The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius/Introduction 2

by Maurice Walter Keatinge

INTRODUCTION

 

II

HISTORICAL

We have already traced the growth of Comenius’ Educational Theories, and pointed out his debt to contemporary writers, notably in the case of the Janua Linguarum. We will now endeavour to show the general relation in which he stands to his predecessors, to bring into greater relief the condition in which he found schools and school-masters, and to estimate the worth of his school-books for his own age, and of his theoretical writings for all time.

Against Comenius, as against his predecessors and contemporaries, the accusation may be brought that, in spite of professions of a desire to widen the school curriculum and shake off the more binding traditions of the past, he still retained Latin as the concentration-point of his system, and allowed it to usurp more than its fair share of attention. While this charge is to a certain extent justified, a brief consideration of the circumstances will suffice to show that the blame lies less with Comenius than with the strength, born of tradition, that enabled the Latin language to blockade every avenue that led to polite learning or scientific pursuits.

In mediæval times the schools were in the hands of the monasteries, and Latin was the language of Christendom. After the Renaissance, Latin was the language of culture and opened the door to a more perfect literature than any that existed in the vernaculars. After the Reformation, though banished from the services of Protestantism, it still remained a most important medium of communication between nation and nation. At the present day great stress is laid on the practical value of modern languages, but in the sixteenth century a man furnished with a good colloquial knowledge of Latin might have travelled over Europe with nearly as great comfort as if he had been thoroughly acquainted with the language of each country through which he passed. To write English fluently and well is now of infinitely more value to a man than to have acquired the same proficiency in Latin; but in the sixteenth century the advantage was greatly on the side of the Latin scholar. By sending his son to learn Latin an uncultured parent immediately raised him into a higher sphere of society and placed in his hands a passport which secured admission where the language of the country invited rebuff.

But the study of Latin in the latter half of the sixteenth century was very different both in manner and method from that of the monkish schools. Up to the time of Comenius, and indeed till very recently, grammar was allowed to usurp far more than its due share of the school programme; but in medieval schools it was the chief subject taught, sometimes indeed the only one. A slight knowledge of arithmetic sufficed to enable the future monk to make the computus or calculation necessary for ascertaining on which days the festivals of the church should fall, and the remainder of his energies he was forced to devote to Priscian or Donatus. The work of the latter, De partibus orationis pars minor had been arranged in 2645 leonine hexameters by Alexander de Villa dei in 1199, and under the name of the Doctrinal was the staple grammar for nearly 300 years. The school-books bought for the Dauphin in 1484 consisted of "Ung A, B, C, Ungs sept pseaulmes, Ung Donast, Ungs accidens, Ung Caton, and Ung Doctrinal.”^[1]

Another famous Grammar was the Græcism of Ebrard, written in 1212. It was still in use at Deventer when Erasmus was at school there in 1476,^[2] and was popular in the Parisian schools until the end of the fifteenth century.^[3] This work,^[4] a bulwark of linguistic training in the fourteenth century, commences with a metrical treatise on grammatical forms, each of which is labelled with a Greek name. This is followed by chapters nominally on the declensions and the conjugations, but really on the exact meanings of words that resemble one another. Its editor, Johannes Vincentius Metulinus, who had a high opinion of its merits, introduces it as follows:—

Hic liber Ebrardi Celebris: doctique magistri
Græcismus fons est: arida corda fovens.
Cujus in irriguo tu margine sisteris: a quo
Sumere grammatices plura fluenta potes.^[5]

Here is a sample of the draughts of grammar that he who stands on the brink may quaff. In chap. i., De figuris, we are informed that:

Sincopa de medio tollit quod epenthesis auget:
Aufert apocope finem quem dat paracope.

Pages of this stuff had to be learned by the unfortunate scholar, nor was his case much better when he came to the grammar proper. In chap. xvi., under the heading De verbis secundæ conjugationis, he was given the following information:—

Hortibus insideo: pius medicus assidet egro; (sic)
Subsidet his caro: presidet ille solo.
Obsidet hic muro: considet ille loco,

and so forth. The so-called grammar is little more than a vocabulary, in which the words are strung into rude verses illustrating their usage.

The other bugbear of Erasmus’ childhood was John de Garlande. Garlande was the author of a Compendium Grammaticæ and of an epic poem entitled De Triumphis Ecclesiæ. The latter may well have been among the works that the student was expected to read, as its subject-matter would have removed any prejudice to which its monkish eccentricities might have given rise.^[6] The main object of learning Latin was to read Ambrose and Hilary. As late as 1523 we find Vives recommending the poems of Prudentius, Sydonius, Paulinus, Arator, Prosper, and Juvencus, as being equal to the classics in style and infinitely superior in matter.^[7]

The Reformation may have been prejudicial to the advancement of Humanism at the higher seats of learning, but to schools it was the breath of life. Though a few sensibly-managed institutions were to be found, such as the Collège de Guyenne at Bordeaux, these were great exceptions. In the schools attached to the monasteries prejudiced monks would have little to say to the new learning, looked on it with suspicion, and deemed it safer to abide by Ebrard and the Doctrinal.

But a more energetic man than Erasmus was to turn upon them and tear their pedantry into shreds. Martin Luther had been subjected to the mill of scholasticism, and grammar-lessons, flogged in with the customary vigour, had left an iron impression on his soul. “Instead of sound books,” he cries in 1524, “the insane, useless, harmful, monkish books, the Catholicon,^[8] the Florista, the Græcista, the Labyrinth, the Dormi secure, and such-like stable-refuse have been introduced by the devil, so that the Latin tongue has decayed, and in no place is any good school or instruction or method of study left.”^[9]

With his wide-minded contempt for petty details he would have wished to abolish the formal study of grammar altogether. The books to be used are “the poets and orators, be they Christian or heathen, Greek or Latin. From these the grammar must be learned.”^[10] Now, while it is certainly a grievous error to sacrifice the whole morning of youth to the study of grammar, it is also evident that to neglect it altogether could only lead to a slipshod habit of mind in later years. A corrective for Luther’s complete carelessness of academic accuracy was at hand in Philip Melanchthon, the grammarian of the Reformation in Germany, whose Latin Grammar appeared in 1525.^[11] Melanchthon, while attaching the utmost importance to grammar, was fully aware how necessary it was to make rules as short and concise as possible. Other Grammars, he tells us, existed, but most of them were neglected on account of their length, and he had therefore written his to supply the practical wants of the age.

In truth the Grammar of 1525 is many centuries in advance of the shibboleth that Erasmus learned at Deventer. Apart from its intrinsic merit, Melanchthon’s name on the title-page would have secured its widespread use in Protestant schools. It underwent many editions, notably that by Jacob Micyllus, and was still in use at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Worthy of notice is the relative importance given to the rules for gender (these take up thirty-three pages), and the introduction of words like Halec, Huber, Lafer, and Meninx; but the main interest of the work lies in its preface, which embodies Melanchthon’s views on the study of grammar. “Of what importance it is to Christ’s Church,” he says, “that boys be rightly instructed in grammar! . . . How many grievous errors I might relate that have wrought great havoc in the Church, and that have arisen solely from ignorance of grammar!” More than this, grammar is made an indispensable preliminary to knowledge of any kind. “A defective grounding in grammar leads to a most impudent misuse of other studies.”^[12]

Melanchthon was not without competitors. We find Vives^[13] (1523) recommending Catherine of Aragon to get Thomas Linacre’s Grammar for her daughter Mary; and elsewhere^[14] he says that any one may be selected from among those of Perottus, Aldus, Nebrissensis, Mancinella, Sulpitus, Melanchthon, and Ninivita. The Grammar of the last mentioned, who is better known as Despauter,^[15] was for a long time in vogue, both in France and in Germany. An abridged edition was brought out by Sebastian of Duisburg in 1534, and was used in Scotland as late as 1637.^[16] It is greatly inferior to Melanchthon’s Grammar, and burdens the mind of the student with an inordinate quantity of mnemonic verses.^[17] It is surprising to what an extent the notion prevailed that grammar should be made as complex as possible. Few scholars would care to name off-hand the seven genders in Latin, yet this was the number commonly given in sixteenth-century works. Even in 1633 a Scotch Grammar^[18] tells us that “the genders are seven in number: masculine, feminine, neuter, common of two, common of three, promiscuous, and doubtful.” At this rate, why stop at seven? It is surprising that the writer did not bring their number up to twenty-one and work them into a mnemonic verse. For the beginner seven genders must have been a more crushing burden than the As in præsenti that caused such agony to our grandfathers.

The set of metrical rules beginning with this locution, as well as the Propria que maribus, were by Lily, one of the first masters at St. Paul’s School and afterwards high-master of Wolsey’s school at Ipswich, and are often found affixed to his Brevissima Institutio, the most popular Grammar ever written and the basis of the Eton Latin Grammar published in 1826.

Lily’s work appeared in many forms. The edition of 1577^[19] is in English with a Latin appendix, and is prefaced by an injunction of Elizabeth “Not to teache your youth and scholers with any other Grammar than with this English introduction hereafter ensuing, and the Latine Grammar affixed to the same.” The use of the Brevissima Institutio was confined to England, but Lily’s Syntax met with considerable success on the continent. An edition^[20] was brought out by Erasmus at Strasburg in 1515, and was afterwards reprinted at Basle, Paris, Antwerp, and Cologne.

We cannot leave Lily without giving some account of his rules Ad discipulos de moribus. These survey the whole field of school morality in elegiac verse.

Et quoties loqueris, memor esto loquare LatineScalpellum, calami, atramentum, charta, libelli,
Sint semper studiis, arma parata tuis.
At tamen inprimis facies sit lota manusque
Sint nitidæ vestes, comptaque cæsaries.

With Lily, as with the continental educationists, a colloquial knowledge of Latin was highly prized—

Et quoties loqueris, memor esto loquare Latine
Et scopulos veluti barbara verba fuge.

For the boy who prompts in class a terrible punishment is threatened—

Et quoties loqueris, memor esto loquare LatineNec verbum quisquam dicturo suggerat ullum
Quod puero exitium non mediocre parit.^[21]

Comenius’ complaint that the beginner in Latin was compelled to learn the unknown through the medium of the unknown, does not apply with very much force to England. As early as 1495 we find a black-letter treatise, Pervula^[22] by name, giving the rules of syntax in English. Nothing could be simpler or more explicit than the proposition with which it starts. “What shalt thou doo when thou hast an englyssh to be made in latyne? I shall reherse myn englysshe fyrst ones, twyes, or thryes, and loke out my princypal verbe and aske hym this question, who or what. And that worde that answeryth to the questyon shall be the nominatyf case to the verbe.”

