PART V
LESSONS AS INSTRUMENTS OF EDUCATION
I.—THE MATTER AND METHOD OF LESSONS
It seems to me that we live in an age of pedagogy;
that we of the teaching profession are inclined to
take too much upon ourselves, and that parents are
ready to yield the responsibility of direction, as well
as of actual instruction, more than is wholesome for
the children.
Parents must reflect on the Subject-matter of
Instruction.—I am about to invite your attention to
a subject that parents are accustomed to leave very
much in the hands of schoolmaster or governess when
they do not instruct their children themselves—I
mean the choice of subjects of instruction, and the
ways of handling those subjects. Teachers are the
people who have, more than others, given themselves
to the consideration of what a child should learn and
how he should learn it; but the parent, also, should
have thought out this subject, and even when he does
not profess to teach his children, should have his own
carefully formed opinions as to the subject-matter
and the method of their intellectual education: and
this for the sake of the teacher as well as for that of
the children. Nothing does more to give vitality and
purpose to the work of the teacher than the certainty
that the parents of his pupils go with him.
Even when children go to schools taught by qualified
persons, some insight on the part of fathers and
mothers is useful as hindering the teacher from dropping
into professional grooves, valuing proficiency in
this or that subject for its own sake, and not as it
affects the children. But in the early days of the home
schoolroom, it is iniquitous to leave the young governess,
with little qualification beyond her native French
or German, or scanty English, to chalk out a course
for herself and her charges. That the children waste
their time is the least of the evils that accrue: they
are forming habits dead against intellectual effort; and
by-and-by, when they go to school, the lessons go over
their heads, the work slips through their fingers, and
their powers of passive resistance baffle the most
strenuous teachers.
Home the best Growing-ground for Young
Children.—All the same, whatever be the advantages
of Kindergarten or other schools for little
children, the home schoolroom ought to be the best
growing-ground for them. And doubtless it would be
so, were the mother at liberty to devote herself to the
instruction of her children; but this she is seldom free
to do. If she live in a town, she can send them to
school when they are six; if in the country, she
must have a governess; and the difficulty is to get a
woman who is not only acquainted with the subjects
she undertakes to teach, but who understands in some
measure the nature of the child and the art and objects
of education; a woman capable of making the very
most of the children without waste of power or of
time. Such a rara avis does not present herself in
answer to every advertisement; and in default of a
trained teacher, the mother must undertake to train
her governess—that is, she may supplement with her
own insight the scanty knowledge and experience of
the young teacher. ‘I wish the children to be taught
to read, thus and thus, because——’: or, ‘to learn
history in such a way that the lessons may have such
and such effects.’ Half an hour’s talk of this kind
with a sensible governess will secure a whole month’s
work for the children, so well directed that much is
done in little time, and the widest possible margin
secured for play and open-air exercise.
Three Questions for the Mother.—But if the
mother is to inoculate the governess with her views
as to the teaching of writing, French, geography, she
must, herself, have definite views. She must ask
herself seriously, Why must the children learn at
all? What should they learn? And, How should
they learn it? If she take the trouble to find a
definite and thoughtful answer to each of these
three queries, she will be in a position to direct her
children’s studies; and will, at the same time, be
surprised to find that three-fourths of the time and
labour ordinarily spent by the child at his lessons is
lost time and wasted energy.
Children learn, to Grow.—Why must the child
learn? Why do we eat? Is it not in order that the
body may live and grow and be able to fulfil its
functions? Precisely so must the mind be sustained
and developed by means of the food convenient for
it, the mental pabulum of assimilated knowledge.
Again, the body is developed not only by means of
proper sustenance, but by the appropriate exercise of
each of its members. A young mother remarked to
me the other day, that before her marriage she had
such slender arms she never liked to exhibit them;
but a strong five-months-old baby had cured her of
that; she could toss and lift him with ease, and could
now show well-rounded arms with anybody: and
just as the limbs grow strong with exercise, so does
intellectual effort with a given power of the mind make
that power effective. People are apt to overlook the
fact that mind must have its aliment—we learn that
we may know, not that we may grow; hence the
parrot-like saying of lessons, the cramming of ill-digested
facts for examinations, all the ways of taking
in knowledge which the mind does not assimilate.
Doctoring of the Material of Knowledge.—Specialists,
on the other hand, are apt to attach too
much importance to the several exercises of the
mental ‘faculties.’ We come across books on teaching,
with lessons elaborately drawn up, in which
certain work is assigned to the perceptive faculties,
certain work to the imagination, to the judgment,
and so on. Now this doctrine of the faculties, which
rests on a false analogy between the mind and the
body, is on its way to the limbo where the phrenologist’s
‘bumps’ now rest in peace. The mind would
appear to be one and indivisible, and endowed with
manifold powers; and this sort of doctoring of the
material of knowledge is unnecessary for the healthy
child, whose mind is capable of self-direction, and of
applying itself to its proper work upon the parcel
of knowledge delivered to it. Almost any subject
which common sense points out as suitable for the
instruction of children will afford exercise for all
their powers, if properly presented.
