No. 13.

THE

A RETROSPECT.

HE commencement of a new volume of THE SCHOOL WORLD affords a suitable opportunity for a brief survey of the performances of the past twelve months, in the light of the promises made in the first number, in which the primary objects of this magazine were stated to be the publication of information upon the principles and practice of teaching, and the provision of materials of real service to all who are engaged in educational work.

No useful purpose would be served by enumerating all the articles-serial and single-which represent the superstructure erected upon the plan laid down twelve months ago. The index issued with the December number furnishes the best of evidence as to what has been accomplished; and readers unfamiliar with these pages are invited to examine the long lists of articles and authors there referred to. Only a few of the subjects of last year's contributions need here be mentioned; they are, the teaching of algebra, the position and teaching of French and German, systems of commercial education at home and abroad, chapters in school hygiene, physical observations of boys and girls in schools, experiments and apparatus for teaching elementary general science, teachers' notes on English history and articles on important periods, current geographical topics, English composition, literature, and analysis, methods of teaching reading, the teaching of geometry, schools of public men, drawing in secondary schools, the ideal assistant master, and school preparation for the Civil Service.

This selection, referring chiefly to the modern side, and taken almost at random, will serve to indicate that THE SCHOOL WORLD is not so much concerned with educational theory in the abstract as with matters which form part of the day's work of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses.

No. 13, VOL. 2.]

Theories

SIXPENCE.

in education, like theories in the realm of science, are unsound if they cannot stand the test of experience; and any good teacher may competently criticise pedagogic principles referring to subjects in which he gives instruction.

Definite statements by practical teachers as to methods followed by them with success are, therefore, always valuable, and there can be no science of education in the absence of such records. Differences of opinion are inevitable; but, as Francis Bacon said, "truth more easily comes out of error than out of confusion"; and the quickest way to find out the weak points in any scheme is to submit the matter to critics who have developed similar plans of their own.

This much by way of encouragement to teachers to relate their own experiences. Returning to the subject of the usefulness of THE SCHOOL World, attention may be drawn to the test papers for the London Matriculation Examination next June, and for the Oxford Local Examinations in July, contained in another part of this number. Judging by the many applications for reprints of test papers for the Cambridge Examinations, published last year, this part of THE SCHOOL WORLD is of distinct value, and we hope soon to extend it to include some other important public examinations. It would be ungracious to leave this retrospective glance without expressing thanks to the numerous members of the teaching profession who have sent us letters of congratulation, and have assured our position by their support. We are naturally gratified to learn that many teachers at home and abroad find the contents suggestive and helpful, but it is even more satisfactory to know that we have succeeded in producing a magazine in which teachers engaged in schools having pupils of widely different grades in the social scale are interested. We recognise in this a sign of coordination, and of mutual sympathy in educational effort, well worth bearing in mind by educationists formulating a scheme of secondary education.

A

PIONEERS IN EDUCATION.

By FOSTER WATSON, M.A.

Professor of the Theory and Practice of Education in the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

I.-The Practical Aspect of the Educational Works of Richard Mulcaster.

TAK

AKE him all in all, Richard Mulcaster is the greatest of our Tudor writers on education. Others excel him in particular directions, or from especial points of view. Sir Thomas Elyot holds priority in his recognition of the value of drawing as mental training; Christopher Ocland as the promoter of patriotism in schools; Sir Humphry Gilbert as the protagonist of aristocratic encyclopædic education; Edward Coote as the writer of a book for the education of the poorest people; Roger Ascham's "Schoolmaster" is par excellence the classical work on the teaching of the classics. No one can doubt the superior attractiveness of the last-named over Richard Mulcaster in his style of writing. He is naïve, quaint, natural, full of his subject, spontaneous, and for the most part convincing. But I am of opinion that, for originality of treatment, for comprehensiveness of educational views and for general pedagogical significance, Roger Ascham is himself surpassed by two writers of the Tudor age, John Louis Vivès and Richard Mulcaster.