In English is also the curious Grammar and Syntax by M. Holt, entitled Lac Puerorum.^[23] On the subject of gender Holt exercises a rare restraint and only inflicts one page on the learner; but his pent-up passion for analysis bursts forth when he comes to the moods, and he introduces us to “the shewynge mode,” the “biddynge mode,” “the askynge mode,” “the wysshynge mode,” “the potencyal mode,” and the “subjunctyf mode.” A heavy burden for the boy who cannot yet conjugate Amo.

That it is in English and, from the book-fancier’s point of view, its rarity claim notice for Linacre’s Grammar,^[24] but otherwise this work is not superior to other Grammars of the age. In company with those previously mentioned it is scarcely worthy of remark by the side of the Grammar^[25] written by Cardinal Wolsey for his school at Ipswich. An almost touching simplicity breathes through the pages of his little volume, showing the great Cardinal in a most pleasing light as the sypathiser with blundering boyhood. In the preface he confesses that Grammars exist in abundance, but he considers them unsuitable for beginners, for whose need he therefore takes it upon himself to cater. “In which lytel boke I have left many thynges out of purpose, consydering ye tendernes and smal capacite of lytell mynds.” He then proceeds to state the rudiments of grammar in the simplest way imaginable. Musa is declined in full, and the conjugations of the regular verbs are given at length. The inevitable “seven genders” make their appearance, it is true, but no time is wasted over them. This Grammar does not appear to have been as popular as its contemporaries, still it is quite the best written for beginners before the Vestibular Grammar of Comenius.

In Scotland, Latin appears to have been the medium through which the rudiments were learned, though vernacular grammars were not unknown. In 1528 John Vaus, master of the Grammar School at Aberdeen, published a Grammar^[26] a large part of which is in Scotch; and there is in existence a fragment of a Donatus written in Scotch, which has been hypothetically placed as early as 1508.^[27]

Of mathematics and science, the subjects that form the backbone of a “modern side” curriculum, only the first was in a sufficiently advanced state to be even given consideration as a subject of school instruction, and it is improbable that boys were taught more than the barest elements. Indeed there appears to have been a considerable amount of prejudice against mathematics as a means towards general culture. “Mark all mathematical heads, which be only and wholely bent to those sciences,” writes Ascham in the Scholemaster, “how solitary they be themselves, how unfit to live with others, and how unable to serve in the world.” Many educationists, however, were not of this opinion, and efforts were made by the more farseeing among them to render the study of numbers more accessible to the beginner. In 1522 Cuthbert Tonstall, afterwards Bishop of London, published his Arithmetic De arte supputandi. Written for boys (Tonstall suggests that it may be of use to Sir Thomas More’s sons), it is very practical, and well suited for school use,^[28] and was far ahead of anything else that had been written on the subject. Sturm thought so highly of it that he brought out a reprint at Strasburg in 1544,^[29] and in his preface assured the public that the book was the best in the market, and that any student who mastered it would know all that was to be known on the subject.^[30]

It must be confessed that in the sixteenth century the advocates of arithmetic a study laid more stress on its practical and commercial worth than on its value as a factor in the expansion of the mental powers. Cardinal Sadoleto, writing in 1549, points out the necessity of adding arithmetic to the school curriculum, but only because without its aid we cannot tell how many fingers we have or with how many eyes we see.^[31]

On this position a great advance is made by Robert Recorde, who published his Arithmetic in 1561 under the title The Grounde of Artes. According to Recorde the great claim of arithmetic is that it exercises the mind purely, apart from lines as in geometry and from spheres and axes as in astrology.^[32] The capacity for mathematics is the special prerogative of man. “Whoso setteth small price by the witty device and knowledge of numbring, he little considereth it to be the chief point (in manner) whereby men differ from all brute beasts; for as in all other things (almost) beasts are partakers with us, so in numbring we differ cleane from them and in manner peculiarly, sith that in many things they excell us againe.” It must not be imagined from this quotation that the Grounde of Artes is of a philosophical nature. It is a very practical arithmetic, and is of special interest as being written in English. In his work on algebra also, The Whetstone of Witte, published in 1557, Recorde discards Latin in favour of the vernacular.

In France a staunch upholder of mathematics was that many-sided man of learning, Peter Ramus. Himself the author of an Arithmetic,^[33] he was at some pains to ascertain the modes of instruction most approved of in other countries. In a letter to John Dee, dated 1565, he begs him to say what old mathematical books he has in his library, who are the teachers of mathematics in English grammar schools, and what method they follow.^[34] In Germany, at a rather later date, the Arithmetic^[35] of Christopher Clavius, a Jesuit priest, went through many editions, though it is difficult to say if it was used outside the Jesuit schools. It is worth noting that Alsted, Comenius’ teacher at Herborn, wrote several works on mathematics,^[36] though these were for more advanced scholars.

The question now arises, “By what method or system of teaching were these books backed up? What pains were taken to ascertain the difficulties of the individual school-boy and remove them by timely explanation?”

The answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory. In every difficulty or dilemma the one resource of the schoolmaster was the stick. Between recalcitrant school-boys and ignorant teachers the friction was great, and the sturdy use of the cane proved the readiest way to disperse the evil humours of the master. Witness the complaint of Ascham: “The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending or rather marring of the same: the master being many times as ignorant as the child what to say to the matter.”^[37] In France the same complaint was made. “Those daily and severe floggings,” wrote Maturin Cordier, “deter simple-minded youths from the study of letters to such an extent that they hate school worse than a dog or a snake.”^[38] From time to time protests were raised against this process of brutalising children; but the general tendency of the age was to believe that a little physical pain, judiciously applied, was worth much persuasion of a gentler kind. Instructive in this connection is the conversation between Sir William Cecil and his friends reported by Ascham in the preface to his Scholemaster. “I have strange news brought me this evening,” says Cecil, “that certain scholars of Eton be run away from the school for fear of beating.” To this Mr. Peter replied that “the rod only was the sword that must keep the school in obedience and the scholars in good order”; while Mr. Haddon went so far as to say that the best schoolmaster of their time (Nicholas Udall) was the greatest beater.

Small wonder that the boys left the Grammar School “great lubbers, always learning and little profiting!”^[39]

Machyn, writing in 1563, quotes a typical case of brutality: “A schoolmaster that had a child to lerne, and for a small fault did bett him so severely with a leden gyrdyll with buckles that he left no skyne on his body.” Even for the sixteenth century this seems to have passed the limits of legitimate severity, as we read that “thys master was sett on the pelere and wyped that his blude ran downe.”^[40] A curious way this of maintaining the doctrine that corporal punishment should be sparingly administered.

The extensive use of Latin as a medium for imparting knowledge was frequently brought forward by reformers, and in particular by Comenius, as the reason why beginners made such slow progress. To a certain extent they were undoubtedly right. Many Grammars and Arithmetics were written in Latin, and though constant exercise in that language may have been of use to the more advanced student, the combination of a new tongue and a new subject must have had a disastrous effect on younger boys whose knowledge of Latin was limited.

It would, however, be an error to lay too much stress on this point, as there is evidence that side by side with the enthronement of Latin there was a strong undercurrent of feeling in favour of the vernaculars. In England the use of the English language in learned works found a strong upholder in Peter Levins.^[41] In the Preface to his Pathway to Health (1587) he avers that those who think that such books should be written in an unknown tongue, and thus hide the knowledge of health from the people, are guilty of “malice exceeding damnable and devillish.” Some years previously (1570) Levins had brought out an English-Latin dictionary with the title Manipulus Vocabulorum. “This,” he tells us in his Preface, “I brought out for conscience sake, thinking that when I have bene long conversant with the schooles and have from tyme to tyme lamented to see the youth of our country (in the studies of the Latin tong) lacke such little instruments as this fit and needful for their exercises, and saw no man set his hand to the same, I was bound for the portion of my small talent to do somewhat therein.”^[42] If Levins thought that his was the first English-Latin dictionary he was mistaken, as nearly 100 years before (1499) Pynson had printed the Promptuorium parvulorum sive clericorum.^[43] But the English used in this lexicon was the Norfolk dialect, and the work was more suitable for older students than for boys.

To the Latin grammars written in English reference has already been made, and as regards arithmetic, Tonstall tells us that there was scarcely a nation that did not possess a vernacular treatise on that subject.^[44] If further proof is necessary that Latin had never become so fashionable in England as on the continent it can be found in the Governour of Sir Thomas Elyot, and in Ascham’s Scholemaster. Ascham seems to have been apprehensive that scholars on the continent might think an English setting somewhat undignified for so academic a theme as Education, and in a letter to Sturm at Strasburg he instances the uncultured condition of England as his excuse. He was writing “for Englishmen and not for foreigners,”^[45] and wished to be understood. In France, where the Latin of the Renaissance had taken a far stronger hold, Montaigne had advanced precisely the same reason for writing his essays in French. He was addressing a French and not a European audience. Rabelais had chosen the language that they despised as an instrument for the abuse of pedants and scholastics. In the Collége de France, founded in 1529, Francis I. had ordained that the lectures should be given in French and not in Latin. Peter Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée) Latinised his name and wrote in Latin, but this did not prevent him from bringing out a French Grammar in 1562.^[46] A cursory glance at the list of their publications would not lead us to suppose that Robert and Henry Estienne give much thought to their native language. Yet Robert Estienne published his Traicté de la Grammaire Française in 1569, and his son Henry gives us to understand that French was already ousting all other languages as a refined medium of expression. “It is proverbial,” he tells us, “that the Italians bleat, the Spaniards groan, the Germans howl, and the French sing.”^[47] In 1549 Joachim de Bellay had written his spirited Défense et illustration de la langue Française, in which he is at pains to prove “que la langue Françoise n’est pas si pauvre que beaucoup l’estiment.”^[48] In his intense desire that his countrymen shall write in French he advances the somewhat paradoxical argument that, in view of the present “literary competition,” French writings have the best chance of surviving. “Vrai est que le nom de cesluy cy (i.e. the author who writes in Latin) s’estend en plus de lieux; mais bien souvent comme la fumée qui sort grosse au commencement, peu à peu s’esvanouit parmy le grand espace de l’air, il se perd ou pour estre opprimé de l’infinie multitude des autres plus renommez, il demeure quasi en silence et obscurité.”^[49]

These objections to the encroachments of the Latin tongue were largely due to a patriotic desire to dethrone a language whose tendency was to usurp for itself all the high places in literature. Another argument on the same side, the plea of lack of time, had already begun to make itself heard. Merchants wanted to give their sons a good education, but, as they needed their assistance at an early age, grudged the inordinate length of time that had to be spent before good scholarship could be attained. “My father wished to see my learned education completed in one year,” says the school-boy in Cordier’s Colloquies, when told what a long business it is to learn Latin colloquially.^[50]

In Germany the vernacular was more backward in asserting itself. Luther’s sermons and hymns were a powerful factor in the development of German style, but the troubled state of the country during the following century hindered any progress towards the refinement of the language. The foundation of the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft, a kind of “academy” organised at Weimar in 1617 by Ludwig, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, marks the first effort to purify the German tongue and set it on a firm basis.

