The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius/The Great Didactic/Chapter 22
CHAPTER XXII
THE METHOD OF LANGUAGES
1. Languages are learned, not as forming in themselves a part of erudition or wisdom, but as being the means by which we may acquire knowledge and may impart it to others.
It follows, therefore, (1) that not all languages should be learned, for this would be impossible; nor many, for this would be useless and would waste time that might be devoted to the acquisition of practical information; but only those that are necessary. Now necessary languages are these the vernacular, for use at home, and the languages of the adjoining countries, for the sake of holding intercourse with neighbours. Thus for the Poles, German would be necessary; for others, the Hungarian, Wallachian, or Turkish languages. For the reading of serious books Latin is also advisable, as it is the common language of the learned. For philosophers and physicians, Greek and Arabic; and for theologians, Greek and Hebrew.
2. Not all these languages should be learned thoroughly, but only so far as is necessary.
It is not necessary to speak Greek or Hebrew as fluently as the mother-tongue, since there are no people with whom we can converse in those languages. It suffices to learn them well enough to be able to read and understand books written in them.
3. The study of languages, especially in youth, should be joined to that of objects, that our acquaintance with the objective world and with language, that is to say, our knowledge of facts and our power to express them, may progress side by side. For it is men that we are forming and not parrots, as has been said in chap. xix. Principle 6.
4. From this it follows, firstly, that words should not be learned apart from the objects to which they refer; since the objects do not exist separately and cannot be apprehended without words, but both exist and perform their functions together. It was this consideration that led me to publish the Janua Linguarum; in which words, arranged in sentences, explain the nature of objects, and, as it is said, with no small success.
5. Secondly, that the complete and detailed knowledge of a language, no matter which it be, is quite unnecessary, and that it is absurd and useless on the part of any one to try to attain it. Not even Cicero (who is considered the greatest master of the Latin language) was acquainted with all its details, since he confessed that he was ignorant of the words used by artisans; for he had never mixed with cobblers and labourers, so as to see their handiwork and hear the technical terms that they used. Indeed what object could he have had in learning such terms?
6. Those who have expanded my Janua have paid no attention to this, but have stuffed it with uncommon words and with matter quite unsuited to a boy’s comprehension. A Janua should remain a Janua, and anything further should be reserved for a future time. This is especially the case with words which either never occur, or which, if met with, can easily be looked up in subsidiary books (such as vocabularies, lexicons, herbaries, etc.) It was for this reason that I discontinued my Latinitatis Posticum (into which I was introducing obsolete and unusual words).
7. In the third place it follows that the intelligence as well as the language of boys should preferably be exercised on matters which appeal to them, and that what appeals to adults should be left for a later stage. They waste their time who place before boys Cicero and other great writers. For, if students do not understand the subject-matter, how can they master the various devices for expressing it forcibly? The time is more usefully spent on less ambitious efforts, so devised that the knowledge of the language and the general intelligence may advance together and step by step. Nature makes no leap, and neither does art, since it imitates nature. We must teach boys to walk before we give them lessons in dancing; to ride on a hobby-horse before we set them on a charger; to prattle before they speak, and to speak before they deliver orations. It was Cicero who said that he could teach no one to deliver orations who had not first learned how to talk.
8. As regards the plurality of tongues, our method, which we will reduce to eight rules, will render the acquisition of the various languages an easy matter.
9. (i) Each language must be learned separately. First of all the mother-tongue must be learned, and then the language that may have to be used in its place, I mean that of the neighbouring nation (for I am of opinion that modern languages should be commenced before the learned ones). Then Latin may be learned, and after Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc.
One language should always be learned after, and not at the same time as, another; since otherwise both will be learned confusedly. It is only when they have been thoroughly acquired that it is of use to compare them by means of parallel grammars, dictionaries, etc.
10. (ii) Each language must have a definite space of time allotted to it.
We should take care not to convert a subsidiary study into a chief one, or to waste on the acquisition of words the time in which we might gain a knowledge of things. The mother-tongue, since it is intimately connected with the gradual unfolding of the objective world to the senses, necessarily requires several years (I should say eight or ten, or the whole of childhood, with a part of boyhood). We may then proceed to the other modern languages, each of which can be sufficiently mastered in one year. Latin can be learned in two years, Greek in one year, and Hebrew in six months.
11. (iii) All languages are easier to learn by practice than from rules.
That is to say, by hearing, reading, re-reading, copying, imitating with hand and tongue, and doing all these as frequently as is possible. Cf. the preceding chapter, canons i. and xi.
12. (iv) But rules assist and strengthen the knowledge derived from practice.
This we have treated of in the previous chapter, canon ii. We speak more especially of the learned languages which we are compelled to learn from books, though we do not exclude modern languages. For Italian, French, German, Bohemian, and Hungarian can be, and indeed have already been, reduced to rules.
13. (v) The rules to which languages are reduced should be grammatical and not philosophic.
That is to say, they should not inquire into the causes and antecedents of words, phrases, and sentences, or seek to find out why this or that construction is necessary, but should simply state what is correct and how the constructions should be made. The subtler investigation into the causes and connecting links, the similarities and dissimilarities, the analogies and anomalies that exist in things and in words, is the business of the philosopher, and does but delay the philologist.
14. (vi) In writing rules for the new language the one already known must be continually kept in mind, so that stress may be laid only on the points in which the languages differ.
