§ 1. i now approach the most difficult part of my subject. i have endeavoured to give some account of the lessons taught us by the chief educational reformers. no doubt my selection of these has been made in a fashion somewhat arbitrary, and there are names which do not appear and yet might reasonably be looked for if all the chief educational reformers were supposed to be included. but the plan of my book has restricted me to a few, and i am by no means sure that some to whom i have given a chapter are as worthy of it as some to whom i have not. i have in a measure been guided by fancy and even by chance. one man, however, i dare not leave out. all the best tendencies of modern thought on education seem to me to culminate in what was said and done by friedrich froebel, and i have little doubt that he has shown the right road for further advance. of what he said and did i therefore feel bound to give the best account i can, but i am well aware that i shall fail, even more conspicuously than in other cases, to do him justice. there are some great men who seem to have access to a world from which we ordinary mortals are shut out. like moses “they go up into the[385] mount,” and the directions they give us are based upon what they have seen in it. but we cannot go up with them; so we feel that we very imperfectly understand them; and when there can be not the smallest doubt of their sincerity we at times hesitate about the nature of their visions. for myself i must admit that i very imperfectly understand froebel. i am convinced, as i said, that he has pointed out the right road for our advance in education; but he was perhaps right in saying: “centuries may yet pass before my view of the human creature as manifested in the child, and of the educational treatment it requires, are universally received.” it has already taken centuries to recover from the mistakes made at the renascence. for the full attainment of froebel’s standpoint perhaps a few additional centuries may be necessary.
§ 2. friedrich wilhelm august froebel[173] was born at oberweissbach, a village of the thuringian forest, on the 21st april, 1783. he completed his seventieth year, and died at marienthal, near bad-liebenstein, on the 21st june, 1852. like comenius, with whom he had much in common, he was neglected in his youth; and the remembrance of his own early sufferings made him in after life the more eager in promoting the happiness of children. his mother he lost in his infancy, and his father, the pastor of oberweissbach and the surrounding district, attended to his parish but not to his family. friedrich soon had a stepmother, and neglect was succeeded by stepmotherly attention; but a maternal uncle took pity on him, and for[386] some years gave him a home a few miles off at stadt-ilm. here he went to the village school, but like many thoughtful boys he passed for a dunce. throughout life he was always seeking for hidden connexions and an underlying unity in all things. in his own words: “man, particularly in boyhood, should become intimate with nature—not so much with reference to the details and the outer forms of her phenomena as with reference to the spirit of god that lives in her and rules over her. indeed, the boy feels this deeply and demands it” (ed. of m., hailmann’s trans., p. 162). but nothing of this unity was to be perceived in the piecemeal studies of the school; so froebel’s mind, busy as it was for itself, would not work for the masters. his half-brother was therefore thought more worthy of a university education, and friedrich was apprenticed for two years to a forester (1797-1799). left to himself in the thuringian forest, froebel now began to “become intimate with nature;” and without scientific instruction he obtained a profound insight into the uniformity and essential unity of nature’s laws. years afterwards the celebrated jahn (the “father jahn” of the german gymnasts) told a berlin student of a queer fellow he had met, who made out all sorts of wonderful things from stones and cobwebs. this “queer fellow” was froebel; and the habit of making out general truths from the observation of nature, especially of plants and trees, dated from his solitary rambles in the forest. no training could have been better suited to strengthen his inborn tendency to mysticism; and when he left the forest at the early age of seventeen, he seems to have been possessed by the main ideas which influenced him all his life. the conception which in him dominated all others was the unity of nature; and he longed to study[387] natural sciences that he might find in them various applications of nature’s universal laws. with great difficulty he got leave to join his elder brother at the university of jena; and there for a year he went from lecture-room to lecture-room hoping to grasp that connexion of the sciences which had for him far more attraction than any particular science in itself. but froebel’s allowance of money was very small, and his skill in the management of money was never great; so his university career ended in an imprisonment of nine weeks for a debt of thirty shillings. he then returned home with very poor prospects, but much more intent on what he calls the course of “self-completion” (vervollkommnung meines selbst) than on “getting on” in a worldly point of view. he was soon sent to learn farming, but was recalled in consequence of the failing health of his father. in 1802 the father died, and froebel, now twenty years old, had to shift for himself. it was some time before he found his true vocation, and for the next three-and-a half years we find him at work now in one part of germany now in another,—sometimes land-surveying, sometimes acting as accountant, sometimes as private secretary.
§ 3. but in all this his “outer life was far removed from his inner life.” “i carried my own world within me,” he tells us, “and this it was for which i cared and which i cherished.” in spite of his outward circumstances he became more and more conscious that a great task lay before him for the good of humanity; and this consciousness proved fatal to his “settling down.” “to thee may fate soon give a settled hearth and a loving wife” (thus he wrote in a friend’s album in 1805); “me let it keep wandering without rest, and allow only time to learn aright my true relation to the world and to my own inner being.[388] do thou give bread to men; be it my effort to give men to themselves” (k. schmidt’s gesch. d. p?d., 3rd ed. by lange, vol. iv, p. 277).