It must be confessed that the earlier humanists had not so much wished to impede the use of the vernaculars in Europe, as to add another language to those already in “vogue.” “Just as a gem set in a gold ring ornaments it rather than disfigures it,” wrote Laurentius Valla in 1450, “so our language (Latin), if added to the vernaculars of other nations, increases rather than diminishes their lustre.”^[51] Latin, though essentially a scholar’s tongue, was not to be treated as a classic language, but was to be placed on exactly the same footing as the vernaculars. To write like Cicero was not sufficient, the accomplished man of letters was also expected to talk like the characters of Terence and Plautus. If the Latin vocabulary of the golden age proved unequal to the heavier demands of sixteenth-century life, it had to be stretched and supplemented by Greek words. Above all, fluency was the great desideratum. In addition to the accuracy that he acquired by a patient study of grammar, of the moods and of the figures, a school-boy had to learn to chatter in Latin without any hesitation and with as much correctness of expression as could be obtained. Some idea of the task thus imposed on teachers may be realised by those who have experienced the difficulty of imparting a colloquial knowledge of French or German through the medium of class instruction. The humanist schools sought to solve the question by making it obligatory that boys should talk Latin and nothing else during their play-hours as well as in school; but this was very difficult to enforce, and, in spite of the usher with his tabella delatoria^[52] ready to report the slightest lapse into the mother-tongue, they drifted into the vernacular on every possible occasion. “Our boys,” wrote Cordier in 1530, always chatter French with their companions, or if they try to talk Latin, cannot keep it up for three consecutive words.”^[53]

It was to remedy this state of things that Cordier compiled, under the title De corrupti sermonis emendatione, a French-Latin manual of useful phrases, arranged under a variety of headings. The Latin is not always of the most academic type, but the sentences were doubtless useful to boys whose vocabulary was limited. Thus, in chap. v., under the heading Beneficiorum, officiorum, et gratificandi, we find “Tu mas faict ung grand plaisir,” Magno me affecisti beneficio. Vehementer me oblectasti. Pergratum mihi fecisti.” Chapter ix., under the heading Cedendi, concedendi, obsequendi, gives us a remark that only a very priggish boy could have used—“Je confesse que tu es meilleur grammarien que moy,” “Grammaticæ scientiam tibi concedo.” More in sympathy with school-boy nature is the joyful announcement, “Le régent nous a rien baillé à estudier,” “Præceptor nihil dedit nobis ad studiendum” (chap. xix.) That the most renowned schoolmaster of the sixteenth century should render “Je vouldroye que tu disse cela de bon coeur” by “Ego vellem quod tu istud diceres de bono corde” is startling to those who live in an age when the practice of talking Latin, entailing, as it must, much monkish inaccuracy, has fallen into disuse. Of more importance than this phrase-book were the Colloquies by various authors, so much used in schools, en late the end of the eighteenth century. These represented conversations between school-boys or young students, and were intended to be learned off by heart, and thus to supply the student with a stock of phrases suitable for use in every-day life. Occasionally, indeed, these dialogues outstripped themselves. Those of Erasmus are conversations of great literary and philosophic merit, and are on this account often unsuitable for school-boys. They were, however, extensively used, and, together with the dialogues of Vives,^[54] were recommended as an extra study in the Pansophic school. This is the only occasion on which Comenius alludes to the Colloquies. It is, indeed, surprising that he makes so little mention of what must have been one of the most important instruments in the process of teaching conversational Latin.

More practical than either of the above-mentioned works were Maturin Cordier’s dialogues.^[55] Cordier did not publish these till 1564, when he was quite an old man. The choice of words and phrases speaks of a long life spent in intelligent teaching, while the vivid descriptions of the life and conversation of the typical school-boy show that Cordier, kindly and observant, did not confine his interest in his pupils to the hours of class-instruction. The anxious parent or schoolmaster desirous to obtain the best Colloquies possible had indeed a long list to choose from. Sturm, to whom Latin conversation was the most important element in education, published his Neanisci in 1570, a set of Dialogues that no longer survives since the burning of the library at Strasburg.^[56] Even Mosellanus, Professor of Greek at Leipzig, published a Pedology^[57] in 1517, though some persuasion had been necessary before he consented to compose it. “For a long time,” he writes in his preface to John Polyander, headmaster of St. Thomas’ School, who had asked him to write some colloquies, “I resisted your request, as you know, partly because the importance of my occupations made me disdain this work, doubtless useful, but humble and almost mean in appearance, and partly because, not being used to it, I found it difficult to play the part suitably, since I saw that for this kind of comedy a man must become a child once more.”^[58] Happily for the Leipzig boys he overcame his contempt for school-book compilation, and has left us a book which, apart from its educational merits at the time, is now invaluable as a record of the student manners and morals of the sixteenth century.

Of a different character are the Colloquies of Schottenius, published in 1535.^[59] Schottenius was a private schoolmaster at Cologne, and his dialogues, though written in poor Latin, are more natural than the somewhat stilted phraseology of Mosellanus. The subject-matter also is different. Mosellanus treats of the poor student at his wits’ end for food and lodging. The pupils of Schottenius are the sons of rich citizens of Cologne. They eat and drink, and talk about their food on all occasions, now and then lapsing into expressions of disgust at the spy who carries word to the master that they are not talking Latin, or at the flogging that they know will follow this breach of the rules.

The story of the Colloquies does not end here. Louvain supplies its quotum in the Dialogues of Barland.^[60] These were partly composed for a gentleman of position who wished to renew his acquaintance with the Latin language, but were doubtless used in schools as well. Not being written expressly for boys, they deal with scenes outside school life, and in their pages innkeepers, canons, and merchants figure more largely than pedagogues.

In short, with the exception of England, there is scarcely a country in Europe but made some addition to the library of scholastic conversation. Even in the newly-conquered Mexico, the Colloquies established themselves as an adjunct of polite learning. Francis Cervantes Salazar, Professor of Rhetoric in the University of Mexico, published an edition of Vives’ Exercitationes in 1554, and added to them seven dialogues of his own composition treating of Mexico and its institutions.^[61] Though Colloquies in the strict sense were lacking, it must not be imagined that the English school-boy of the sixteenth century was without a convenient hand-book of phrases. The Vulgary of Stanbridg^[62] gives a list of useful sentences, and these the scholars were doubtless made to learn by heart with a view to using them in their daily conversation:—

Good morowe.	Bonum tibi hujus diei sit primordium.
I was set to schole when I was seven years olde.	Datus eram scholis cum septennis eram.
What part singest thou?	Qua voce tu cantas?
It is evyll with us when the master apposeth us.	Male nobiscum est cum præceptor examinat nos.

It is difficult to imagine a boy eulogising one of his “chums” with the remark, “He is born to drink well, both on the faders side and moders side”; but Stanbridge duly provides for the emergency—“Ex utraque parentum parte aptus ad bibendum nascitur.” Even for the sententious scholar proverbial expressions are given—

He is an evyl coke that cannot lycke his own lyppes.
Fatuus est coquus qui nescit lambere labra.

Of a more pretentious though less practical nature was the Vulgary of William Horman,^[63] headmaster of Eton. Horman cannot be congratulated on the selection of his phrases, which are arranged under thirty-seven heads. “Put not your trust in a bunglar of printer’s craft,” “Mancipem libraria officinæ ne sequaris,” is not good material for the daily conversation of a boy, and “Jacent hæc in caliganti vetustatis recessu” is but a clumsy translation of “These matters be out of my mynde.”

The foregoing pages give the reader some notion of the books that a good school might have possessed in the century preceding the publication of the Janua, and no commentary is necessary on the contrast that they bear to those of Comenius. Grammars are diffuse, complicated, and overburdened with unnecessary matter. Phrase-books are haphazard compilations often ill-suited to the end in view. In every case exclusive attention is paid to form; any actual information about the world in which he lives the scholar may pick up for himself. If he satisfies the spirit of pedantry by mastering the seven genders he is not prevented from using his powers of observation as much as he pleases; but he is not encouraged or helped to do so. The Colloquies, it is true, conveyed some definite information, but they were primarily intended as phrasebooks, and between them and the systematised exposition of nature in the Janua a very great gulf is fixed.

We should now wish to give a slight sketch, and it must necessarily be a very slight one, of the essays towards the creation and organisation of schools that form the historical background to the life efforts of Comenius. Ours will not be the received method of the comprehensive history of education. Of Rabelais, of Montaigne, of Erasmus, of Vives we shall make no mention. Like Ascham and Locke they dealt with the training of the “young gentleman,” and stand in no relation to schemes for the education of the people. For the same reason we shall pass over the great teaching corporation of the Jesuits. In many ways their methods of instruction have never been surpassed. For the organisation of boardingschools a body of priests starts with a very great advantage, and solves with comparative ease the grave questions of discipline that always confront the directors of such institutions. The usher, who is at the same time an acolyte, gains a degree of dignity to be obtained in no other way; and in addition to this the priest-usher of one year developes with ease into the trained teacher of the next. But though we may grant the Jesuits these and other merits, we must yet recognise that their mansion stands far away from the high-road of true educational development. Leaving out of sight the carefully planned and narrowing onesidedness of the training they supplied, we shall only lay stress on the fact that they excluded the people from any participation in it. Among the upper classes the supremacy of Mother Church was to be promoted by the teacher armed with the methods of the Jesuit school; among the ranks of labour by the preacher, whose task was rendered easier by the prevalence of superstition and the limitation of knowledge. Very different was the ideal of Comenius. The day school open to children of every rank; the large class managed by a single teacher as the only means by which such schools were economically possible; the introduction of every subject of instruction that could free the understanding from sophistic habits and teach men to look facts squarely in the face—these were the goals towards which his efforts strove, and his historical antecedents are bound up with the great democratic movement of which the Reformation was the most striking manifestation, with the names of Luther, Sturm, Calvin, and Knox.