Children learn, to get Ideas.—The child must
learn, in the second place, in order that ideas may be
freely sown in the fruitful soil of his mind. ‘Idea,
the image or picture formed by the mind of anything
external, whether sensible or spiritual,’—so, the
dictionary; therefore, if the business of teaching be
to furnish the child with ideas, any teaching which
does not leave him possessed of a new mental image
has, by so far, missed its mark. Now, just think of
the listless way in which the children too often drag
through reading and tables, geography and sums, and
you will see that it is a rare thing for any part of any
lesson to flash upon them with the vividness which
leaves a mental picture behind. It is not too much
to say that a morning in which a child receives no
new idea is a morning wasted, however closely the
little student has been kept at his books.
Ideas Grow and Produce after their Kind.—For
the dictionary appears to me to fall short of the
truth in its definition of the term ‘idea.’ An idea is
more than an image or a picture; it is, so to speak, a
spiritual germ endowed with vital force—with power,
that is, to grow, and to produce after its kind. It is
the very nature of an idea to grow: as the vegetable
germ secretes that it lives by, so, fairly implant an
idea in the child’s mind, and it will secrete its own
food, grow, and bear fruit in the form of a succession
of kindred ideas. We know from our own experience
that, let our attention be forcibly drawn to some
public character, some startling theory, and for days
after we are continually hearing or reading matter
which bears on this one subject, just as if all the
world were thinking about what occupies our
thoughts: the fact being, that the new idea we have
received is in the act of growth, and is reaching out
after its appropriate food. This process of feeding
goes on with peculiar avidity in childhood, and the
growth of an idea in the child is proportionately rapid.
Scott and Stephenson worked with Ideas.—Scott
got an idea, a whole group of ideas, out of the
Border tales and ballads, the folklore of the countryside,
on which his boyhood was nourished: his ideas
grew and brought forth, and the Waverley Novels
are the fruit they bore. George Stephenson made
little clay engines with his playmate, Thomas
Tholoway; by-and-by, when he was an engineman,
he was always watching his engine, cleaning it,
studying it; an engine was his dominant idea, and
it developed into no less a thing than the locomotive.
Value of Dominant Ideas.—But how does this
theory of the vital and fruitful character of ideas bear
upon the education of the child? In this way: give
your child a single valuable idea, and you have done
more for his education than if you had laid upon his
mind the burden of bushels of information; for the
child who grows up with a few dominant ideas has
his self-education provided for, his career marked out.
Lessons must furnish Ideas.—In order for the
reception of an idea, the mind must be in an attitude
of eager attention, and how to secure that state we
have considered elsewhere. One thing more: a single
idea may be a possession so precious in itself, so
fruitful, that the parent cannot fitly allow the child’s
selection of ideas to be a matter of chance: his lessons
should furnish him with such ideas as shall make for
his further education.
Children learn to get Knowledge.—But it is
not only to secure due intellectual growth and the
furnishing of his mind with ideas, that the child must
learn: the common notion, that he learns for the sake
of getting knowledge, is also a true one so much so,
that no knowledge should be so precious as that
gained in childhood, no later knowledge should be so
clearly chronicled on the brain, nor so useful as the
foundation of that to follow. At the same time, the
child’s capacity for knowledge is very limited; his
mind is, in this respect at least, but a little phial with
a narrow neck; and, therefore, it behoves parent or
teacher to pour in only of the best.
Diluted Knowledge.—But, poor children, they
are too often badly used by their best friends in the
matter of the sort of knowledge offered them. Grown-up
people who are not mothers talk and think far
more childishly than the child does in their efforts to
approach his mind. If a child talk twaddle, it is
because his elders are in the habit of talking twaddle
to him; leave him to himself, and his remarks are wise
and sensible so far as his small experience guides him.
Mothers seldom talk down to their children; they are
too intimate with the little people, and have, therefore,
too much respect for them: but professional teachers,
whether the writers of books or the givers of lessons,
are too apt to present a single grain of pure knowledge
in a whole gallon of talk, imposing upon the child the
labour of discerning the grain and of extracting it
from the worthless flood.