§ 4. as yet the nature of the task was not clear to him, and it seemed determined by accident. while studying architecture in frankfort-on-the-main, he became acquainted with the director of a model school who had caught some of the enthusiasm of pestalozzi. this friend saw that froebel’s true field was education, and he persuaded him to give up architecture and take a post in the model school. “the very first time,” he says, “that i found myself before thirty or forty boys, i felt thoroughly at home. in fact, i perceived that i had at last found my long-missed life-element; and i wrote to my brother that i was as well pleased as the fish in the water: i was inexpressibly happy.”
§ 5. in this school froebel worked for two years with remarkable success; but he felt more and more his need of preparation, so he then retired and undertook the education of three lads of one family. even in this he could not satisfy himself, and he obtained the parents’ consent to his taking the boys to yverdun, and there forming with them a part of the celebrated institution of pestalozzi. thus from 1807 till 1809 froebel was drinking in pestalozzianism at the fountain head, and qualifying himself to carry on the work which pestalozzi had begun. for the science of education had to deduce from pestalozzi’s experience principles which pestalozzi himself could not deduce; and “froebel, the pupil of pestalozzi, and a genius like his master, completed the reformer’s system; taking the results at which pestalozzi had arrived through the necessities of his position, froebel developed the ideas involved[389] in them, not by further experience but by deduction from the nature of man, and thus he attained to the conception of true human development and to the requirements of true education” (schmidt’s gesch. d. p?d.).
§ 6. holding that man and nature, inasmuch as they proceed from the same source, must be governed by the same laws, froebel longed for more knowledge of natural science. even pestalozzi seemed to him not to “honour science in her divinity.” he therefore determined to continue the university course which had been so rudely interrupted eleven years before, and in 1811 he began studying at g?ttingen, whence he proceeded to berlin. in his autobiography he tells us: “the lectures for which i had so longed really came up to the needs of my mind and soul, and made me feel more fervently than ever the certainty of the demonstrable inner connexion of the whole cosmical development of the universe. i saw also the possibility of man’s becoming conscious of this absolute unity of the universe, as well as of the diversity of things and appearances which is perpetually unfolding itself within that unity; and then when i had made clear to myself, and brought fully home to my consciousness the view that the infinitely varied phenomena in man’s life, work, thought, feeling, and position were all summed up in the unity of his personal existence i felt myself able to turn my thoughts once more to educational problems” (autob. trans. by michaelis and moore, p. 89).
but again his studies were interrupted, this time by the king of prussia’s celebrated call “to my people.” though not a prussian, froebel was heart and soul a german. he therefore responded to the call, enlisted in lützow’s corps, and went through the campaign of 1813. his military[390] ardour, however, did not take his mind off education. “everywhere,” he writes, “as far as the fatigues i underwent allowed, i carried in my thoughts my future calling as educator; yes, even in the few engagements in which i had to take part. even in these i could gather experience for the task i proposed to myself.” froebel’s soldiering showed him the value of discipline and united action, how the individual belongs not to himself but to the whole body, and how the whole body supports the individual.
froebel was rewarded for his patriotism by the friendship of two men whose names will always be associated with his, langethal and middendorff. these young men, ten years younger than froebel, became attached to him in the field, and were ever afterwards his devoted followers, sacrificing all their prospects in life for the sake of carrying out his ideas.
§ 7. at the peace of fontainebleau (signed in may, 1814) froebel returned to berlin, and became curator of the museum of mineralogy under professor weiss. in accepting this appointment from the government he seemed to turn aside from his work as educator; but if not teaching he was learning. the unity of nature and human nature seemed more and more to reveal itself to him. of the days past in the museum he afterwards wrote: “here was i at the central point of my life and strife, where inner working and law, where life, nature, and mathematics were united in the fixed crystaline form, where a world of symbols lay open to the inner eye.” again he says: “the stones in my hand and under my eye became speaking forms. the world of crystals declared to me the life and laws of life of man, and in still but real and sensible speech taught the true life of humanity.” “geology and crystallography[391] not only opened for me a higher circle of knowledge and insight, but also showed me a higher goal for my inquiry, my speculation, and my endeavour. nature and man now seemed to me mutually to explain each other through all their numberless various stages of development. man, as i saw, receives from a knowledge of natural objects, even because of their immense deep-seated diversity, a foundation for and a guidance towards a knowledge of himself and life, and a preparation for the manifestation of that knowledge” (autob. ut supra, p. 97). more and more the thought possessed him that the one thing needful for man was unity of development, perfect evolution in accordance with the laws of his being, such evolution as science discovers in the other organisms of nature.