The conscience had been installed by the Reformers as guide, and its counsellor, the understanding, needed education. Good schools, and nothing else, could remove monkish ignorance from the land; and this truth Luther was not slow to enunciate. In his stirring letter to the Magistrates of Germany,^[64] he exhorts them to erect and maintain Christian schools. “Is it not evident,” he cries, “that it is now possible to educate a boy in three years so that when he is fifteen or eighteen years old he shall know more than the whole sum of knowledge of the high schools and monasteries up to this time? Hitherto, in the high schools, and monasteries, men have only learned to be asses, blocks, and stones. They have studied for twenty and forty years and have learned neither Latin nor German.”^[65]

Schools must therefore be established for boys and girls, and these must be managed, not by the Church, but by the civil powers. As for the subjects taught, “Had I children,” says Luther, “I should make them learn not only languages and history, but also singing, music, and mathematics.” To the poor who objected that they needed the services of their children at home and could not afford to bring them up as gentlemen, he answers: “Let them go to school for one or two hours daily, and spend the rest of their time in learning a trade. These few hours they can easily spare; indeed, as it is, they waste far more time in playing at ball.” If parents refuse to send their children to school they must be made to do so; “I am of opinion that those in authority should compel their subjects to send their children to school.”^[66]

Luther did but formulate the charter of national education; its accomplishment he left to other hands, and it must be confessed that the schoolmasters of the Reformation carried out his recommendations in a very half-hearted way. In the then state of Europe, an approximation to the national school could scarcely have been expected, and we accordingly find that the leading reformed schools are of the “Grammar School” type, and intended for the middle class. It is their programme of instruction that is disappointing. A glance at the curriculum proposed by Sturm at Strasburg in 1539 will show that to read and speak Latin still remained the chief objects. It is not until a boy is sixteen and in the highest class that he commences such useful subjects as arithmetic, history, and geography.

While according to Sturm the object of instruction is to instil learning and piety, it is evident that learning is of little use unless we can express it fitly. Therefore, in their early youth children should be taught to speak well.^[67] Of the teachers no more is specified than that they should excel other men in learning and piety.^[68] Some corporal punishment is necessary, but masters who take actual pleasure in flogging must be removed from their office.^[69] Not all boys should be sent to school, but only those who are naturally fitted for the study of letters.^[70] A certain number of poor children should be educated, but these must be of exceptional ability, and are to be excluded from the school at once if they give any trouble.^[71] In each town there should be one school.^[72] In large cities such as Paris more are naturally required; but if possible the educational needs of a town should be met by one Gymnasium of the liberal arts.

This Gymnasium should be divided into nine classes, in each of which the boy remains one year. In this manner, if he goes to school in his sixth year, he will be able to proceed to a university course of five years at the age of sixteen.^[73] The removes from one class to another shall take place in October, and shall be made the occasion for an imposing ceremony at which the magistrates, clergymen, parents of boys and their friends should be present, and when prizes should be given to the first two boys in each class.^[74]

Sturm then proceeds to give a detailed programme for each class, commencing with the ninth or lowest.

In this class reading and writing are taught. Care must be taken that the pupils learn to form their letters as neatly as possible, and particular attention must be given to reading aloud. Boys must be shown how to moderate their voices and how to speak distinctly. If any time is left after these points have been mastered a few of the easiest of Cicero’s letters may be read.^[75]

In the eighth class the study of grammar is to be attacked; but no exceptions should be learned, and not more than two hours daily should be devoted to the elements. The rest of the day may be employed in reading Virgil’s Eclogues and Cicero’s Letters.^[76] In the seventh class the pupil may advance to grammar of a more advanced kind, and to syntax. One hour daily is enough for this. Another may be devoted to reading Cicero’s De Amicitia and De Senectute. During the third hour the poets, such as Virgil, Catullus, Tibullus, and Horace, the latter only in selections, may be read. The fourth hour can be employed in exercises of style.^[77]

In these three classes the memory is the chief thing to be exercised. Neither boys nor masters should work less than four or more than five hours daily in school.^[78] The boy who now enters the sixth class is nine or ten years old and has mastered the rudiments of Latin. Cæsar’s Commentaries, Plautus, Terence, and Sallust may be added to the authors already in hand. One hour daily to be given to style and composition.^[79]

In the next class Greek is commenced. After a few months’ preliminary grammar Aesop’s Fables and the Olynthiac Orations of Demosthenes may be attempted.^[80]

The fourth class adds Homer to the list, and introduces the pupil to the study of rhetoric.^[81]

In the third class dialectic may be commenced, and should be studied in Aristotle. Cicero’s Topics and Livy are also recommended.^[82]

In the second class the Dialogues of Plato and of Cicero may be read. The pupil has now got beyond the stage when he should spend time in learning rules. What he needs is practice.^[83]

The boy is now fifteen years old, and enters the first class. Here he reads Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, and should learn some arithmetic, geography, history, and the elements of astrology. In the classics he should continue to read Demosthenes, Homer, and Cicero.^[84]

Religious instruction is to be left for Saints’ days and Church festivals. Before a boy leaves the school he should be well acquainted with the history of Christ and the Apostles, and with the most important events in the Old Testament. In the first class the Catechism, and in the first two the elements of Hebrew grammar should be taught. The afternoon of the last day in each week should ‘be devoted to music, since this is an essential part of a liberal education.^[85]

Such was Sturm’s scheme, the model for most of the post-Reformation schools on the continent. Humanist to the back-bone he yet sees the need of real studies, of mathematics, of history, of music. But it is not for these that the school exists. Latin, either written or spoken, is the dish served up for each form. The tardy recommendation of “modern subjects” for the first class, barely saves Sturm from falling into the category of “gerundgrinders.”

Of equal celebrity with Sturm’s establishment, though even less “modern,” was the Latin school reorganised by Calvin at Geneva in 1559. Calvin took the Strasburg school as his model, and the differences to be found in the copy are typical of the man. Great stress is laid on discipline. The boys are to be conducted home from their classes by the masters of the four lowest forms.^[86] Each lesson, no matter what the subject be, must commence with prayer,^[87] and at every turn we are confronted with the order to repeat “L’Oraison Dominicale, la Confession de Foy qu'on appelle le Symbole et puis les dix commandemens de la Loy.” All the boys must learn how to sing, and a master especially appointed for the purpose must teach them how to intone the Psalms.^[88]

In the general organisation of the institution, we find one remarkable piece of common-sense. The Principal (who is controlled by the Rector of the University) is not to be the stern and academic personage generally connected with the term “headmaster.” “Que le principal, estant de moyen scavoir pour le moins, soit surtout d’un esprit debonnaire et non point de complexion rude ni apre; afin qu’il donne bon exemple aux enfants en toute sa vie, et aussi qu’il puisse porter tant plus doucement le travail de sa charge.”^[89] With its “debonnaire” headmaster and with Maturin Cordier, grown grey in the service of the young, to expound his Colloquies in person, the Genevan school must have been imbued with a genial spirit rare indeed in this age of pretentious grammarians and flogging pedagogues.

In the lowest of the eight classes, into which the school was divided, the boys learned their A B C. In the seventh, they read Latin and conjugate and decline “selon la formation qui en est dressée”; the sixth is chiefly devoted to Latin grammar, of a more advanced kind.

The fifth class brings the boys on to the rudiments of syntax and the Bucolics of Virgil. In the fourth, Cicero’s letters and some Ovid may be read, but the special task is the elements of Greek. In the next class Greek grammar is continued, and the Æneid and Cæsar’s Commentaries are read. On reading that in the second class the pupils, who have only recently commenced Greek, are to study Xenophon, Polybius, Homer, and Hesiod, one is inclined to wonder if this scheme could ever have been actually enforced. At the same time dialectic, rhetoric, and syllogisms are commenced, and St. Luke’s Gospel is read in Greek.

The list of subjects for the first class comprises the Categories, the Topics, and the Elenchi, as well as Cicero and Demosthenes.

We have thus the programme of an eight-class school dealing with nothing but grammar and the classics, relieved by prayers and psalm-singing. Luther’s mathematics and history have disappeared altogether.

In England the history of the Reformed Church is not bound up with educational progress to the same extent. Edward VI., it is true, founded a number of Grammar Schools, but with the exception of the regulations for the Cathedral Schools drawn up by Cranmer in his Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum,^[90] we meet with no very definite scheme for school organisation. Nor is the section in the Reformatio, “Of the schools to be attached to the Cathedrals,” of very great value to the historian of Education. No division of classes is given, and the whole plan is sketchy in comparison with those of Sturm, Calvin, and Buchanan.

A school is to be attached to each Cathedral, that boys who have learned the rudiments from a private tutor may be able to obtain instruction in public classes.^[91] These schools are primarily ecclesiastical in character, and exist “that the knowledge of God’s word may be maintained in the Church; which is scarcely possible without a knowledge of languages.”^[92]

The master is to be chosen by the Bishop, and must be a sincere believer in the Evangelic doctrine, of good character, learned in grammar and humane letters, and sufficiently strong to stand the strain of teaching. The school shall be visited once a year by the Ordinary, who shall expel any boys on whom he thinks education is wasted, shall substitute good school-books for inefficient ones, if necessary, and summon the master to appear before the dean if he has neglected his charge. As for the classdivisions and methods of teaching, these are left to the individual judgment of the master.^[93] Special attention is to be paid to the Catechism, and at the beginning and end of the day the boys are to repeat the twelve articles of the faith, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. Boys are not to be admitted before they are eight, or after they are fourteen years old, and each, on admission, must be able to read English, repeat the Catechism in Englis and write his own name. He must also possess an English New Testament.^[94] For further information as to the functions of the master and management of the boys, we are referred to the “Statutes of the Cathedral, if any such exist”—a vague statement that does not add much to our knowledge.

