6. On the other hand, I am unwilling to advise that children should be kept at home beyond the sixth year, because within that time, whatever ought to be learned at home, according to the manner shown, may be easily completed. And unless a child after this be at once delivered over for higher instruction, it will invariably become accustomed to unprofitable idleness, and again become like a “wild ass’s colt.” Nay, it is to be feared that from this imprudent idleness some vice may attach to the child, which afterwards, as a noxious weed, can only with difficulty be rooted out. The best way is to continue without intermission what has once been begun.
7. This advice, however, is not to be so literally understood, as if, without due consideration of circumstances, no transfer ought to be made at the expiration of the six years. The proposed termination may either be made or anticipated by a half or even a whole year, according to the child’s capacity and progress. Some trees bear fruit in spring, some in summer, some in autumn. Early flowers, however, fade the soonest, while late ones acquire greater strength and durability; in like manner, early fruit is useful for the day, but will not keep, whereas late fruit may be kept all the year.
8. In some children the natural capacities would fly before the sixth, the fifth, or even the fourth year; yet it will be beneficial rather to restrain than permit this,[1] and
- ↑ Rousseau carried this restraint to an insane extent. He said: “The first education should be purely negative. It consists by no means in teaching virtue or truth, but in securing the heart from vice and the intellect from error. If you would do nothing, and let nothing be done, if you would bring up your pupil healthy and strong to
and which may be done in all homes where the mother is a sensible woman. This done, a school is a resource of inestimable advantage for cultivating the intellect and aiding in the acquisition of knowledge; but it is of little or no use without preparation at home.”