John Louis Vivès wrote in Latin, but it is worth noting that from 1523 to 1528 he lived in England, lectured in Oxford, and was private tutor, or at least director of studies to the young Princess Mary, daughter of Catharine of Aragon, whose Spanish origin probably explains the presence of Vivès, himself a Spaniard, in England. He wrote amongst other books the "De tradendis disciplinis," and the "Institutio feminæ Christianæ." The former is a work of real educational importance, of which I believe there is no translation or adequate account in the English language. Vivès would be well worth a special article in which it might be shown that in the principles of education he has a suggestiveness of signal value. But as I am only associating one name with the Elizabethan era of education, I take the name of Richard Mulcaster rather than that of John Louis Vivès, because, as far as I can judge, Mulcaster borrows petty loans, or even larger amounts from Vivès, and gives them to his English reader-principal and interest, besides adding quite outstanding contributions of an especial helpfulness to English educational thought of his own.

To speak of Mulcaster as a great educationist almost seems to demand an apology, or at least a justification, for his position as such is hardly acknowledged even by those who write on educational literature. Hallam, for instance, in his "Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries," does not, I believe, mention him, and M. Jacques Parmentier, who devotes an excellent chapter to Mulcaster in his "Histoire de l'Edu

cation en Angleterre," points out that Professor Saintsbury was able to write a volume on Elizabethan literature without so much as naming Richard Mulcaster. M. Parmentier might have added that Professor Saintsbury had repaired this omission by writing in vol. iii. of "Social England" an account of educational literature in which Mulcaster is at any rate named. There is, however, little more said of him than that he was "the chief follower of Ascham, in the strictly pedagogic vein." If by "follower" Professor Saintsbury means that Mulcaster wrote his book later in time than Ascham, we have the expression of an opinion which would be an interesting subject for inquiry as a piece of chronological investigation; but if by "follower" Professor Saintsbury means disciple of Ascham, it would be interesting to have the grounds on which this opinion is based. I recognise that on one occasion Mulcaster says in his " Positions" (p. 102, Quick's reprint):"This exercise (of archery) do I like best generally of any round stirring without the doors upon the causes before alleged, which if I did not, that worthy man our late and learned countryman, Master Ascham, would be half angry with me, though he were of a mild disposition, who both for training the archer to his bow and the scholar to his book hath showed himself a cunning archer and a skilful master." By the way, it is curious to note how nowadays the archer's bow has ceased to be an instrument of physical education. Both Mulcaster's chapter on shooting and Ascham's treatise, the "Toxophilus," are worth the consideration of educationists.

In writing about Mulcaster, therefore, I shall especially refer to questions which he raises, which do not find a counterpart in Ascham, and in which he does not, in the ordinary sense of that term, follow him, seeing that Ascham has not dealt with them, and, as far as I know, has not even indicated what his opinions would be. A much more likely place to look into for analogies would be, as I have suggested, the "De tradendis disciplinis" of J. L. Vivès. Another reason for taking up these characteristic "views" of Mulcaster is that they are so essentially practical that they are of the directest interest in to-day's educational problems.

The three " Positions," to borrow Mulcaster's term, that I shall emphasize are :—

1 Ascham died in 1568, and, as is well known, his "Schoolmaster" is left in an unfinished state. It was published in 1570. Mulcaster was headmaster of Merchant Taylors' School from 1561-1580. His "Positions" was printed in 1581; but since his other considerable work, "The Elementarie," was printed in 1582, it is possible that the "Positions" was written earlier. So that it is not quite certain, apparently, that Mulcaster was a follower of Ascham, chronologically. But that is a small point. A more important consideration is the fact that Mulcaster as headmaster of Merchant Taylors' School from 1561 onwards was a man of practical experience in teaching in a very important school, and hardly likely, therefore, to "follow" the guidance of an educationist who is suggesting the methods of a private tutor. How improbable this is will be seen if the reader will consult Mulcaster himself in his "Positions" (Quick's reprint), chapter xxxix. (p. 183 et seq.), where he emphatically developes the reasons why public education is better than private, and in the previous chapter, even for girls, declares with a seeming reluctance that he can say little as to whether their education should be public or private, because "there is no public provision." Accordingly, Mulcaster is a comprehensive writer on school education, as to which Ascham only incidentally refers.

I. The importance of the elementary school.
II. The necessity for the training of school-

masters.

