Читать книгу Comenius and the Beginnings of Educational Reform - W. S. Monroe - Страница 6

Table of Contents

“Comenius received his first impulse as a sense-realist,” says Raumer, “from the well-known Spanish pedagogue John Lewis Vives, who had come out against Aristotle and disputation in favor of a Christian mode of philosophizing and the silent contemplation of nature.” “It is better for the pupils to ask, to investigate, than to be forever disputing with one another,” said Vives. “Yet,” adds Comenius, “Vives understood better where the fault was than what was the remedy.” In the preface to the Janua, Comenius quotes Vives among others as opposed to the current methods of language teaching.

The Spanish educator was born a hundred years before Comenius, of poor, but noble parentage. When fifteen years old he was considered the most brilliant pupil in the academy at Valencia. Two years later he was matriculated in the University of Paris, where, as his biographers tell us, he was surrounded by the Dialecticians, whose theology was the most abstruse and whose Latin was the most barbarous. This condition of affairs turned the young Spaniard’s thoughts toward educational reform. He realized in Paris, as he had not before, the uselessness of the empty disputations which occupied so much time in the schools.

Three years were spent in study at Paris, after which Vives travelled through portions of Spain and France, and, in 1517, he settled with the Valdura family in Bruges and married the daughter of his host. Here he wrote his allegory Christi triumphus, in which he holds up to ridicule the methods of teaching in the University of Paris. A year later he was installed in the University of Louvain as the instructor of the young Cardinal de Croy. While here he wrote a history of philosophy; made the acquaintance of Erasmus; and opened correspondence with Thomas More and other reformers.

In 1519 he visited Paris with Cardinal de Croy; and, in spite of his late criticisms, he was cordially received by the university, his scholarship and ability now being recorded facts. Two years later De Croy died without having made any provision for the support of his tutor. Vives began at once a commentary on St. Augustine; but his health giving way, he returned to Bruges, where, in July, he had a personal interview with Thomas More, Wolsey, and others, who were in favor with Henry VIII of England. He taught at Louvain during the winter semester of 1522–1523, after which, through the influence of the English dignitaries already mentioned, he was called to England.

In what capacity he went to England is hardly known. Some say as the tutor of King Henry’s daughter Mary; others as a lecturer in the University of Oxford. Certain it is that he gave two lectures at Oxford, which were attended by the king and queen, and that he received the honorary degree of D.C.L., in 1523. In 1526 appeared his treatise on the care of the poor, which he dedicated to the municipal council of Bruges. It was one of the first scientific treatments of pauperism. He maintained that it was incumbent upon State, and not upon the Church to care for the poor. Buisson says of it, “Its suggestions are as attractive as they are wise; and even to-day they continue in full force.”

In 1528 he published his pedagogic classic on the Christian education of women. The mother, says Vives, like Cornelia, should regard her children as her most precious jewels. She should nurse her own children because of possible physical influences on the child. The mother should instruct her girl in all that pertains to the household; and early teach her to read. She should relate to her stories, not empty fables, but such as will instruct and edify her and teach her to love virtue and hate vice. The mother should teach her daughter that riches, power, praise, titles, and beauty are vain and empty things; and that piety, virtue, bravery, meekness, and culture are imperishable virtues. Strong discipline in the home is urged. Lax discipline, says Vives, makes a man bad, but it makes a woman a criminal. Dolls should be banished from the nursery because they encourage vanity and love of dress. Boys and girls should not be instructed together, not even during the earliest years of childhood. But women require to be educated as well as men. This work, which presented in stronger terms than hitherto the claims of the education of women, was dedicated to Catherine of Aragon. It was widely republished and had large influence.

For five years Vives had been a distinguished figure at the court of Henry VIII, but with the king’s application for divorce, in 1528, came a rupture of these pleasant relations. In a letter to a friend he says: “You must have heard of the troubles between the king and the queen, as it is now talked of everywhere. I have taken the side of the queen, whose cause has seemed to me just, and have defended her by word and pen. This offended his Majesty to such degree that I was imprisoned for six weeks, and only released upon condition that I would never appear in the palace again. I then concluded it safest to return home [to Bruges]; and, indeed, the queen advised me to in a secret letter. Shortly after Cardinal Campeggio was sent to Britain to judge the cause. The king was very solicitous that the queen appoint counsel to defend her side before Campeggio and Wolsey. She, therefore, called me to her aid; but I told her plainly that any defence before such a court was useless, and that it would be much better to be condemned unheard, than with the appearance of defence. The king sought only to save appearances with his people, that the queen might not appear to have been unjustly treated; but he had little regard for the rest. At this the queen was incensed that I did not obey her call instead of following my own good judgment, which is worth more to me than all the princes of the world together. So it has come about that the king regards me as his adversary, and the queen regards me as disobedient and opinionated; and both of them have withdrawn my pension.”

