CHAPTER XV.

SOME CRITICISMS ON PESTALOZZI'S THEORIES.

THE intelligent student of the science of education who does not know more than Pestalozzi-and this chiefly because of what Pestalozzi's life and work have done for education-about some of the principles and practice of education has not yet mastered the outlines of his study. The advance in psychology-there was no psychology, in the modern sense, in Pestalozzi's time-alone has been so great that our knowledge of educational ways and means is very much in advance of what was possible in Pestalozzi's time; and the progress in practical methods has, in the case of the most intelligent educators, been very considerable. But while we reverently, but unflinchingly, sit in judgment on that to which no higher compliment can be paid than to feel that it merits our efforts to remove all that may obscure the pure light of its great truths, let us never forget that we do but brush the dust from the shoes of a master-one whose shoe-latchets we may not be worthy to unloose. After we have done this, let us, as it were, once more stand back and respectfully take a full view of the whole man; and then shall we again feel that we must "praise noble men and the fathers that begat us". The folly of the wise is often greater than the wisdom of others and we are not holy because we can see faults in a saint.

Nor need we fear to undertake such a task in such a spirit, for men like Pestalozzi are not only worthy of this tribute from their disciples, but they themselves desire it. They are concerned to teach what is true, and to help their pupils to yet higher and fuller truths.

Thus Pestalozzi writes, in his Swan's Song: "And so I end my dying strain with the words with which I began it: Prove all things and hold fast that which is good! If anything better has ripened in you, add it in truth and love to what in truth and love I have endeavoured to give to you in these pages. . . . Such as it is, give it an attentive examination, and whenever you yourself light upon a truth which you think likely to benefit humanity, do what you can for it, not so much for my sake as for that of the end I have in view. I ask nothing better than to be put on one side, and replaced by others, in all matters that others understand better than I do; so that they may be enabled to serve mankind better than I have ever been able to do." He also speaks of himself as "a man who wishes that others may take up what he has commenced, and succeed where he may have failed" (On Infants' Education).

The Simultaneous Oral Method. Raumer had a discussion (at Yverdon) with Pestalozzi on this matter, in which he very acutely criticised the method. Pestalozzi had urged Raumer to teach mineralogy at the institute, and Raumer replied: "If I do so, I must entirely depart from the methods of instruction pursued in the institution. Why so? asked Pestalozzi. According to that method, I replied, I should have to do nothing but hold up before the boys one specimen after another, to give the name of each, for example: 'That is chalk,' and thereupon to make the class repeat in

unison three times: That is chalk'. It was thought that in this way observation of actual objects and instruction in language were provided for at the same time.

"I endeavoured to explain that such a mode of instruction made a mere show, giving the children words before they had formed an idea of the images of the minerals; that moreover the process of perception and conception was only disturbed by the talking of the teacher and the repetition of the scholars, and was therefore best done in silence. On Pestalozzi's opposing this view, I asked him why children are born speechless, and do not begin to learn to speak until they are about three years old; why we should in vain hold a light before a child eight days old, and say 'light' three times, or even a hundred times, as the child would certainly not try to repeat the word; whether this was not an indication to us, from a higher hand, that time is necessary for the external perception of the senses to become internally appropriated, so that the word shall only come forth as the matured fruit of the inward conception, now fully formed. What I said about the silence of children struck Pestalozzi."

Dr. Biber also has a shrewd and suggestive criticism on this subject. He says that the use of simultaneous work in education "depends entirely on the stage of development which the children have attained. With such as have grown up in a condition almost savage, or worse than savage, and who are for the first time brought together under an influence intended for their improvement, the lowest degree of simultaneous action is calculated to arouse the soul from that selfish indolence in which it loves nothing, and observes nothing,

but self; and disturbs everything around it, not from a wish to do so, but from an exclusive tendency to follow self, and from an entire inattention to the fact that there exists anything but itself."

Without entering into details we may suggest some points which arise in the consideration of this method: (1) How far does it enable a few to lead, and all the others to follow mechanically-compare the case of members of a choir who cannot sing a simple tune directly from the score, but can manage quite difficult pieces when accompanied by piano, organ, or orchestra ; (2) how far is the effect likely to be almost wholly aural, i.e., the ear-memory is chiefly, if not wholly, cultivated; (3) how far is the sound, or the sentence, likely to be corrupted and misunderstood in the mixture of voices; (4) how far is the teacher likely to be able to tell whether an individual is really, partly, or wrongly doing what is expected; (5) how far is the method likely to discourage initiative, self-activity and self-dependence; (6) how far can a method which demands so much uniformity meet, to any reasonable extent, the diversity of quickness, intelligence, knowledge and ability which must exist even in the most homogeneous class; (7) how far are the possible, and actual, results of such a method-muscular-memory, nerve-memory, etc.-worth the time and trouble taken, in a system of true education; (8) would not these results be necessarily produced by the truly educational method, and, therefore, more surely and soundly; (9) how far does it interfere with, or prevent, the intuitive activity which Pestalozzi regards as the essential of all true education.

Mutual Instruction. Several references have already been made to the fact that Pestalozzi set children to

teach other children. Some used this as an argument in favour of Bell's and Lancaster's monitorial system. It is, however, clear that there is a great difference between the two, e.g., Pestalozzi used one child to teach one other child-or two other children-whilst Bell and Lancaster used one child to teach a group of other children; and Pestalozzi made use of a child who had been developed by his teaching until it had an intelligent mastery of whatever it was allowed to show to others, whilst Bell and Lancaster simply drilled their monitors in certain matter and method, and then set them to drill groups of other children in the same matter and by the same method.

It is interesting to note what Pestalozzi and Dr. Bell thought of each other's system. In 1815 the latter visited the institute at Yverdon, and at the end of his visit remarked to the interpreter (Ackermann, a former pupil with Pestalozzi) who accompanied him: “In another twelve years mutual instruction will be adopted by the whole world, and Pestalozzi's method will be forgotten". A few days afterwards a casual visitor said to Pestalozzi: "It is you, sir, I believe, who invented mutual instruction?" "God forbid!" answered Pestalozzi.

We suggest the following points for consideration : (1) Will the brightest or the dullest children receive such instruction; (2) if the dullest, do they need the most, or least, skilful educator; (3) is even a bright child the best, or a good, agent for securing what Pestalozzi meant when he said, "I want to psychologise education"; (4) is telling (or showing) the same thing, in method and effect, as teaching; (5) does, or can, one child consciously realise, understand and diagnose the