To call attention to points that they possess in common is not merely useless, but actually harmful, since the mind is terrified by the semblance of greater prolixity and irregularity than really exist. For instance, in Greek grammar there is no need to repeat the definitions of nouns, verbs, cases, and tenses, or rules of syntax which convey nothing new, and which may be considered as already familiar. Those only need be included in which the usage of Greek differs from that of Latin, which is, already known. In this way Greek grammar may be reduced to a few pages, and will thus be both clearer and easier.
15. (vii) The first exercises in a new language must deal with subject-matter that is already familiar.
Otherwise the mind will have to pay attention to words and to things at the same time, and will thus be distracted and weakened. Its efforts should therefore be confined to words, that it may master them easily and quickly. Such subject matter might very well be the Catechism, or Biblical history, or in fact anything that is sufficiently familiar. (Being short, my Vestibulum and Janua might be used; though these are more suitable to commit to memory, while the subjects suggested above are fit for constant reading on account of the constant recurrence of the same words, which will thus grow familiar and impress themselves on the memory.)
16. (viii) All languages, therefore, can be learned by the method.
That is to say, by practice, combined with rules of a very simple nature that only refer to points of difference with the language already known, and by exercises that refer to some familiar subject.
17. Of the languages that should be learned carefully.
As we said at the commencement of the chapter, all languages need not be learned with equal accuracy. The mother-tongue and Latin are the most worthy of attention, and we should all master them thoroughly. This course of language-study may be divided into four ages—
| The first | age is | babbling infancy |
in which we learn to speak |
indistinctly | ||||
| The second | ripening boyhood |
correctly | ||||||
| The third | maturer youth |
elegantly | ||||||
| The fourth | vigorous manhood |
forcibly |
19. The school-books, suited to the several ages, should be four in number—
(iv)(i) The Vestibulum.
(iv)(ii) The Janua.
(iv)(iii) The Palatium.
(iv) The Thesaurus.
20. The Vestibulum should contain the materials for a child’s conversation—a few hundred words, arranged in sentences, to which are added the declensions of nouns and the conjugations of verbs.
21. The Janua should contain all the common words in the language, about 8000 in number. These should be arranged in short sentences embodying descriptions of natural objects. To this there should be subjoined some short and clear grammatical rules, giving accurate directions for writing, pronouncing, forming, and using the words of the language.
22. The Palatium should contain diverse discourses on all matters, expressed a varied and elegant style, with marginal references to the authors from which the several phrases are borrowed. At the end there should be given rules for altering and paraphrasing sentences in a thousand different ways.
23. The Thesaurus will be the name given to the classic writers who have written on any matter with serious intent and in a good style, with the addition of rules relating to the observation and collection of noteworthy passages and to the accurate translation (a most important matter) of idioms. Of these authors, some should be chosen to read in school; of others, a catalogue should be formed, so that if any one desire to look up any subject in the authors who have written on it, he may be able to find out who they are.
24. By subsidiary books are meant those by whose help the school-books may be used with greater speed and with more result.
For the Vestibulum a small vocabulary, both Vernacular-Latin and Latin-Vernacular, should be provided.
For the Janua an etymological Latin-Vernacular dictionary, giving the simple words, their derivatives, their compounds, and the reason for the meanings attached.
For the Palatium a phraseological dictionary in the Vernacular, in Latin (and if necessary in Greek), forming a compendium of the various phrases, synonyms, and periphrases that occur in the Palatium, with references to the places where they are to be found.
Finally, for the completion of the Thesaurus, a comprehensive lexicon (Vernacular-Latin and Latin-Greek) which shall embrace, without exception, every point in each language. This should be carried out in a scholarly and accurate manner, care being taken that fine shades of meaning in the several languages be made to correspond, and that suitable parallels be found for idioms. For it is not probable that there exists any language so poor in words, idioms, and proverbs that it could not furnish an equivalent for any Latin expression, if judgment were used. At any rate, accurate renderings could be devised by any one who possessed sufficient skill in imitating, and in producing a suitable result from suitable material.
25. No such comprehensive dictionary has hitherto been produced. A Polish Jesuit, G. Cnapius, has, it is true, done good service to his countrymen by his work entitled A Thesaurus of Polish, Latin, and Greek; but in this work there are three defects. Firstly, the collection of vernacular words and phrases is incomplete. Secondly, he has not observed the order that we suggested above, since individual, figurative, and obsolete words are not arranged under separate headings, though in this way the peculiarities, the elegances, and the resources of both languages equally would be illustrated. For he has given a number of Latin renderings for each word and phrase of Polish, while according to my plan only one, but that an exact equivalent, should be given. In this way, my dictionary would be of great service to those translating books from Latin into the vernacular, and vice versa. Thirdly, in Cnapius’ Thesaurus there is a great lack of method in the arrangement of examples. These should not be carelessly heaped together. First, sinople illustrations, drawn from history, should be given, then more ambitious ones taken from the orators, ther the more complex and uncommon usages of poets, and finally the uses that are obsolete.
26. But a detailed account of this comprehensive dictionary must be left for another time, as must also the further particulars of the Vestibulum, the Janua, the Palatium, and the Thesaurus, by means of which languages can be acquired with unfailing accuracy. Of these it will be fitting to speak when we deal with the several classes in detail.