That so little attention should be given to education in the Reformatio is the more remarkable, because in other respects very minute instructions for the subject under discussion are forthcoming. In the section on “Matrimony,” for example, the writer even urges mothers to suckle their own children. It is only when he deals with schools that he leaves the organisation to the man in charge.

It must be confessed that the rules drawn up by Wolsey for his school at Ipswich,^[95] though prior to the Reformation, are better conceived, and present more points of interest.

To this establishment boys below a certain standard were not to be admitted. “If your chyld can red and wryte Latyn and Englyshe suffycyently, so that he be able to rede and wryte his owne lessons, then he shall be admitted into the schole for a scholer.” An attendance rule is enforced. “If he be absent six dayes, and in that meane season ye shewe not cause reasonable (reasonable cause is only sekeness), then his rowme to be voyde without he be admytted agayne and pay 4d.”

“Also ye shall fynde hym ware in the winter.”

“Also ye shall fynde hym convenyent bokes to his lernynge.”

The instructions to the masters embody a scheme for an eight-class school. In the lowest class especial attention is to be paid to articulation. In the second, Æsop and Terence may be read, and Lily’s gender rules learned; and so on with successive doses of classics throughout the remainder of the classes. Of special interest is the method indicated for reading one of Terence’s Comedies in the eighth or highest class. The teacher is to commence by prefacing a short account of the author’s life, genius, and manner of writing. He should then proceed to explain the pleasure and profit to be derived from reading a Comedy, and to discourse on the signification and etymology of the word. Next he must give a summary of the story, and an exact description of the metre. Then he should construe in the natural order, and, finally, may indicate to his pupils the more remarkable elegances of style.

Throughout the general scheme no mention is made of arithmetic, though a small concession is made to the mother-tongue. “Sometimes you ought, in the English language, to throw out a slight groundwork for an essay; but let it be somewhat that is elegant.”

In Scotland, religious and educational reform went hand in hand, and the necessity for the establishment of the parish schools, that have existed in that country for three hundred years, was definitely formulated by John Knox. Knox, unlike Luther, wished the school to be dependent on the Church and not on the civil magistrate; but in his desire to put education within the reach of the very poorest, he is essentially at one with the German reformer, and endorses the principle of compulsion. “Of necessitie we judge it, that everie severall Churche have a schoolmaister appointed, suche a one as is able, at least, to teache Grammar and the Latine toung, yf the Toun be of any reputation. Yf it be Upaland, whaire the people convene to doctrine but once in the weeke, then must either the reidar or the minister take cayre over the children and youth of the Parische, to instruct them in their first rudiments. “This must be carefully provideit, that no fader, of what estait or condition that ever he be, use his children at his awin fantasie, especiallie in thair youth-heade; but all must be compelled to bring up their children in learnyng and virtue.”^[96] In addition to these elementary schools, a secondary school was to be established “in everie notable toun,” while the three Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen completed the system. To smaller details, such as subjects of instruction or class-divisions, Knox did not condescend; but the deficiency is supplied by George Buchanan in his scheme for the “College of Humanite,” to be attached to the University of St. Andrews. In this scheme,^[97] written before 1567, Buchanan gives us a curriculum which is purely humanist and literary, and which was possibly modelled on Calvin’s school at Geneva.

The school is divided into six classes, divided in turn into decuriones, each in charge of a nomenclator. In the lowest class the boys begin to read and write Latin through the medium of Terence. “In thys classe thay salbe constraint to speik Latin; and dayly to compone sum smal thyng eftyr thair capacite.”

In the fifth and fourth classes they shall read Terence, Cicero, and Ovid. The third class commences Greek grammar, and the study of prosody. It also attacks Linacre’s Latin Grammar.

In the second and first classes Cicero’s Rhetoric and Orations, as well as the works of Virgil, Horace, Ovid, and Homer, are read. The boys are to be exercised every month in verse, oration, and declamation.

At the end of the year, in August, a kind of examination, consisting of theme-writing and disputations, is to be held, and then the school breaks up for holidays. “Heir efter because the maist part of the countrey will be glaid to se thair bairnis and mak thayme clathys, and provid to thair necessiteis the rest of the yeir, thair may be given sum vacans on to the first day of October, on the quhilk day al lessonis begynnis againe in al collegis. At the quhilk day naine salbe promovit to na classe without he be examinat be the principal and regentis committit thairto.”

Corporal punishment by inferior masters is forbidden. “Nor yit sal it be leful to the said pedagogis to ding thair desciples, but only to declair the fall to the principal or to thair regent, and refer the punition to thayme.”

Of a large portion of this, his academic ancestry, Comenius was unaware, though, as has been shown, he did his best to assimilate and to build upon the efforts of previous workers. It remains to mention three of his contemporaries who exercised an undoubted influence upon him. These are Wolfgang Ratke, John Valentine Andreæ, and John Henry Alsted.

At first sight it would appear as if Ratke (1571–1635) were the chief inspirer and forerunner of the Great Didactic, but a little investigation tends to weaken this presumption. It has already been shown that Comenius, while putting his ideas into shape at Lissa, did not know with any exactness in what the method of Ratke consisted, and that the secrecy maintained by the latter hindered his contemporaries from knowing what were the actual suggestions that he had formulated. It was possibly the eulogy of his method by the Giessen professors Helwig and Jung that had reached Comenius at Herborn, and it is more than probable that no more detailed account ever came into his hands. True, he lays stress on the fact that Ratke’s examples fired him, in the beginning, to attempt school-reformation, but he speaks with little appreciation of his system of teaching Latin; and, though he can scarcely have been ignorant of the general principles contained in them, does not appear to have been intimately acquainted with his works.^[98]

Far more immediate was the influence of Andreæ, to whose Utopia, Reipublicæ Christiano-Politica Descriptio, and the educational reforms described in it, Comenius’ debt is very great. Andreæ, imbued with the scientific spirit that was awakening throughout Europe, wished to add both mathematics and natural science to the ordinary humanist curriculum, and was undoubtedly a strong factor in the development of Comenius’ “modern side” tendencies.

But it is to John Henry Alsted, his friend and teacher at Herborn, that the debt is greatest. In his Encyclopædia of all the Sciences, published in 1630, Alsted included a very complete treatise on Education, and, though many of the propositions brought forward resemble those of Ratke, it does not appear that they were directly borrowed from him. Indeed, in the list of writers on Education at the beginning of Alsted’s Consilarius Academicus, Ratke’s name does not appear. Helwig’s Didactica, however, is mentioned, and it was doubtless through this work that Alsted was brought into contact with the educational scheme that was causing so much stir at Giessen. A few quotations from his maxims will suffice to show how great must have been the influence of this thinker, an influence that was personal as well as intellectual, as he made a point of maintaining the closest intercourse with his pupils.

1. Not more than one thing should be taught at a time.

2. Not more than one book should be used on one subject, and not more than one subject should be taught on one day.

3. Everything should be taught through the medium of what is more familiar.

4. All superfluity should be avoided.

5. All study should be mapped out in fixed periods.

6. All rules should be as short as possible.

7. Everything should be taught without severity, though discipline must be maintained.

8. Corporal punishment should be reserved for moral offences, and never inflicted for lack of industry.

9. Authority should not be allowed to prejudice the mind against the facts gleaned from experience; nor should custom or preconceived opinion prevail.

10. The constructions of a new language should first be explained in the vernacular.

11. No language should be taught by means of grammar.

12. Grammatical terms should be the same in all languages.^[99] In restricting the use of the vernacular school to girls, and to boys destined for manual labour,^[100] Alsted was less thorough than his disciple; but in duly valuing the personal influence of the individual teacher, he shows, on this point at least, the sounder judgment. “The teacher,” he says,^[101] “should be a skilled reader of character, that he may be able to classify the dispositions of his pupils. . . . Unless he pays great attention to differences of disposition he will but waste all the effort that he expends in teaching.” This is the one point of which Comenius sometimes appears to lose sight. He relies too much on the class-book and too little on the class-master. The class becomes a machine, flawless it is true, but lacking spontaneity-the spontaneity that a teacher can only supply if left free to employ his trained faculties according to the dictates of a trained judgment.

The foregoing sketch, brief though it is, will suffice to show in outline the position in which Comenius found the problem of education. His contribution to the material of the school-room we have already discussed in treating of his Janua Linguarum, his grammars, his dictionaries, and his other class-books; while the philosophical principles on which his educational precepts are based will be found in the Great Didactic. It remains to give, as a pendant to the school programmes of Sturm and Calvin, the scheme, only half carried out, that he drew up for the Pansophic school at Saros-Patak; a scheme which is none the less interesting because it differs in certain details of classification from that contained in the Great Didactic.

The most cursory glance at the Patak scheme will suffice to show that Comenius is more than two centuries ahead of his immediate predecessors. His programme is essentially modern, and, even at the present day, is extremely suggestive for those engaged in the practical work of school organisation.

The Outline of the Pansophic School^[102] is divided into two parts. The first prescribes general rules, while the second takes the classes one by one and gives a detailed description of each. To a large extent Part I. does but reiterate the general positions with which the reader is already familiar. The scheme of instruction is to be universal, and as much attention is to be paid to the formation of character as to the instilling of knowledge. Boys are to be urged to read for themselves out of school-hours, and among the books suggested for private study are the Dialogues of Erasmus and of Vives, since these are easy and require little explanation.

Great care must be taken not to overstrain the minds of the pupils. After each hour’s work they are to be allowed half an hour’s play, and after dinner and supper should rest for an hour at least. At night eight hours, from eight in the evening till four in the morning, must be set aside for sleep, and twice in the week, on Wednesday and on Sunday, a half-holiday is to be given. At Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide the boys may have a fortnight’s holiday, and in the Autumn a full month.

Comenius begs the reader not to consider this an excessive allowance of holidays. There still remain fortytwo weeks with thirty school-hours in each. This makes a total of 1260 hours, and by employing these rationally an immense amount of knowledge may be acquired in seven years. The general sketch concludes with a time-table to be employed throughout the whole school.

Morning

(i) 6–7. Hymns, Bible-reading, and prayers.

