, but if we met with a strange word of _twenty-six syllables_, and that not a compound word, but one of which every syllable was new to us, we might have some difficulty in remembering it. And yet such a word would be to us what the alphabet is to a child. When he can perform this feat, he is next required to learn the visual symbols of the sounds and to connect these with the vocal symbols. Some of the vocal symbols bring the child in contact with the sound itself, but most are simply conventional. What notion does the child get of the aspirate from the name of the letter _h_? Having learnt twenty-six visual and twenty-six vocal symbols, and connected them together, the child _finally comes to the sounds_ (over 40 in number) _which the symbols are supposed to represent_.

[62] See Mr. E. E. Bowen’s vigorous essay on “Teaching by means of Grammar,” in _Essays on a Liberal Education_, 1867.

I have returned to the subject of language-learning in § 15 of _Jacotot_ in the _note_. See page 426.

[63] Preface to the _Prodromus_.

[64] Preface to _Prodromus_, first edition, p. 40; second edition (1639), p. 78. The above is Hartlib’s translation, see _A Reformation of Schools, &c._, pp. 46, 47.

[65] Preface to _Prodromus_, first edition, p. 40; second edition, p. 79. _A Reformation, &c._, p. 47.

[66] Very interesting are the “immeasurable labours and intellectual efforts” of Master Samuel Hartlib, whom Milton addresses as “a person sent hither by some good providence from a far country, to be the occasion and incitement of great good to this island.” (_Of Education_, A.D. 1644.) See Masson’s _Life of Milton_, vol. iii; also biographical and bibliographical account of Hartlib by H. Dircks, 1865. Hartlib’s mother was English. His father, when driven out of Poland by triumph of the Jesuits, settled at Elbing, where there was an English “Company of Merchants” with John Dury for their chaplain. Hartlib came to England not later than 1628, and devoted himself to the furtherance of a variety of schemes for the public good. He was one of those rare beings who labour to promote the schemes of others as if they were their own. He could, as he says, “contribute but little” himself, but “being carried forth to watch for the opportunities of provoking others, who can do more, to improve their talents, I have found experimentally that my endeavours have not been without effect.” (Quoted by Dircks, p. 66.) The philosophy of Bacon seemed to have introduced an age of boundless improvement; and men like Comenius, Hartlib, Petty, and Dury, caught the first unchecked enthusiasm. “There is scarce one day,” so Hartlib wrote to Robert Boyle, “and one hour of the day or night, being brim full with all manner of objects of the most public and universal nature, but my soul is crying out ‘Phosphore redde diem! Quid gaudia nostra moraris? Phosphore redde diem!’”

But in this world Hartlib looked in vain for the day. The income of £300 a year allowed him by Parliament was £700 in arrears at the Restoration, and he had then nothing to hope. His last years were attended by much physical suffering and by extreme poverty. He died as Evelyn thought at Oxford in 1662, but this is uncertain.

[67] _Dilucidatio_, Hartlib’s trans., p. 65.

[68] The _Dilucidation_, as he calls it, is added. All the books above mentioned are in the Library of the British Museum under _Komensky_.

[69] Masson’s _Milton_, vol. iii, p. 224, Prof. Masson is quoting _Opera Didactica_, tom. ii, Introd.

[70] _Unum Necessarium_, quoted by Raumer.

Compare George Eliot: “By desiring what is perfectly good, even when we don’t quite know what it is, and cannot do what we would, we are part of the Divine power against evil—widening the skirts of light and making the struggle with darkness narrower.”—_Middlemarch_, bk. iv, p. 308 of first edition.

[71] Compare Mulcaster, _supra_, p. 94.

[72] Comenius here follows Ratke, who, as I have mentioned above (p. 116), required beginners to study the translation _before the original_.

[73] Professor Masson (_Life of Milton_, vol. iii, p. 205, _note_) gives us the following from chap. ix (cols. 42-44), of the _Didactica Magna_:—

“Nor, to say something particularly on this subject, can any sufficient reason be given why the weaker sex [_sequior sexus_, literally the _later_ or _following_ sex, is his phrase, borrowed from Apuleius, and, though the phrase is usually translated the inferior sex, it seems to have been chosen by Comenius to avoid that implication] should be wholly shut out from liberal studies whether in the native tongue or in Latin. For equally are they God’s image; equally are they partakers of grace, and of the Kingdom to come; equally are they furnished with minds agile and capable of wisdom, yea, often beyond our sex; equally to them is there a possibility of attaining high distinction, inasmuch as they have often been employed by God Himself for the government of peoples, the bestowing of wholesome counsels on Kings and Princes, the science of medicine and other things useful to the human race, nay even the prophetical office, and the rattling reprimand of Priests and Bishops [etiam ad propheticum munus, et increpandos Sacerdotes Episcoposque, are the words; and as the treatise was prepared for the press in 1638 one detects a reference, by the Moravian Brother in Poland to the recent fame of Jenny Geddes, of Scotland]. Why then should we admit them to the alphabet, but afterwards debar them from books? Do we fear their rashness? The more we occupy their thoughts, the less room will there be in them for rashness, which springs generally from vacuity of mind.”