Dr Arnold’s Knowledge as a Child.—On the
whole, the children who grow up amongst their elders
and are not provided with what are called children’s
books at all, fare the better on what they are able to
glean for themselves from the literature of grown-up
people. Thus it is told of Dr Arnold that when he
was three years old he received a present from his
father of Smollett’s History of England as a reward
for the accuracy with which he went through the
stories connected with the portraits and pictures of
the successive reigns—an amusement which probably
laid the foundation of the great love for history which
distinguished him in after life. When occupying the
professorial chair at Oxford, he made quotations, we
are told, from Dr Priestley’s Lectures on History,—verbally
accurate quotations, we may believe, for such
was the habit of his mind; besides, a child has little
skill in recasting his matter—and that, though he
had not had the book in his hands since he was a
child of eight. No doubt he was an exceptional
child; and all I maintain is, that had his reading been
the sort of diluted twaddle which is commonly thrust
upon children, it would have been impossible for him
to cite passages a week, much less some two score
years, after the reading.
Literature Proper for Children.—This sort of
weak literature for the children, both in story and
lesson books, is the result of a reactionary process.
Not so long ago the current impression was that the
children had little understanding, but prodigious
memory for facts; dates, numbers, rules, catechisms
of knowledge, much information in small parcels, was
supposed to be the fitting material for a child’s
education. We have changed all that, and put into
the children’s hands lesson-books with pretty pictures
and easy talk, almost as good as story-books; but we
do not see that, after all, we are but giving the same
little pills of knowledge in the form of a weak and
copious diluent. Teachers, and even parents, who
are careful enough about their children’s diet, are
so reckless as to the sort of mental aliment offered
to them, that I am exceedingly anxious to secure
consideration for this question, of the lessons and
literature proper for the little people.
Four Tests which should be applied to
Children’s Lessons.—We see, then, that the
children’s lessons should provide material for their
mental growth, should exercise the several powers
of their minds, should furnish them with fruitful ideas,
and should afford them knowledge, really valuable for
its own sake, accurate, and interesting, of the kind
that the child may recall as a man with profit and
pleasure. Before applying these tests to the various
subjects in which children are commonly instructed,
may I remind you of two or three points which I have
endeavoured to establish in the preceding pages:—
Résumé of Six Points already considered.—
(a) That the knowledge most valuable to the child is
that which he gets with his own eyes and ears and
fingers (under direction) in the open air.
(b) That the claims of the schoolroom should not
be allowed to encroach on the child’s right to long
hours daily for exercise and investigation.
(c) That the child should be taken daily, if possible,
to scenes—moor or meadow, park, common, or shore—where
he may find new things to examine, and so
add to his store of real knowledge. That the child’s
observation should be directed to flower or boulder,
bird or tree; that, in fact, he should be employed in
gathering the common information which is the basis
of scientific knowledge.
(d) That play, vigorous healthful play, is, in its
turn, fully as important as lessons, as regards both
bodily health and brain-power.
(e) That the child, though under supervision, should
be left much to himself—both that he may go to work
in his own way on the ideas he receives, and also that
he may be the more open to natural influences.
(f) That the happiness of the child is the condition
of his progress; that his lessons should be joyous, and
that occasions of friction in the schoolroom are greatly
to be deprecated.
Premising so much, let us now consider—What the
children should learn, and how they should be taught.
II.—THE KINDERGARTEN AS A PLACE OF EDUCATION
The Mother the best Kindergärtnerin.—It is
hardly necessary, here, to discuss the merits of the
Kindergarten School. The success of such a school
demands rare qualities in the teacher—high culture,
some knowledge of psychology and of the art of
education; intense sympathy with the children, much
tact, much common sense, much common information,
much ‘joyousness of nature’ and much governing
power;—in a word, the Kindergarten method is nicely
contrived to bring the child en rapport with a superior
intelligence. Given, such a superior being to conduct
it, and the Kindergarten is beautiful—‘’tis like a little
heaven below’; but put a commonplace woman in
charge of such a school, and the charmingly devised
gifts and games and occupations become so many
instruments of wooden teaching. If the very essence
of the Kindergarten method is personal influence, a
sort of spiritual mesmerism, it follows that the mother
is naturally the best Kindergärtnerin; for who so
likely as she to have the needful tact, sympathy,
common sense, culture?
The Nursery need not therefore be a Kindergarten.—Though
every mother should be a Kindergärtnerin,
in the sense in which Froebel would employ
the term, it does not follow that every nursery should
be a regularly organised Kindergarten. Indeed, the
machinery of the Kindergarten is no more than a
device to ensure the carrying out of certain educational
principles, and some of these it is the mother’s
business to get at, and work out according to
Froebel’s method—or her own. For instance, in the
Kindergarten the child’s senses are carefully and
progressively trained: he looks, listens, learns by
touch; gets ideas of size, colour, form, number; is
taught to copy faithfully, express exactly. And in
this training of the senses, the child is made to pursue
the method the infant shapes for himself in his early
studies of ring or ball.