(ii) 7.30–8.30. 139 The principal subject of the class, theoretically treated.

(iii) 9–10. The same, treated practically.

Afternoon

(i) 1–2. Music, or some other pleasant mathematical exercise.

(ii) 2.30–3.30. History.

(iii) 4–5. Exercises of style.

 

In Part II. we find a detailed account of the seven classes.

Class I.—The Vestibular

1. Over the door is placed the inscription:

“Let no one enter who cannot read.”

2. The walls of the class-room are to appeal to the senses of the pupils, and should be covered with diagrams, illustrating the subjects taught in the class. These diagrams are to represent: (1) The Latin alphabet, in small and in capital letters. (2 and 3) Types of the declensions and conjugations. The beginner is to be allowed to look at these while repeating his grammar lesson, until he knows them so well that it is less trouble to repeat from memory than to tire his eyes by looking at the wall. (4) Short maxims containing the most important rules of conduct, which will thus be impressed on the memory of the class.

3. The religious exercises consist of the heads of the Catechism, together with a few short hymns and prayers.

4. The class-book is to be the Vestibulum, containing the chief matters on which the constitution of the universe hinges, the roots of the words on which language is dependent, the fundamental principles of intelligence, and a course of Moral Philosophy suited to children.

5. In mathematics the boys learn the elements of arithmetic; but no geometry, except the difference between a point and a line. In music they may learn the scale and the keys.

6. No special history-book is provided for this class. The Vestibulum is sufficient.

7. Exercises in style will here consist in the explanation of words, in translation and re-translation, and, near the end of the course, in joining the words together into sentences.

8. The only accessory studies are good hand-writing and drawing.

9. Those games to be allowed that are suitable to the boys’ age and nationality.

10. In place of a dramatic performance at the end of a term there is to be an examination, in which each boy is to challenge another, and to ask and answer questions on the subject-matter of the Vestibulum.

Class II.—The Janual

1. Over the door is the inscription:

“Let no one enter who is ignorant of mathematics,”

that is to say, the elements are supposed to be known.

2. On the walls are to be pictures of the more important objects mentioned in the Janua (if the things themselves cannot be procured). On one wall may be drawn those that are natural, on another those that are artificial. On the other two walls grammatical rules may be written.

3. The Catechism is to be thoroughly learned.

4. The class-books are the Janua, the Latin Vernacular dictionary, and the Janual grammar.

5. In arithmetic, addition and subtraction are to be taught; in geometry, plane figures. The music is to be rather more advanced than in the Vestibular class.

6. In history no book other than the Janua is to be used.

7. Exercises of style will deal with the structure of phrases, sentences, and periods.

8. No accessory study is prescribed for the boys in this class, as they have already enough to do. It will be sufficient if they learn with exactness the names and natures of external objects.

9. Games to be chosen by the master.

10. In place of a dramatic performance, the boys may ask one another hard questions on the subject-matter of the Janua.

Class III.—The Atrial

1. Over the door is to be written:

“Let no one enter who cannot speak.”

2. The walls are to be covered with ingenious diagrams, and with select maxims relative to the adornment of speech.

3. In this class the boys should begin to read the Bible; but not as it stands. An abridged form, suited to their intelligence, should be given to them, and a portion of this must be expounded daily.

4. The class-books are the Atrium of the Latin language, the Grammar of Elegance, and the Latin-Latin dictionary, especially written for the Atrium.

5. In arithmetic the boys may learn multiplication, division, and the table of Cebes. In geometry, solid figures. In music, harmony. The rudiments of Latin verse may be taught, together with selections from Cato, Ovid, and Tibullus.

6. The history for this class is the famous deeds of the Biblical narrative.

7. Exercises of style consist in making paraphrases and in transposing sentences. No boy may attempt to write verse until he has been in the class eleven months.

8. It will be sufficient accessory study if the boys read attentively and imitate what they read. They should be able to read any Latin author, and to talk Latin fluently by the time they leave this class.

9. Recreation to be taken at fixed hours.

10. For dramatic purposes the Schola Ludus is provided.

Class IV.—The Philosophical

1. Over the door is to be written:

“Let no one ignorant of history enter here.”

2. The walls should be adorned with pictures illustrative of arithmetic, geometry, and statics. Adjoining the class-room there should be a dissecting-room and a chemical laboratory.

3. A special collection of hymns and psalms must be arranged for this class; also an epitome of the New Testament, which should comprise a continuous life of Christ and His Apostles compiled from the four Gospels.

4. The class-book is to be the Palace of Wisdom, in which natural phenomena should be described in such a manner as to show how they came into existence.

5. In mathematics the rules of proportion should be learned, and trigonometry and the elements of statics may be commenced. The pupils should now learn instrumental music.

6. The history for this class should be natural history, and may be learned from Pliny and Ælian.

7. Exercises of style may be discontinued, and the time thus gained devoted to the study of Greek.

8. The accessory study is Greek. This is a difficult subject, but need not cause the pupil much alarm for three reasons: (a) No learned man is expected to have an exhaustive knowledge of Greek. (b) It is comparatively easy to learn enough to read the New Testament, and this is the chief utility of the study. (c) Difficulties must be surmounted by a good method, so that in one year, by employing the last hour on four afternoons in the week, the intricacies of the language may be overcome. In addition to the New Testament, suitable selections from Greek authors may be read.

9. In this class serious matters and not games claim the attention of the pupils; but fitting recreation must not be neglected.

10. For dramatic performances, plays that deal with philosophy and philosophers may be acted.

Class V.—The Logical

1. Over the door is the inscription:

“Let no one enter who is ignorant of natural philosophy.”

2. The walls are to be covered with the rules of logic and ingenious devices of a similar nature.

3. Religious instruction comprises hymns, psalms, and prayers. A Bible manual also, called the Gate of the Sanctuary, is to be placed in the pupils’ hands. This is to contain the whole of Scripture history in the words of the Bible, but so digested that it may be read in one year.

4. The class-book is a work dealing with the human mind, and consisting of three parts, which are respectively: (a) Pansophic, treating of the things that have been discovered and that should be discovered by man. (b) A formal logic, in which the whole process of reasoning should be explained, and a description given of the analytic, synthetic, and syncritic methods. (c) A repertory of all the problems that can be suggested by the mind.

5. For the afternoon the following studies are advised:

In arithmetic, the rules of partnership, alligation, and position.^[103]

In geometry, mensuration of heights, distances, and plane surfaces.

In geography and astronomy, the general description of the earth and the heavens.

In optics, the most important facts.

 

6. The history studied should be that of mechanical inventions.

7. With a view to style, historians like Cornelius Nepos, Curtius, Cæsar, and Justin may be read.

8. As an accessory study, attention may be devoted to Greek. Isocrates and Plutarch are recommended.

9. By way of recreation the pupils are advised to ask one another hard questions.

10. A dramatic performance, illustrating the contest between grammar, logic, and metaphysic, and their final reconciliation, may complete the year’s work.

Class VI.—The Political

I. Over the door is the inscription:

“Let no one enter who cannot reason.”

2. The pictures on the wall should illustrate the necessity of order and limitation. With this in view, the human body may be represented in four ways: (a) Lacking certain limbs. (b) Supplied with superfluous limbs. (c) With its limbs wrongly put together. (d) A perfect body, properly constructed and shapely.

3. In theology the whole Bible is to be read.

4. The class-book is to be a work dealing with human society and the laws of economics.

5. In arithmetic Logistic, and in geometry Architectonic may be learned. Special attention should be given to geography and to that part of astronomy that deals with the theory of the planets and the laws of eclipses.

6. The history should be that of ritual.

7. For the sake of style Sallust, Cicero, Virgil, and Horace may be read.

Compositions in verse are not to be insisted upon. They are extremely difficult, aptitude for them is rare, and the time devoted to them might be more profitably employed on other things. But if a boy shows very great aptitude for verse-writing, he is not to be dissuaded from it.

8. As an accessory study, Thucydides or Hesiod may be read.

9. Suitable recreations may be chosen according to inclination. They should not be dangerous or excessive.

10. A dramatic performance may be given representing the degeneration of Solomon and his moral downfall.

Class VII.—The Theological

1. Inscription over the door:

“Let no one enter who is irreligious.”

2. The walls should be covered with mystic symbols illustrating the wisdom hidden in the Scriptures. On one wall diagrams of Hebrew grammar may be placed.

3. The most devotional psalms and hymns of the Church may be used, as well as prayers of a special nature taken from the Scriptures and from the works of the most inspired theologians and of the sainted martyrs. In addition a compendium of Christian beliefs, duties, and hopes, written in the phraseology of the Bible, should be read daily.

4. The class-book should be a work dealing with the last stage of wisdom on earth, that is to say, the communion of souls with God, and should consist of three parts:

(a) The ascent of the mind to God. In this a survey should be made of the universe, preserving the order of the Janua, and with regard to each fact should be pointed out what God tells us about it in the Scriptures, and how the heaven and the earth and all that in them is tell the glory of God.

(b) The formal part should consist of a key to God’s Book; that is to say, practical rules for reading the Scriptures with profit and for duly considering the works of God. Here a three-fold commentary should be supplied: (1) from Scripture itself; (2) from reason; (3) from sense-experience.

(c) The third part should be a Repertory of Theology, giving a detailed account of the mysteries of Salvation.

5. In arithmetic the sacred and mystic numbers that occur in the Scriptures should be studied; also sacred architecture, as exemplified by Noah’s ark, the Tabernacle, and the Temple.

6. Universal history should be studied, and in particular the history of the Church, for whose sake the world exists.

7. In this class some training should be given in oratory. The future minister must learn how to address a congregation, and should be taught the laws of sacred oratory. The future politician must be taught how to appeal to the reason of his hearers.

8. The accessory study is Hebrew, which must be studied in such a way that before the end of the year the pupil shall be able to read and understand the original text of the Scriptures.

9. Recreation is to be allowed, but must not interfere with the theological studies.

10. Religious plays dealing with the character of, say Abraham or David, may be acted.

 

Thus ends the detailed description of the Pansophic school. A few general remarks follow. Each class is to have its own master, and in addition there is to be a headmaster, whose duty it will be to enter each class daily, superintend the school, and take the place of any master who may be kept away by illness. The headmaster must be well paid, as indeed should the class-masters, since this is the only way to make them contented with their positions and prevent them from seeking more remunerative work in some other profession.