§ 8. he at first intended to become a teacher of natural science, but before long wider views dawned upon him. langethal and middendorff were in berlin, engaged in tuition. froebel gave them regular instruction in his theory, and at length, counting on their support, he resolved to set about realising his own idea of “the new education.” this was in 1816. three years before one of his brothers, a clergyman, had died of fever caught from the french prisoners. his widow was still living in the parsonage at griesheim, a village on the ilm. froebel gave up his post in berlin, and set out for griesheim on foot, spending his very last groschen on the way for bread. here he undertook the education of his orphan niece and nephews, and also of two more nephews sent him by another brother. with these he opened a school, and wrote to middendorff and langethal to come and help in the experiment. middendorff came at once, langethal a[392] year or two later, when the school had been moved to keilhau, another of the thuringian villages, which became the mecca of the new faith. in keilhau, froebel, langethal, middendorff, and barop, a relation of middendorff’s, all married and formed an educational community. such zeal could not be fruitless, and the school gradually increased, though for many years its teachers, with froebel at their head, were in the greatest straits for money, and at times even for food. karl froebel, who was brought up in the school, tells how, on one occasion, he and the other children were sent to ramble in the woods till some of the seed-corn provided for the coming year had been turned into bread for them. besides these difficulties the community suffered from the panic and reaction after the murder of kotzebue (1819), and were persecuted as a nest of demagogues. but “the new education” was sufficiently successful to attract notice from all quarters; and when he had been ten years at keilhau (1826) froebel published his great work, the education of man.
§ 9. four years later he determined to start other institutions in connexion with the parent institution at keilhau; and being offered by a private friend the use of a castle on the wartensee, in the canton of lucerne, he left keilhau under the direction of barop, and with langethal made a settlement in switzerland. the ground, however, was very ill chosen. the catholic clergy resisted what they considered as a protestant invasion, and the experiment on the wartensee and at willisau in the same canton, to which the institution was moved in 1833, never had a fair chance. it was in vain that middendorff at froebel’s call left his wife and family at keilhau, and laboured for four years in switzerland without once seeing them. the swiss institution[393] never flourished. but the swiss government wished to turn to account the presence of the great educator; so young teachers were sent to froebel for instruction, and finally he removed to burgdorf (a town already famous from pestalozzi’s labours there thirty years earlier) to undertake the establishment of a public orphanage, and also to superintend a course of teaching for schoolmasters. the elementary teachers of the canton were to spend three months every alternate year at burgdorf, and there compare experiences, and learn of distinguished men such as froebel and bitzius.
§ 10. in his conferences with these teachers froebel found that the schools suffered from the state of the raw material brought into them. till the school age was reached the children were entirely neglected. froebel’s conception of harmonious development naturally led him to attach much importance to the earliest years, and his great work on the education of man, published as early as 1826, deals chiefly with the education of children. at burgdorf his thoughts were much occupied with the proper treatment of young children, and in scheming for them a graduated course of exercises modelled on the games in which he observed them to be most interested. in his eagerness to carry out his new plans he grew impatient of official restraints; and partly from this reason, partly on account of his wife’s ill health, he left burgdorf without even actually becoming “waisenvater” (father of the orphans).[174] after a sojourn of some months in berlin, where he was detained through family affairs, but used the[394] opportunities thus afforded of examining the recently founded infant schools, froebel returned to keilhau, and soon afterwards opened the first kindergarten, or “garden of children,” in the neighbouring village of blankenburg (a.d. 1837). not only the thing but the name seemed to froebel a happy inspiration, and it has now become inseparably connected with his own. perhaps we can hardly understand the pleasure he took in it unless we know its predecessor, kleinkinderbesch?ftigungsanstalt.
§ 11. firmly convinced of the importance of the kindergarten for the whole human race, froebel described his system in a weekly paper (his sonntagsblatt) which appeared from the middle of 1837 till 1840. he also lectured in great towns; and he gave a regular course of instruction to young teachers at blankenburg.
§ 12. but although the principles of the kindergarten were gradually making their way, the first kindergarten was failing for want of funds. it had to be given up; and froebel, now a widower (he had lost his wife in 1839), carried on his course for teachers first at keilhau, and from 1848, for the last four years of his life, at or near liebenstein, in the thuringian forest, and in the duchy of meiningen. it is in these last years that the man froebel will be best known to posterity; for in 1849 be attracted within the circle of his influence a woman of great intellectual power, the baroness von marenholtz-bülow, who has given us in her recollections of friedrich froebel the only life-like portrait we possess. in these records of personal intercourse we see the truth of deinhardt’s words: “the living perception of universal and ideal truth which his talk revealed to us, his unbounded enthusiasm for the education and happiness of the human race, his willingness to offer up everything he[395] possessed for the sake of his idea, the stream of thoughts which flowed from his enthusiasm for the ideal as from an inexhaustible fountain, all these made froebel a wonderful appearance in the world, by whom no unprejudiced spectator could fail to be attracted and elevated.”