[74] Translated by Daniel Benham as _The School of Infancy_. London, 1858.

[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.)

The Port-Royalists seem to me in some respects far behind Comenius, but they were right in rejecting him as a methodiser in language-learning. Lancelot in the preface to his “Garden of Greek Roots,” says that the _Janua_ of Comenius is totally wanting in method. “It would need,” says he, “an extraordinary memory; and from my experience I should say that few children could learn this book, for it is long and difficult; and as the words in it are not repeated, those at the beginning would be forgotten before the learner reached the end. So he would feel a constant discouragement, because he would always find himself in a new country where he would recognize nothing. And the book is full of all sorts of uncommon and difficult words, and the first chapters throw no light on those which follow.” To this well-grounded criticism he adds: “The _entrances to the Tongues_, to deserve its name, should be nothing but a short and simple way leading us as soon as possible to read the best books in the language, so that we might not only acquire the words we are in need of, but also all that is most characteristic in the idiom and pure in the phraseology, which make up the most difficult and most important part of every language.” (Quoted by Cadet, p. 17).

[94] Lemaître, a nephew of La Mère Angélique, was one of the most celebrated orators in France. In renouncing the world for Port-Royal, he retired from a splendid position at the Bar. Such men had qualifications out of the reach of ordinary schoolmasters. Dufossé, in after years, told how, when he was a boy, Lemaître called him often to his room and gave him solid instruction in learning and piety. “He read to me and made me read pieces from poets and orators, and saw that I noticed the beauties in them both in thought and diction. Moreover he taught me the right emphasis and articulation both in verse and prose, in which he himself was admirable, having the charm of a fine voice and all else that goes to make a great orator. He gave me also many rules for good translation and for making my progress in that art easy to me.” (Dufossé’s _Mémoires, &c._, quoted by Cadet, p. 9.) It was Lemaître who instructed Racine (born 1639, admitted at Les Granges, Port Royal des Champs, in 1655).

[95] In 1670 the General of the Jesuits issued a letter to the Society against the Cartesian philosophy. The University in this agreed with its rivals, and petitioned the Parliament to prohibit the Cartesian teaching. This produced the burlesque _Arrêt_ by Boileau (1675). “Whereas it is stated that for some years past a stranger named Reason has endeavoured to make entry by force into the Schools of the University ... where Aristotle has always been acknowledged as judge without appeal and not accountable for his opinions.... Be it known by these presents that this Court has maintained and kept and does maintain and keep the said Aristotle in perfect and peaceable possession of the said schools ... and in order that for the future he may not be interfered with in them, it has banished Reason for ever from the Schools of the said University, and forbids his entry to disturb and disquiet the said Aristotle in the possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid schools, under pain and penalty of being declared a Jansenist and a lover of innovations.” (Quoted by Cadet, p. 34.)

[96] Although so much time is given to the study of words, practice in the use of words is almost entirely neglected, and the English schoolboy remains inarticulate.

[97] Rollin somewhat extends Quintilian’s statement: “The desire of learning rests in the will which you cannot force.” About attempts to coerce the will in the absence of interest, I may quote a passage from a lecture of mine at Birmingham in 1884, when I did not know that I had behind me such high authorities as Quintilian and Rollin: “I should divide the powers of the mind that may be cultivated in the school-room into two classes: in the first I should put all the higher powers—grasp of meaning, perception of analogy, observation, reflection, imagination, intellectual memory; in the other class is one power only, and that is a kind of memory that depends on the association of sounds. How is it then that in most school-rooms far more time is spent in cultivating this last and least-valuable power than all the rest put together? The explanation is easy. All the higher powers can be exercised only when the pupils are interested, or, as Mr. Thring puts it, ‘care for what they are about.’ The memory that depends on associating sounds is independent of interest and can be secured by simple repetition. Now it is very hard to awaken interest, and still harder to maintain it. That magician’s wand, the cane, with which the schoolmasters of olden time worked such wonders, is powerless here or powerful only in the negative direction; and so is every form of punishment. You may tell a boy—‘If you can’t say your lesson you shall stay in and write it out half-a-dozen times!’ and the threat may have effect; but no ‘_instans tyrannus_’ from Orbilius downwards has ever thought of saying, ‘If you don’t take an interest in your work, I’ll keep you in till you do!’ So teachers very naturally prefer the kind of teaching in which they can make sure of success.”

[98] Here as usual Rollin uses Quintilian without directly quoting him. He gives in a note the passage he had in his mind. “Id imprimis cavere oportebit, ne studia qui amare nondum potest oderit; et amaritudinem semel præceptam etiam ultra rudes annos reformidet (Quint., lib. j, cap. 1.)”

[99] Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel were also in this sense realists, but they held that the educational value of knowledge lay not in itself, but only in so far as it was an instrument for developing the faculties of the mind.