Comenius then pertinently asks, “Where is the money to come from?” It is not his business, he replies, to answer this question, but he suggests that citizens should give a fixed proportion of their incomes for educational, as they already do for charitable purposes, and that it is the duty of princes and of wealthy citizens to assist schools in every way.

Comenius’ title to fame as an educationist rests on the discovery, application, and embodiment in a largeminded treatise on Didactic, of the fundamental principles:

I. That all instruction must be carefully graded.

II. That in imparting knowledge to children the teacher must, to the utmost, appeal to the faculties of sense-perception.

If the reader wishes to realise with any force to what extent the gradation and proper articulation of studies was neglected, or rather unthought of, when Comenius was writing, let him read a few chapters in the Great Didactic and then turn to Milton’s tractate Of Education. In the one he will find a rigorous distribution of the subject-matter of instruction, based on an analysis of the capacity and age of the scholar and on a common-sense estimate of the difficulty of the subject. In the other he meets with breadth of mind, it is true, but with no scheme of gradation whatever. Subjects and authors are dumped down in a heap and are declared suitable for educational purposes, but no effort is made to sort them.

Now to construct a solid pile of subjects of instruction that are really suitable instruments with which to educate the young is no easy task; but a greater difficulty arises when we try to pull the large heap to pieces, and to arrange it in nine or ten smaller heaps, carefully graduated as regards quantity and quality. Both these tasks Comenius undertook and performed; the first with as great success as could possibly be expected, if we consider how ill the several branches of knowledge were then defined, and the second in a manner which, even at the present day, can excite nothing but admiration.

By Comenius the principle of gradation is carried into every department of school management, the result being a careful grading of schools, of boys, and of books. The twenty-four years to be devoted to education are divided into four periods of six years, and to each of these a school is assigned. The first of these, the Mother School, was a totally new conception, and emphasises the necessity of commencing education from the moment the child leaves the cradle. The next stage, the Vernacular School, lays the foundation of all that is to follow, with the exception of Latin, and grounds the boy thoroughly in one or two modern languages. The next stage, the Latin School, introduces the boy to the classics, continues the modern subjects commenced in the Vernacular School, and corresponds to a present-day secondary school with a good modern side. Finally the University gives the scholar the opportunity of thoroughly mastering any one of the branches of knowledge that he has already learned superficially and in outline.

In the Vernacular and in the Latin School the proper gradation and classification of the boys is attained by a division into six classes, in each of which the scholars must remain one year, and which they must not leave until their fitness to proceed to the next class has been tested by an examination. Throughout the twelve classes of these two schools a properly graded series of schoolbooks is supplied, all, from the lowest to the highest, treating of the same subjects, namely, the entire world of phenomena, and leading the scholar from the rudimentary facts and bare nomenclature acquired in the Mother School to the detailed exposition of them in Latin that awaits him in the higher classes of the Latin School.

But it may be asked, Does Comenius supply a graded method? Is there any essential difference in his manner of presenting knowledge to his most elementary and to his most advanced pupils?

While it is evident that his graded classes and graded books ensured that the beginner should have the subjectmatter of his studies presented to him more simply and with less complications than to the advanced pupil, it must be confessed that the same method seems intended to run through all the classes, from the lowest to the highest. Of this method the basis is the presentation of information to the senses first, and then, but not till then, to the understanding. Appeal, that is to say, is to be made to the sight and to the touch, and models or pictures of everything that has to be learned should be given to the pupil.

To Comenius’ eternal credit be it that he was the first to realise that the object-lesson was the only way in which any impression could be made on the half-developed thinking powers of the child, that he practically anticipated Pestalozzi, and paved the way for Froebel. Unfortunately he stops here. Up to the highest classes of the Pansophic school, the pictures on the wall and the models in front of the pupils are the prime aids to the teacher in his task of instilling knowledge. Visualisation in all things is the watchword of the Comenian method.

Now while it is evident that this factor is of great value at every stage of education, it is also evident that, at a certain stage, it becomes of secondary importance. By means of pictures, models, and what-not, a boy’s progress in acquiring the nomenclature of, let us say a language, may be immensely facilitated; but, when he reaches a certain point, when he is beginning to grapple with syntax, with analysis, with the various modal forms, or, in algebra, when he is attacking the mysteries of quadratic equations, a completely new element is introduced. Visualisation and object-lessons barely touch the fringe of the teacher’s difficulties. Between the ages of twelve and sixteen, when the boy is learning, not to see, but to think, not to exercise his sense of touch, but to draw conclusions, the schoolmaster, even at the present day, receives but slight assistance from systems of psychology, systems which, until recently, have consisted of little more than a somewhat arbitrary analysis and classification of states of consciousness. It can therefore scarcely be called weakness, on the part of Comenius, if he failed to solve the problem that still waits to be attacked, in the laboratory, by the special application to psychology of physiological methods, and, in the class-room, by the patient observation of teachers who are anxious to educate rather than to instruct.

It was his lack of a firm psychological basis and his belief that at sixteen a boy might be subjected to much the same educational discipline as a child of six that led Comenius so entirely to overlook the great gulf that exists between the two ages, and made him so absolutely certain that he had, once and for all, solved the problem of education.

Into this train of thought he was to a large extent led by his habit of appealing to nature as a standard and of taking natural processes as models. It is true that to him Nature and the Deity are almost synonymous terms. “By the voice of Nature we understand the universal providence of God, which never ceases to work all in all things; that is to say, which continually developes each creature for the end to which it has been destined.” But, in practice, Nature comes to mean the external processes that are to be seen in the growth of a tree or of an animal, and here it is that the fatal error is introduced, the error into which other writers on education have fallen, as well as Comenius. As long as the child is in the stage of “nutrition and growth,” as long as his education consists of the training of organs of sense-perception, so long the appeal to nature is justified. But when a higher stage is reached, when the child becomes thoroughly self-conscious, a very different element is introduced. The work of the true educationist, far from furthering natural tendencies, frequently consists in counteracting them, in making a careful selection of qualities, in developing some and in hindering the growth of others, and this in accordance with an ideal to be found nowhere but in the mind, and to which Nature, in the ordinary sense of the word, has nothing to say. Here again we may reasonably excuse Comenius for going astray, when so recent a writer as Mr. Herbert Spencer has committed himself to the statement that “Nature illustrates to us in the simplest way the true theory and practice of moral discipline!”

For the rest, it is to practical schoolmasters that Comenius, writing as a practical schoolmaster, particularly recommends himself. If his work is not overloaded with psychology, it appeals all the more to men whose habit of mind leads them to action rather than to the analysis of mental phenomena. While there is scarcely a problem connected with education that is not discussed in the Great Didactic, the work never becomes academic, and the author never forgets that he is writing for the teacher in his class-room and not for the philosopher in his study.

 

1. ‘La vie privée d’autrefois; Écoles et Collèges, par Alfred Franklin,’ p. 153.
2. ‘Prælegebatur Ebrardus et Joannes de Garlandia. Vita Erasmi. Erasmo auctore.’
3. ‘Les colloques scolaires du seizième siècle. Massebieau, p. 21.
4. ‘Libri Ebrardi Greciste.’ (Adv. Lib. Edin. No date or place.) Massebieau quotes an edition of 1487.
5. Preface ad init.
6. It contains “retrogradi Versus,” such as:—

   Parisiis proba non pugnat gens parcere clero
   Provida, non curat perfidiam sua lex.
   Lex sua perfidiam curat, non provida clero
   Parcere, gens pugnat non proba Parisiis.
   Wright’s Ed. p. 41.

7. ‘Jo. Lodovici Vivis Valentini Opera, in duos distincta tomos. Basileæ, 1555’, i. p. 7.
8. ‘A Grammar and Vocabulary,’ by John Balbi, printed by Gutenberg in 1460.
9. ‘An die Rathsherren aller Städte deutschen Landes, dass sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen.’
10. Ibid.
11. I quote from the Paris edition of 1643.
12. Qui non recte Grammaticen didicerunt, postea cæteras disciplinas audacissime corrumpunt.
13. Opera, vol. i. p. 5. Buchanan also recommended Linacre’s Grammar, and brought out a Latin translation of it, printed at Paris in 1533.
14. Ibid. p. 10.
15. His full name was Joannes Despauterius Ninivita. He flourished in Holland, 1460–1520.
16. I have before me a copy entitled, ‘Joan. Despauterii Ninivitæ, Grammaticæ Institutiones, Lib. vii. Docte et concinne in compendium redacti, per Sebastianum Duisburgensem, multo quam antea castigatiores. Edinburgi. Sumptibus Hæredum Andreæ Hart. Julii 25. Anno 1637.’
17. The following are good examples, taken from the rules for the 3rd declension:—

    Tertia dat varios fines, dans is genitivo,
    Græcorum patrius vel in os, vel in i vel in us fit.

    or

    Em dat et im buris, pelvis cum clave securis
    Et puppis, turris, restis: sic febris, æqualis,
    Sic pestis, navis, tor quis conjunge bipennim.