§ 13. these seemed likely to be froebel’s most peaceful days. he married again; and having now devoted himself to the training of women as educators, he spent his time in instructing his class of young female teachers. but trouble came upon him from a quarter whence he least expected it. in the great year of revolutions, 1848, froebel had hoped to turn to account the general eagerness for improvement, and middendorff had presented an address on kindergartens to the german parliament. besides this a nephew of froebel’s published books which were supposed to teach socialism. true the uncle and nephew differed so widely that “the new froebelians” were the enemies of the “old.” but the distinction was overlooked, and friedrich and karl froebel were regarded as the united advocates of “some new thing.” in the reaction which soon set in, froebel found himself suspected of socialism and irreligion; and in 1851 the cultus-minister raumer issued an edict forbidding the establishment of schools “after friedrich and karl froebel’s principles” in prussia. it was in vain that froebel proved that his principles differed fundamentally from his nephew’s. it was in vain that a congress of schoolmasters, presided over by the celebrated diesterweg, protested against the calumnious decree. the minister turned a deaf ear, and the decree remained in force ten years after the death of froebel (i.e., till 1862). but the edict was a heavy blow to the old man, who looked to the government of the “cultus-staat” prussia for support, and[396] was met with denunciation. of the justice of the charge brought by the minister against froebel the reader may judge from the account of his principles given below.
whether from the worry of this new controversy, or from whatever cause, froebel did not long survive the decree. his seventieth birthday was celebrated with great rejoicings in may, 1852, but he died in the following month, and lies buried at schweina, a village near his last abode, marienthal.
§ 14. throughout these essays my object has been to collect what seemed to me the most valuable lessons of various reformers. in doing this i have had to judge and decide what was most valuable, and at times to criticise and differ from my authorities. this may perhaps give rise to the question, do you then think yourself the superior or at least the equal of the great men you criticise? and i could only reply in all sincerity, i most certainly do not. if i am asked further, what then is my attitude towards them? i reply, it differs very much with different individuals. i cannot say i am prepared to sit at the feet of mulcaster, or dury, or petty. in writing of these men i simply point out very early expression of ideas that following generations have developed partially and we are developing still. when we come to the great leaders we see among them men like comenius who unite a thorough study of what has already been thought and done with a genius for original thinking, men like locke with splendid intellectual gifts and a power of happy and clear expression, men like rousseau with a talent for shaking themselves free from “custom”—custom which “lies upon us with a weight, heavy as frost and deep almost as life,” and besides this (in his case at least) endowed with a voice to be heard[397] throughout the world. then again we have men like pestalozzi who with a genius for investigating, devote their lives to the investigation, and men like froebel who seem to penetrate to a region above us or at least beyond us, and to talk about it in language which at times only partially conveys a meaning. from all these men we have much to learn; and that we may do this we must come as learners to them. when we thus come we find that the great lessons they teach become clearer and clearer as each takes up wholly or in part what has been taught by his predecessors and adds to it. some of these lessons we may now receive as established truths and seek to conform our practice to them. but in following our leaders we dare not close our eyes. before we can know anything we must see it, as locke says, with our mind’s eye. the great thing is to keep the eye of the mind wide open and always on the lookout for truth. acting on this conviction i have not blindly accepted the dicta even of the greatest men but have selected those of their lessons which are taught if not by all at least by most of them, and which also seem to evoke “the spontaneous spring of the intelligence towards truth” (see p. 362, supra).
§ 15. in reading froebel however i am conscious that this “spring” is wanting. before one can accept teaching one must at least understand it, and this preliminary is not always possible when we would learn from froebel. at times he goes entirely out of sight, and whether the words we hear are the expression of deep truth or have absolutely no meaning at all, i for my part am at times totally unable to determine. but where i can understand him he seems to me singularly wise; and working in the same lines as pestalozzi he in some respects advances far beyond his great predecessor.