[100] Henry Barnard (_English Pedagogy_, second series, p. 192), speaks of Hoole as “one of the pioneer educators of his century.” According to Barnard he was born at Wakefield, in 1610, and died in 1666, rector of “Stock Billerica” (perhaps Stock with Billericay), in Essex.

[101] A very interesting suggestion of Cowley’s is that another house be built for poor men’s sons who show ability. These shall be brought up “with the same conveniences that are enjoyed even by rich men’s children (though they maintain the fewer for that cause), there being nothing of eminent and illustrious to be expected from a low, sordid, and hospital-like education.”

[102] It would seem as if these Puritans were more active in body than in mind: even the seniors, like the children at Port-Royal, _tombent dans la nonchalance_. Dury has to lay it down that “the Governour and Ushers and Steward if they be in health should not go to bed till ten.” (p. 30.)

[103] It is a sign of the failure of all attempts to establish educational science in England that though the meaning of “real” and “realities” which connected them with _res_ seemed established in the sixteen hundreds, our language soon lost it again. According to a writer in _Meyer’s Conversations Lexicon_ (first edition) “_reales_” in this sense occurs first in Taubmann, 1614. Whether this is correct or not it was certainly about this time that there arose a contest between _Humanismus_ and _Realismus_, a contest now at its height in the _Gymnasien_ and _Realschulen_ of Germany. For a discussion of it, _see_ M. Arnold’s “Literature and Science,” referred to above (p. 154).

[104] Many of Petty’s proposals are now realized in the South Kensington Museum.

[105] Later in the century Locke recommended that “working schools should be set up in every parish,” (_see_ Fox-Bourne’s _Locke_, or Cambridge edition of the _Thoughts c. Ed._, App. A, p. 189). The Quakers seem to have early taken up “industrious education.” John Bellers, whose _Proposals for Raising a College of Industry_ (1696) was reprinted by Robt. Owen, has some very good notions. After advising that boys and girls be taught to knit, spin, &c., and the bigger boys turning, &c., he says, “Thus the Hand employed brings Profit, _the Reason used in it makes wise_, and the Will subdued makes them good” (_Proposals_, p. 18). Years afterwards in a Letter to the Yearly Meeting (dated 1723), he says, “It may be observed that some of the Boys in Friends’ Workhouse in Clerkenwell by their present employment of spinning are capable to earn their own living.”

[106] Petty does not lose sight of the body. The “educands” are to “use such exercises whether in work or for recreation as tend to the health, agility, and strength of their bodies.”

I have quoted Petty from the very valuable collection of English writings on Education reprinted in Henry Barnard’s _English Pedagogy_, 2 vols. Petty is in Vol. I. In this vol. we have plenty of evidence of the working of the Baconian spirit; _e.g._, we find Sir Matthew Hale in a _Letter of Advice to his Grandchildren_, written in 1678, saying that there is little use or improvement in “notional speculations in logic or philosophy delivered by others; the rather because bare speculations and notions have little experience and external observation to confirm them, and they rarely fix the minds especially of young men. But that part of philosophy that is real may be improved and confirmed by daily observation, and is more stable and yet more certain and delightful, and goes along with a man all his life, whatever employment or profession he undertakes.”

[107] “In this respect,” says Professor Masson, “the passion and the projects of Comenius were a world wider than Milton’s.” (_L. of M._ iij, p. 237.)

[108] _Of Education. To Master Samuel Hartlib_ (“the Tractate” as it is usually called), was published by Milton first in 1644, and again in 1673. _See_ Oscar Browning’s edition, Cambridge Univ. Press.

[109] The University of Cambridge. The first examination was in June, 1880.

[110] “Believe it, my good friend, to love truth for truth’s sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world and the seed-plot of all other virtues.” L. to Bolde, quoted by Fowler, _Locke_, p. 120. This shows us that according to Locke “the principal part of human perfection” is to be found in the intellect.

[111] Lady Masham seems to consider these two characteristics identical. She wrote to Leclerc of Locke after his death: “He was always, in the greatest and in the smallest affairs of human life, as well as in speculative opinions, disposed to follow reason, whosoever it were that suggested it; he being ever a faithful servant, I had almost said a slave, to truth; never abandoning her for anything else, and following her for her own sake purely” (quoted by Fox-Bourne). But it is one thing to desire truth, and another to think one’s own reasoning power the sole means of obtaining it.

[112] “I am far from imagining myself infallible; but yet I should be loth to differ from any thinking man; being fully persuaded there are very few things of pure speculation wherein two thinking men who impartially seek truth can differ if they give themselves the leisure to examine their hypotheses and understand one another” (L. to W. M., 26 Dec., 1692). Again he writes: “I am persuaded that upon debate you and I cannot be of two opinions, nor I think any two men used to think with freedom, who really prefer truth to opiniatrety and a little foolish vain-glory of not having made a mistake” (L. to W. M., 3 Sept., 1694).