18. ‘Rudimenta Grammatices in Gratiam juventutis Scotiæ conscripta. Edinburgi. Excudebat Joannes Wrentoun. 1633.’
    Quid adfers de genere? Genera sunt numero septem: Masculinum, Fœmininum, Neutrum, Commune duum, Commune trium, Promiscuum, et Dubium.
19. ‘A short introduction of Grammar generally to be used, compyled and set forth for the bringing up of all those that intend to attayne the knowledge of the Latin tongue.’ London, 1577.
20. ‘Absolutissimus de octo Orationis partium constructione libellus, nuperrime recognitus. Argentorati, 1515.’
21. Appendix to Wolsey’s Rudimenta Grammatices, 1529.
22. ‘Pervula. Printed at Westmynstre in Caxton’s house by Wynkyn de Worde.’
23. ‘Lac Puerorum. M. Holti. Mylke for children. 1510. Emprynted at London by Wynkyn de Worde in Flete Strete in the sygne of the sonne.’
24. ‘Linacri Progymnasmata grammatices vulgaria. Emprynted in London on the sowth syde of paulys by John Rastell, with the privylege of our most suverayn lord Kyng Henry the VIII. graunted to the compyler thereof.’
25. ‘Rudimenta grammatices et docendi methodus, non tam scholæ Gypsuichianæ per reverendissimum Thomam Cardinalem Eborem feliciter institutæ quam omnibus aliis totius Angliæ scholis præscripta. Peter Treveri. 1529.’
26. ‘Rudimenta puerorum in artem grammaticam per Joannem Vaus Scotum.’ Paris, 1528.
27. ‘Notes on a leaf of an early Scottish Donatus, printed in Black Letter. By E. Gordon Duff, Edinburgh Bibliographical Society. Session 1892–93.’
28. It contains a large number of exercises on the various rules given. De Morgan says of it: “For plain common-sense well expressed, Tonstall’s book has never been surpassed in the subject of which it treats.”—Arithmetical Books, p. 13.
29. ‘De arte supputandi, Libri quattuor, hactenus in Germania nusquam ita impressi. Argentorati, 1544.’
30. Nec abest longe a perfectione, qui ejus præcepta intelligit.—Sturm’s preface.
31. Cujus usus ita necesse est ut videamur absque ea ne quot digitos quidem habeamus in manibus, aut quot oculis intueamur scire posse.—‘De Liberis recte instituendis Liber. Jacobi Sadoleti Opera. Moguntiæ, 1607,’ p. 547.
32. Preface to The Grounde of Artes.
33. ‘Petri Rami Arithmetices Libri duo, et Algebræ totidem.’ De Morgan says this was published in 1584.
34. ‘Petri Rami Professoris Regii, Præfationes, etc. Parisiis, 1577. P. 204. Petrus Ramus, Joan. Dio Londinensi.’ “Itaque gemino pignore amoris erga me tui obligatus mihi videbor, si hoc utrumque abs te impetravero, et qui sunt e veteribus in bibliotheca tua scriptores mathematici, et quinam in vestris gymnasiis, quaque authoritate mathematicas artes profiteantur.”
35. Christopheri Clavii Bambergensis e Societate Jesu, Epitome Arithmeticæ practicæ,’ 1st ed. 1583 (the edition before me is of 1607).
36. ‘Methodus admirandorum Mathematicorum, novem libris exhibens universam Mathesin.’ Herborn, 1641. (De Morgan.)
37. Ascham, Scholemaster.
38. ‘De corrupti sermonis emendatione.’ Paris, 1530. Preface.
39. Scholemaster, Bk. ii.
40. Machyn’s Diary, 1563.
41. According to Anthony à Wood, Levins taught a Grammar School.
42. A quotation from this dictionary may be of interest. It is arranged, not alphabetically, but in accordance with the termination of the words, forming in fact a kind of rhyming dictionary; e.g.

    Coste The frost A ghoste An hoste of men An hoste

    Sumptus -us Gelu -us; hoc Erigus Spiritus -us. Larva Exercitus Hospes, hospitis, etc.

43. ‘Promptuorium parvulorum sive clericorum. Auctore fratre Galfrido Grammatico dicto. 1440.’ A short extract will indicate its nature:—

    Byryele Byrthe Byschelle Bysshope

    Sepulchrum, tumulus Nativitus, partus Modius, chorus, busellus Episcopus, antistes, pontifex, presul

44. Nulla pene natio est quæ non eam artem vulgi lingua scriptam habeat. De arte supputandi.—De arte supputandi, Preface.
45. Et quia meus hic Præceptor non e Græcia, non ex Italia accersitus est, sed in hac barbara insula natus, et domi intra parietes meos altus est, propterea barbare hoc est Anglice loquitur. . . . Nostris non alienis, Anglis non exteris scribo.—Letter to Sturm.
46. Published by André Weckel at Paris.
47. Projet du livre intitulé ‘De la precellence du langage Français. Par Henri Estienne. Paris, 1579. Preface.’ “Balant Itali, gemunt Hispani, ululant Germani, cantant Galli.”
48. Pt. i. ch. 4.
49. Pt. ii. ch. 12.
50. Cordier, Colloquies, iii. 31.
51. Laurentii Vallensis, Elegantia Lingua Latinæ, preface.
52. Pueri . . . tabellis illis delatoriis ad Latinæ linguæ observationem in Gymnasiis adiguntur.—‘Commentarius puerorum de quotidiano sermone, qui prius Liber de corrupti sermonis emendatione dicebatur. Maturino Corderio autore. Parisiis, 1541 (1st ed. in 1530). Preface.
53. Nostros autem cum suis condiscipulis aut Gallice semper garrire, aut si Latine loqui tentarent non posse tria verba Latina continuare.—‘Commentarius puerorum,’ etc.
54. Linguæ Latinœ exercitatio. Pub. in 1539.
55. ‘Colloquiorum scholasticorum libri quattuor ad pueros in sermone Latino paulatim exercendos Maturini Corderii. Lugduni excudebat Thomas de Straton. 1564.’
56. L. Massebieau, ‘Les Colloques Scolaires du seizième Siècle et leurs Auteurs,’ p. 61.
57. ‘Pædologia Petri Mosellani Protegensis, jam denuo in puerorum usum diligenter ædita et recognita. Moguntiæ, 1521.’ (Mass. p. 81.)
58. Pædologia. Preface; quoted by Massebieau, p. 83.
59. ‘Colloquia moralia ex variis philosophorum dictis condita, per quæ stulta juventus sapere possit et eam prosequi prudentiam quam senibus contulit longævitas’ (Mass. p. 116).
60. ‘Dialogi xlii. per Hadrianum Barlandium, ad profligandam e scholis barbariem utilissimi. Coloniæ apud Eucharium, anno 1530.’ (Mass.)
61. ‘Tres dialogos Latinos que Francisco Cervantes Salazar escribió è imprimió en México en dicho año. Los reimprime, con traducion Castellana y notas, Joaquim Garcia Icazbalceta.’ Mexico, 1875. (Mass.)
62. The copy in the British Museum is bound up with the ‘Accidentia ex Stanbrigiana editione, nuper recognita et castigata lima Roberti Whitintoni Lichfeldensis. Wynkyn de Worde. 1528.’
63. ‘Vulgaria viri doctissimi Guil. Hormani Cæsariburgensis. Apud inclytam Londini urbem, 1519.’
64. ‘An die Rathsherren aller Städte deutschen Landes, dasz sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen,’ 1524.
65. ‘An die Rathsherren aller Städte deutschen Landes, dasz sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen,’ 1524.
66. ‘Ein Sermon oder Predigt, dasz man solle Kinder zur Schule halten’—“Ich halt aber, dasz auch die Obrigkeit hie schuldig sei, die Unterthanen zu zwingen, ihre Kinder zur Schule zu halten.”
67. ‘De Literarum Ludis recte aperiendis Liber Joannis Sturmii, emendatus et auctus ab ipso Auctore. Argentorati, 1557’ (1st ed. 1538), p. 4.
68. Ibid. p. 5.
69. Amovendi a literariis ludis sunt quicunque ex verberibus voluptatem capiunt.
70. Ibid. p. 9.
71. Ibid. p. 12.
72. Ibid. p. 14.
73. Ibid. p. 16.
74. Ibid. p. 18.
75. ‘De Literarum Ludis recte aperiendis Libe Joannis Sturmii,’ etc., p. 19.
76. Ibid. p. 20.
77. Ibid. p. 20.
78. Ibid. p. 22.
79. Ibid. p. 23.
80. Ibid. p. 25.
81. Ibid. p. 26.
82. Ibid. p. 30.
83. Ibid. p. 31.
84. ‘De Literarum Ludis recte aperiendis Liber Joannis Sturmii, etc., p. 32.
85. Ibid. p. 34
86. ‘L’Ordre des Escholes de Genève reveu et augmenté par ordonnance de nos très honnorez Seigneurs, Syndiques, et Conseil, l’an 1576,’ sec. 17.
87. Ibid. sec. 16.
88. ‘L’Ordre des Escholes de Genève,’ etc., sec. 18.
89. Ibid. sec. 7.
90. ‘Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, ex authoritate primum Regis Henrici 8 inchoata; deinde per Regem Edovardum 6 provecta adauctaque in hunc modum, atque nunc ad pleniorem ipsarum reformationem in lucem edita auctore T. Cranmero.’
91. Ibid. p. 110.
92. Ibid. p. 109.
93. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, p. 111.
94. Ibid. p. 112.
95. Rudimenta Grammatices.
96. Buke of Discipline. Circ. 1560.
97. ‘Mr. George Buchanan’s Opinion anent the Reformation of the Universitie of St. Andros.’ (Vernacular writings of George Buchanan, edited by P. Hume Brown, 1891–92. Scottish Text Society.)
98. The great similarity between the method of Ratke and of Comenius is well exemplified by the programme submitted by Ratke to a commission at Jena in 1629. 1. Everything is to be preceded by prayer. 2. Everything according to the method of nature. 3. Not more than one thing at a time. 4. And that frequently. 5. Everything first in the vernacular. 6. From the vernacular into other languages. 7. Everything without compulsion. 8. All subjects should be taught on principles that are similar and harmonious. 9. All effort should be on the side of the teacher. 10. The pupil should maintain a Pythagorean silence, and should not ask questions or talk while the lesson is proceeding. 11. Each language should be taught in accordance with its own genius. 12. The pupil should approach everything with an unbiassed mind. 13. Not more than one teacher in one subject. 14. Form should not precede matter. 15. Education should begin with religion. 16. All the young should be educated. 17. All certainty should be obtained through induction and experiment. 18. Nothing but the subject actually before the class should be discussed. 19. All subjects should be taught in two ways, first superficially, then in detail. 20. The teacher should do nothing but teach. Discipline must be left to the ushers. 21. All the pupils should sit in a row, in view of the teacher. 22. A pupil must miss no school hour. 23. At home a boy should be subjected to the same discipline as at school. 24. In printing school-books the importance of local memory should be borne in mind. 25. Languages should be taught with a view to conversation. 26. Nothing that can give rise to any evil thought is to be placed before the pupil (Geschichte der Pädagogik, Prof. Th. Ziegler, p. 149).
99. Encyclopædia Scientiarum Omnium, ii. 287.
100. Ibid. ii. 281.
101. Ibid. ii. 273.
102. ‘Scholæ Pansophicæ Delineatio,’ Op. Did. Omn. iii. 10.
103. ‘Regulæ Societatum, Alligationis, Falsi.’