[398]
§ 16. both these men were devotees of science; but instead of finding in science anything antagonistic to religion they looked upon science as the expression of the mind of god. their belief was just that which sir thomas browne had uttered more than 200 years before in the religio medici: “though we christen effects by their most sensible and nearest causes yet is god the true and infallible cause of all, whose concourse [i.e., concurrence, co-operation] though it be general, yet doth it subdivide itself into the particular actions of everything, and is that spirit by which each singular essence not only subsists but performs its operation.”[175] with this belief froebel sought to trace everything back to the central unity, to god. the author of the de imitatione christi has said: “the man to whom all things are one, who refers all things to one and sees all things in one, he can stand firm and be at peace in god. cui omnia unum sunt, et qui omnia ad unum trahit, et omnia in uno videt, potest stabilis esse et in deo pacificus permanere” (de im. xti. lib. i; cap. 3, § 2). so thought froebel, and his great longing was to refer all things to one and see all things in one. however little we may share this longing we must admit that it is a natural outcome from the christian religion. if there is one in whom all “live and move and have their being,” everything should be referred to him. as froebel says, “in allem wirkt und schafft ein leben, weil das leben all’ ein einz’ger gott gegeben. (in everything there works and stirs one life, because to all one god has given life.)” so long then as we remain christians we must agree with froebel that all true education is[399] founded on religion. perhaps in the end we may adopt his high ideal and say with him, “education should lead and guide man to clearness concerning himself and in himself, to peace with nature, and to unity with god; hence, it should lift him to a knowledge of himself and of mankind, to a knowledge of god and of nature, and to the pure and holy life to which such knowledge leads.” (e. of m., hailmann’s t., 5.) “the object of education is the realization of a faithful, pure, inviolate, and hence holy life” (ib. 4).
§ 17. this is indeed a high ideal: and we naturally ask, if we would work towards it what road would froebel point out to us? this brings us to his theory of development or, as it has been called since darwin, evolution. the idea of organic growth was first definitely applied to the young by pestalozzi, but it was more clearly and consistently applied by froebel. it has gone forth conquering and to conquer; and though far indeed from being accepted by the teaching profession of this age, it is likely to have a vast influence on the practice of those who will come after them. i therefore give the following statement of it, which seems to me excellent:—
“the first thing to note in the idea of development is that it indicates, not an increase in bulk or quantity (though it may include this), but an increase in complexity of structure, an improvement in power, skill, and variety in the performance of natural functions. we say that a thing is fully developed when its internal organisation is perfect in every detail, and when it can perform all its natural actions or functions perfectly. if we apply this distinction to mind, an increase in bulk will be represented by an increase in the amount of material retained in the mind, in the[400] memory; development will be a perfecting of the structure of the mind itself, an increase of power and skill and variety in dealing with knowledge, and in putting knowledge to all its natural uses. the next thing to consider is how this development is produced. how can we aid in promoting this change from germ to complete organism, from partially developed thing to more highly developed thing? the answer comes from every part of creation with ever-increasing clearness and emphasis—development is produced by exercise of function, use of faculty. neglect or disuse of any part of an organism leads to the dwindling, and sometimes even to the disappearance, of that part. and this applies not only to individuals, but stretches also from parent to child, from generation to generation, constituting then what we call heredity, or what froebel calls the connectedness of humanity. slowly through successive generations a faculty or organ may dwindle and decay, or may be brought to greater and greater perfection. as froebel puts it, humanity past, present, and future is one continuous whole. the amount of development, then, possible in any particular case plainly depends partly on the original outfit, and partly (and as a rule in a greater measure) on the opportunities there have been for exercise, and the use made of those opportunities. if we wish to develop the hand, we must exercise the hand. if we wish to develop the body, we must exercise the body. if we wish to develop the mind, we must exercise the mind. if we wish to develop the whole human being, we must exercise the whole human being. but will any exercise suffice? again the answer is clear. only that exercise which is always in harmony with the nature of the thing, and which is always proportioned to the strength of the thing, produces[401] true development. all other exercise is partially or wholly hurtful. and another condition, evident in every case, becomes still more evident when we apply these laws to the mind. to produce development most truly and effectively, the exercise must arise from and be sustained by the thing’s own activity—its own natural powers, and all of them (as far as these are in any sense connected with the activity proposed) should be awakened and become naturally active. if, for instance, we desire to further the development of a plant, what we have to do is to induce the plant (and the whole of it) to become active in its own natural way, and to help it to sustain that activity. we may abridge the time; we may modify the result; but we must act through and by the plant’s own activity. this activity of a thing’s own self we call self-activity (e. of m., § 9). we generally consider the mind in the light of its three activities of knowing, feeling, and willing. the exercise which aims at producing mental development must be in harmony with the nature of knowing, feeling, and willing, and continually in proportion to their strength. and, further, it is found that the more the activity is that of the whole mind, the more it is the mind’s own activity—self-produced, and self-maintained, and self-directed—the better is the result. in other words, knowing, feeling, and willing must all take their rightful share in the exercise; and, in particular, feeling and willing—the mind’s powers of prompting and nourishing, of maintaining and directing its own activities—must never be neglected” (h. c. bowen on ed. of m.).