His closing years were passed at Bruges with his wife’s family; at Breda with the Duchess of Nassau, a Spanish lady who had formerly been his pupil; and at Paris, where he gave some courses of lectures. He had struggled against a weak constitution all his life, and after his return from England other diseases developed. He died on May 6, 1540, in his forty-eighth year, and was buried in the Church of St. Donat at Bruges.

His most considerable contribution to the philosophy of education appeared after his return from England. It was entitled De disciplinis; was published in three parts, in 1531; and was dedicated to the King of Portugal. As Dr. Lange remarks, this work alone entitles Vives to large consideration as an educational reformer.

Vives justifies, in the introduction, the position he assumes in regard to Aristotle; while he regards the Greek as a great philosopher, he declares that the world has gained in experience since Aristotle wrote, and he sees no reason why his teachings should not be set aside if found to be incorrect. He has no doubt but that later generations will find theories better adapted to their ends than those he himself advocates, but he greets as a friend the one who shall point out his errors.

In the first part he treats of the decline of the sciences. The causes of this decline he considers twofold: (1) Moral; and here he notes an unwillingness to search for truth for truth’s sake. Pride is the root of this evil. A student in the University of Paris had remarked to him, “Sooner than not distinguish myself by founding some new doctrine, I would defend one of whose falsity I was convinced.” This moral weakness he thought altogether inconsistent with the advancement of the sciences. (2) Historical and material, including as causes the migration of nations by which existing orders of civilization have been annihilated; the obscurity of ancient manuscripts, requiring more time to decipher their meaning than it would take to discover from nature their meaning; the ever increasing use of commentaries in the study of originals, in which the diverse opinions of the commentators lead farther from the original sense; the practice of scholastic disputation which is taught the pupils before they know what they are disputing about; and the practice of regarding teaching as a trade rather than a profession, thus causing many bright minds to select other vocations, and to bring to the work incompetent and coarse minds.

The second part treats of the decline of grammar, and the third part of the art of teaching, in which he gives some most sane directions. Schools should be located in the most healthy part of the community. They should not be too near commercial centres; at the same time, they should not be too distant from the centre of population. As to teachers, they should have good academic training; they should be skilled in the art of imparting knowledge; and their morals should be such as would furnish examples to their pupils. Covetousness and ambition, above all things, should be unknown to them. Teachers who have ambition and reputation in their minds are thereby unfitted for the work of teaching. On this account, the state should fix the salaries, and the compensation should be the wage of honest men. There should be a school in every community. Before pupils should be assigned tasks, teachers should ascertain their mental capacities and characteristics. They should also be privately tested four times a year; and when children are found who possess no taste for study they should be dismissed from the school. Corporal punishment should seldom be applied, and never to such a degree as to humiliate the pupils. Children should be given plenty of play time; and hearty, romping games are especially recommended. In the matter of method, Vives heartily commends the inductive—from particulars to generals—and he urges such a grouping of studies that each new subject studied may naturally grow out of the preceding lesson. While he strongly advises the study of the natural sciences, he is less enthusiastic here than Bacon, fearing, as he admits, that a contemplation of nature may prove dangerous to those not deeply grounded in faith.

But Vives was essentially a realist in his doctrines of education; and when his views are compared with those of Comenius, community of ideas is at once apparent. Both would begin education in the home and make the mother the first teacher. Both realized the need of better organization and classification of the schools. Both urged reforms in the matter of language teaching. Both considered education a matter of state concern, and urged pedagogical training for teachers. Both presented the claims of science and urged the coördination and correlation of the different subjects of study. Both emphasized the value of play and the need of physical training. Both advocated education for all classes of both sexes, and both exaggerated the need and importance of the religious training of the child.