III. That young maidens are to be set to learning.

I.—As to the ImportancE OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

In chapter xxxvi. of the "Positions," Mulcaster states that those who are to have the benefit of the " trainer" or teacher are children of both

sorts, male and female, young boys and young maidens. He adds: "I admit here, generally, without difference of sex." It is only right to say, however, that Mulcaster believes that there must come a "choice of wits" to go on to higher learning in such schools as the grammar schools. "Yet," he deliberately suggests, "by the way for writing and reading so they rested there; what if everyone had them for religion sake and their necessary affairs?" He thus contemplates, in a hypothetical fashion, it is true, universal education, up to a certain point. It may be pointed out, however, that he does not propose that it should be compulsory. His reason for not admitting all to school is that there are not "livings " enough for the learned. "For the rooms which are to be supplied by learning being within number, if they that are to supply them grow on beyond number, how can it be but too great a burden for any state to bear?" This fully explains Mulcaster's objection to going too far with the production of scholars.

But when Mulcaster comes to treat of the teachers, he is in touch with the best modern thought. He says that he will deal in his book "with that property in the common master, which concerneth teaching which is either elementary. or grammatical

"

or academical." Of these three kinds of teachers, as we should say, elementary, secondary and university, he chooses the elementary teacher for special mention. In the Positions," he says: "The first grounding [of the child] should be handled by the best, and his reward should be greatest, because both his pains and his judgment should be with the greatest." The material of instruction is, says Mulcaster, "very small in show, though it is great in process." But what is more is that a good, scholarly, well-paid elementary teacher is of high service for the manner of handling the child's wit, to hearten him for afterward. Which," adds this educationist, "is of great moment." To induce “very able men" to enter elementary

66

1 The destruction in Henry VIII. and Edward VI.'s reigns of the various colleges attached to the cathedrals and large churches, and of the chantries, must have made a considerable void in the "livings" of the learned, and perhaps to some extent accounts for Mulcaster's demand that the "over. flowing multitude of scholars" must be restrained, and that parents must "yield over" their desires to have their children learned "to the disposition of their country.' "For while the Church was an harbour for all men to ride in, which knew any letter, there needed no restraint; the livings then were infinite and capable of that number; the more drew that way and found relief that way, the better for that state which encroached still on, and by clasping all persons would have grasped all livings." How opposed this is to the old educational supposition that general teaching began with the Edwardian grammar schools! See A. F. Leach's " English Schools at the Reformation," 1546-8.

teaching the payment should be good. Says Mulcaster: "If I were to strike the stroke as I am but to give counsel, the first pains truly taken should in good truth be most liberally remembered and less allowed still upward as the pains diminish and the ease increaseth." Το appreciate the insight of Mulcaster, it is well to bear constantly in mind that he was the Headmaster of Merchant Taylors' School, a stronghold of grammar as classical instruction.

Not less significant in his views with regard to the subjects of instruction and the manner of their teaching in the elementary school. The hand is to be trained in writing, the eye in drawing, and the ear in music. "Music is the natural sweetener of our sour life, in any man's judgment that is not too sour." It is to be employed so as to help to an appreciation of the "beauty of concord and blot of dissension" even in the body politic. Reading is to be taught so as to receive what the past has delivered to us. Writing gives us ease in daily use. These subjects, reading, writing, drawing, singing, playing, are the "first humanities," and there is the key-note of Mulcaster's discourse. The elementary school is to train for the "first humanities." For that purpose, the English language is to be taught, and used con amore. "I favour Italy, but England more. honour the Latin, but I worship the English. . . . I do not think that any language, be it whatsoever, is better able to utter all arguments, either with more pith or greater plainness, than our English tongue not any whit behind either the subtle Greek for crouching close on the stately Latin for spreading fair.” Put into modern terms, Mulcaster's plea is that even in the elementary schools there should be liberal education, as far as it goes, with disinterested aims.

II. THE NECESSITY FOR THE TRAINING OF SCHOOLMASTers.

I

At last in England we have got the prospect of the registration of teachers, founded as it must be on training. At present we are in the very beginning of the training of teachers in secondary schools. Yet if we wish to put the case for training, we can hardly find better words than

those of Mulcaster: "He that will not allow of a careful provision for a seminary of masters is most unworthy either to have had a good master himself or hereafter to have a good one for his. Why should not teachers be well provided for to continue their whole life in the school as divines, lawyers, physicians, do in their several professions? Thereby judgment, cunning, and discretion will grow in them, and masters would prove old men, and such as Xenophon setteth over children in the schooling of Cyrus. . . . I conclude, therefore, that this trade requireth a particular college for these four causes:

'(1) For the subject being the means to make or mar the whole fry of our State.

(2) For the number, whether of them that are to learn, or of them that are to teach.