§ 18. “a divine message or eternal regulation of the universe there verily is, in regard to every conceivable procedure and affair of man; faithfully following this, said procedure or affair will prosper ... not following[402] this ... destruction and wreck are certain for every affair.” these words of carlyle’s express froebel’s thought about education. before attempting to educate we must do all we can to ascertain the divine message and must then direct our proceedings by it. the divine message must be learnt according to froebel by studying the nature of the organism we have to assist in developing. each human being must “develop from within, self-active and free, in accordance with the eternal law. this is the problem and the aim of all education in instruction and training; there can be and should be no other” (ed. of m., 13). for “all has come forth from the divine, from god, and is through god alone conditioned. to this it is that all things owe their existence—to the divine working in them. the divine element that works in each thing is the true idea (das wesen) of the thing.” therefore “the destiny and calling of all things is to develop their true idea, and in so doing to reveal god in outward and through passing forms.”
§19. what we must think of then is the “true idea” which each child should develop. how is this idea to be ascertained? in other words, how are we to learn the divine message about the bringing up of children? this message is given us through the works of god. “in the creation, in nature and the order of the material world, and in the progress of mankind, god has given us the true type (urbild) of education.”
§ 20. so froebel would have all educators lay to heart the great principle of the baconian philosophy: we command nature only by obeying her. they are to be very cautious how they interfere, and the education they give is to be “passive, following.” even in teaching they must[403] bear in mind, that “the purpose of teaching is to bring ever more out of man rather than to put more and more into him.” (ed. of m., 279.) froebel in fact taught the pestalozzian doctrine that the function of the educator was that of “benevolent superintendence.”[176]
§21. but if froebel would thus limit the action of the educator he would greatly extend the action of those educated; and here we see the great principle with which the name of froebel is likely to be permanently associated. “the starting-point of all that appears, of all that exists, and therefore of all intellectual conception, is act, action. from the act, from action, must therefore start true human education, the developing education of the man; in action, in acting, it must be rooted and must spring up.... living, acting, conceiving,—these must form a triple chord within every child of man, though the sound now of this string, now of that, may preponderate, and then again of two together.”
§ 22. many thinkers before froebel had seen the transcendent importance of action; but froebel not only based everything upon it, but he based it upon god. “god creates and works productively in uninterrupted continuity. each thought of god is a work, a deed” (ed. of m., § 23). as jesus has said: “my father worketh hitherto and i[404] work” (st. john v, 17). from this it follows that, since god created man in his own image, “man should create and bring forth like god” (ed. of m., ib.). “he who will early learn to recognise the creator must early exercise his own power of action with the consciousness that he is bringing about what is good; for the doing good is the link between the creature and the creator, and the conscious doing of it the conscious connexion, the true living union of the man with god, of the individual man as of the human race, and is therefore at once the starting point and the eternal aim of all education.” elsewhere he says: “we become truly god-like in diligence and industry, in working and doing, which are accompanied by the clear perception or even by the vaguest feeling that thereby we represent the inner in the outer; that we give body to spirit, and form to thought; that we render visible the invisible; that we impart an outward, finite, transient being to life in the spirit. through this god-likeness we rise more and more to a true knowledge of god, to insight into his spirit; and thus, inwardly and outwardly, god comes ever nearer to us. therefore jesus says of the poor, ‘theirs is the kingdom of heaven,’ if they could but see and know it and practice it in diligence and industry, in productive and creative work. of children too is the kingdom of heaven; for unchecked by the presumption and conceit of adults they yield themselves in child-like trust and cheerfulness to their formative and creative instinct” (ed. of m., § 23. p. 31).
§ 23. this “formative and creative instinct” which as we must suppose has existed in all children in all nations and in all ages of the world, froebel was the first to take duly into account for education. pestalozzi saw the importance[405] of getting children to think, and to think about their material surroundings. these the child can observe and search into; and in doing this he may discover what is not at first obvious to sight or touch and may even ascertain relations between the several parts of the same thing or connexions between different things compared together. all these discoveries may be made by the child’s self-activity, but only on one condition, viz.: that the child is interested. but in the search interest soon flags and then observation comes to an end. besides, even while it lasts in full vigour the activity is mental only; it is concerned with perceiving, taking in; and for development something more is needed; the organism must not only take in, it must also give out. and so we find in children a restless eagerness to touch, pull about, and change the condition of things around them. when this activity of theirs, instead of being checked is properly directed, the children are delighted in recognising desirable results which they themselves have brought about; especially those which give expression to what is their own thought. in this way the child “renders the inner outer;” and in thus satisfying his creative instinct he is led to exercise some faculties both of mind and body.
§ 24. the prominence which froebel gave to action, his doctrine that man is primarily a doer and even a creator, and that he learns only through “self-activity,” may produce great changes in educational methods generally, and not simply in the treatment of children too young for schooling. but it was to the first stage of life that froebel paid the greatest attention, and it is over this stage that his influence is gradually extending. froebel held that each age has a completeness of its own (“first the blade, then[406] the ear, then the full corn in the ear”), and that the perfection of the later stage can be attained only through the perfection of the earlier. if the infant is what he should be as an infant, and the child as a child, he will become what he should be as a boy, just as naturally as new shoots spring from the healthy plant. every stage, then, must be cared for and tended in such a way that it may attain its own perfection. but as bacon says with reference to education, the gardener bestows most care on the young plants, and it was “the young plants” for whom froebel designed his kindergarten. like pestalozzi he attached the very highest importance to giving instruction to mothers. but he would not like pestalozzi leave young children entirely in the mother’s hands. there was something to be done for them which even the ideal mother in the ideal family could not do. pestalozzi held that the child belonged to the family. fichte on the other hand claimed it for society and the state. froebel, whose mind, like that of our own theologian frederick maurice, delighted in harmonising apparent contradictions, and who taught that “all progress lay through opposites to their reconciliation,” maintained that the child belongs both to the family and to society; and he would therefore have children prepare for society by spending some hours of the day in a common life and in well-organised common employments.
§ 25. his study of children showed him that one of their most striking characteristics was restlessness. this was, first, restlessness of body, delight in mere motion of the limbs; and, secondly, restlessness of mind, a constant curiosity about whatever came within the range of the senses, and especially a desire to examine with the hand[407] every unknown object within reach.[177] children’s fondness for using their hands was especially noted by froebel; and he found that they delighted, not merely in examining by touch, but also in altering whatever they could alter, and further that they endeavoured to imitate known forms whether by drawing or whenever they could get any kind of plastic material by modelling. besides remarking in them these various activities, he saw that children were sociable and needed the sympathy of companions. there was, too, in them a growing moral nature, passions, affections, and conscience, which needed to be controlled, responded to, cultivated. both the restraints and the opportunities incident to a well-organised community would be beneficial to their moral nature, and prove a cure for selfishness.
§ 26. as all education was to be sought in rightly directed but spontaneous action, froebel considered how the children in this community should be employed. at that age their most natural employment is play, especially as wordsworth has pointed out, games in which they imitate and “con the parts” they themselves will have to fill in after years. froebel agreed with montaigne that the games of children were “their most serious occupations,” and with locke that “all the plays and diversions of children should be directed towards good and useful habits, or else they will introduce[408] ill ones” (th. c. ed., § 130). so he invented a course of occupations, a great part of which consisted in social games. many of the names are connected with the “gifts,” as he called the series of simple playthings provided for the children, the first being the ball, “the type of unity.” the “gifts” are chiefly not mere playthings but materials which the children work up in their own way, thus gaining scope for their power of doing and inventing and creating. the artistic faculty was much thought of by froebel, and, as in the education of the ancients, the sense of rhythm in sound and motion was cultivated by music and poetry introduced in the games. much care was to be given to the training of the senses, especially those of sight, sound, and touch. intuition (anschauung) was to be recognised as the true basis of knowledge, and though stories were to be told, and there was to be much intercourse in the way of social chat, instruction of the imparting and “learning-up” kind was to be excluded. there was to be no “dead knowledge;” in fact froebel like pestalozzi endeavoured to do for the child what bacon nearly 200 years before had done for the philosopher. bacon showed the philosopher that the way to study nature was not to learn what others had surmised but to go straight to nature and use his own senses and his own powers of observation. pestalozzi and froebel wished children to learn in this way as well as philosophers.
§ 27. schools for very young children existed before froebel’s kindergarten, but they had been thought of more in the interest of the mothers than of the children. it was for the sake of the mothers that oberlin established them in the vosges more than a century ago, his first conductrices de l’enfance being peasant women, sara banzet and louise scheppler. in the early part of this century the notion was[409] taken up by james buchanan and samuel wilderspin in this country (see james leitch’s practical educationists) and by j. m. d. cochin in france. but froebel’s conception differed from that of the “infant school.” his object was purely educational but he would have no “schooling.” he called these communities of children kindergarten, gardens of children, i.e., enclosures in which young human plants are nurtured.[178] the children’s employment is to be play. but any occupation in which children delight is play to them; and froebel’s series of employments, while they are in this sense play to the children, have nevertheless, as seen from the adult point of view, a distinctly educational object. this object, as froebel himself describes it, is “to give the children employment in agreement with their whole nature, to strengthen their bodies, to exercise their senses, to engage their awakening mind, and through their senses to bring them acquainted with nature and their fellow-creatures; it is especially to guide aright the heart and the affections, and to lead them to the original ground of all life, to unity with themselves.”
§ 28. no less than six-and-thirty years ago henry barnard (in his report to governor of connecticut, 1854) declared the kindergarten to be “by far the most original, attractive, and philosophical form of infant development the world has yet seen.” since then it has spread in all[410] civilised lands, and in many of them there are now public kindergartens, the first i believe having been established in 1873 by dr. william t. harris in st. louis, mo. but froebel’s ideas are not so easily got hold of as his “gifts,” and the real extension of his system may be by no means so great as it seems. “the kindergarten system in the hands of one who understands it,” says dr. james ward, “produces admirable results; but it is apt to be too mechanical and formal. there does not seem room for the individuality of a child, to which all free play possible should be given in the earliest years.” (in parents’ review ap. 1890.) and mr. courthope bowen has well said: “kindergarten work without the kindergarten idea, like a body without a soul, is subject to rapid degeneration and decay.” so perhaps it will in the end prove that froebel in his education of man which is “a book with seven seals” has left us a more precious legacy than in his “gifts” and occupations which are so popular and so easily adopted.
§ 29. it has been well said that “the essence of stupidity is in the demand for final opinions.” how our thoughts have widened about education since a man like dr. johnson could assert, “education is as well known, and has long been as well known, as ever it can be!”[179] (hill’s boswell’s j. ij, 407.) the astronomers of the middle ages might as well have asserted that nothing more could ever be known about astronomy.
was froebel what he believed himself to be, the kepler[411] or the newton of the educational system? whoso is wise will not during the nineteenth century lay claim to a “final opinion” on this point. but the “new education” seems gaining ground. f. w. parker emphatically declares “the kindergarten” (by which he probably means froebel’s encouragement of self-activity) to be “the most important far-reaching educational reform of the nineteenth century.” we sometimes see it questioned whether the “new education” has any proper claim to its title; but the education which dr. johnson considered final and which seems to us old aimed at learning; and the education which aims not at learning, but at developing through self-activity is so different from this that it may well be called new. if we consider the platform of the new educationists as it stands, e.g., in the new york school journal, we shall find that if it is not all new in theory it would be substantially new in practice.
§ 30. let us look at a brief statement of what the “new education” requires:—
1. each study must be valued in proportion as it develops power; and power is developed by self-activity.
2. the memory must be employed in strict subservience to the higher faculties of the mind.
3. whatever instruction is given, it must be adapted to the actual state of the pupil, and not ruled by the wants of the future boy or man.
4. more time must be given to the study of nature and to modern language and literature; less to the ancient languages.
5. the body must be educated as well as the mind.
6. rich and poor alike must be taught to use their eyes and hands.[412] 7. the higher education of women must be cared for no less than that of men.
8. teachers, no less than doctors, must go through a course of professional training.
to these there must in time be added another:
9. all methods shall have a scientific foundation, i.e., they shall be based on the laws of the mind, or shall have been tested by those laws.
§ 31. when this program is adopted, even as the object of our efforts, we shall, indeed, have a new education. at present the encouragement of self-activity is thought of, if at all, only as a “counsel of perfection.” our school work is chiefly mechanical and will long remain so. “from the primary school to the college productive creative doing is almost wholly excluded. knowledge in its barrenest form is communicated, and tested in the barrenest, wordiest way possible. never is the learner taught or permitted to apply his knowledge to even second-hand life-purpose.... so inveterate is the habit of the school that the kindergarten itself, although invented by the deep-feeling and far-seeing froebel for the very purpose of correcting this fault, has in most cases fallen a victim to its influence.” so says w. h. hailmann (kindergarten, may, 1888) and those who best know what usually goes on in the school-room are the least likely to differ from him.
§ 32. during the last thirty years i have spent the greatest part of my working hours in a variety of school-rooms; and if my school experience has shown me that our advance is slow, my study of the reformers convinces me that it is sure.
“ring out the old, ring in the new!”
[413]
it has been well said that to study science is to study the thoughts of god; and thus it is that all true educational reformers declare the thoughts of god to us. “a divine message, of eternal regulation of the universe, there verily is in regard to every conceivable procedure and affair of man;” and it behoves us to ascertain what that message is in regard to the immensely important procedure and affair of bringing up children. after innumerable mistakes we seem by degrees to be getting some notion of it; and such insight as we have we owe to those who have contributed to the science of education. among these there are probably no greater names than the names of pestalozzi and froebel.
froebel’s education of man, trans. by w. n. hailmann, is a vol. of appleton’s series, ed. by dr. w. t. harris. the autobiography trans., by michaelis and moore, is published by sonnenschein. the mutter-u-k.-lieder have been trans. by miss lord (london, rice). reminiscences of froebel by the baroness marenholtz-bülow, is trans. by mr. horace mann. the child and child nature is trans. from the baroness by miss a. m. christie. the froebel lit. is now immense. i will simply mention some of those who have expounded froebel in english: miss shirreff, miss e. a. manning, miss lyschinska, miss heerwart, mdme. de portugall, miss peabody, h. g bowen, f. w. parker, w. n. hailmann, joseph payne, w. t. harris, are the names that first suggest themselves. henry barnard’s kindergarten and child culture is a valuable collection of papers.