Field of Knowledge too circumscribed.—But
it is possible that the child’s marvellous power of
obtaining knowledge by means of his senses may be
undervalued; that the field may be too circumscribed;
and that, during the first six or seven years in which
he might have become intimately acquainted with the
properties and history of every natural object within
his reach, he has obtained, exact ideas, it is true—can
distinguish a rhomboid from a pentagon, a primary
from a secondary colour, has learned to see so truly
that he can copy what he sees in folded paper or
woven straw,—but this at the expense of much of
that real knowledge of the external world which at no
time of his life will he be so fitted to acquire. Therefore,
while the exact nicely graduated training of
the Kindergarten may be of value, the mother will
endeavour to give it by the way, and will by no means
let it stand for that wider training of the senses, to
secure which for her children is a primary duty.
Again, the child in the Kindergarten is set to such
tasks only as he is competent to perform, and then,
whatever he has to do, he is expected to do perfectly.
I have seen a four-years-old child blush and look as
self-condemned, because he had folded a slip of paper
irregularly, as if found out in a falsehood. But
mother or nurse is quite able to secure that the child’s
small offices are perfectly executed; and, here is
an important point, without that slight strain of
distressful anxiety which may be observed in children
labouring to please that smiling goddess, their
‘Kindergärtnerin.’
Training of a Just Eye and Faithful Hand.—The
Kindergarten ‘Occupations’ afford opportunities
for training in this kind of faithfulness; but in the
home a thousand such opportunities occur; if only
in such trifles as the straightening of a tablecloth
or of a picture, the hanging of a towel, the packing
of a parcel—every thoughtful mother invents a
thousand ways of training in her child a just eye
and a faithful hand. Nevertheless, as a means of
methodical training, as well as of happy employment,
the introduction of some of the games and occupations
of the Kindergarten into the nursery may be allowed;
provided that the mother does not depend upon these,
but makes all the child’s occupations subserve the
purposes of his education.
‘Sweetness and Light’ in the Kindergarten.—The
child breathes an atmosphere of ‘sweetness and
light’ in the Kindergarten. You see the sturdy
urchin of five stiffen his back and decline to be a
jumping frog, and the Kindergärtnerin comes with
unruffled gentleness, takes him by the hand, and leads
him out of the circle,—he is not treated as an offender,
only he does not choose to do as others do, therefore
he is not wanted there: the next time, he is quite
content to be a frog. Here we have the principle for
the discipline of the nursery. Do not treat the child’s
small contumacy too seriously; do not assume that
he is being naughty: just leave him out when he is
not prepared to act in harmony with the rest. Avoid
friction; and above all, do not let him disturb the
moral atmosphere; in all gentleness and serenity,
remove him from the company of the others, when he
is being what nurses call ‘tiresome.’
Once more, the Kindergarten professes to take
account of the joyousness of the child’s nature: to
allow him full and free expression for the glee that is
in him, without the ‘rampaging’ which follows if he is
left to himself to find an outlet for his exuberant life.
This union of joy and gentleness is the very temper
to be cultivated in the nursery. The boisterous
behaviour sometimes allowed in children is unnecessary—within
doors, at any rate; but even a momentary
absence of sunshine on the faces of her children will
be a graver cause of uneasiness to the mother. On
the whole, we may say that some of the principles
which should govern Kindergarten training are precisely
those in which every thoughtful mother endeavours
to bring up her family; while the practices
of the Kindergarten, being only ways, amongst others,
of carrying out these principles, and being apt to
become stereotyped and wooden, are unnecessary, but
may be adopted so far as they fit in conveniently with
the mother’s general scheme for the education of her
family.
III.—FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
KINDERGARTEN
The Childhood of Tolstoi.—There is possibly no
known field of research in which so little available
work has been done as in that covered by the word
‘children.’ The ‘fair lande’ lies under our very eyes,
but whoso would map it out must write ‘Unexplored’
across vast tracts. Thoughtful persons begin to
suspect that the mistakes we make through this
ignorance are grievous and injurious. For example,
are not all our schemes of education founded on the
presumption that a child’s mind—his ‘thinking, feeling
man’—begins ‘very small’ and grows great with
the growth of his body? We cannot tell if this is
indeed the case. The children keep themselves to
themselves in a general way, their winning ways
and frank confidences notwithstanding; but if one
of us do, by chance, get a child revealed to him, he
is startled to find that the child has by far the keener
intelligence, the wiser thoughts, the larger soul of
the two. When genius is able to lift the veil and
show us a child, it does a service which, in our present
state of thought, we are hardly able to appraise; and
when genius or simplicity, or both, shall have given
us enough such studies to generalise upon, we shall
doubtless reconsider the whole subject, and shall be dismayed
at the slights we have been putting upon children
in the name of education. Count Tolstoi gives us,
in Childhood, Boyhood, Youth,[9] unmistakable child-portraiture,
a miniature in which a mother may see her child
and recognise what and how much there is in him:—
“Like our own dear mother,”
the little fellow writes, in the verses he makes for his
grandmothers birthday; and then, when the verses
come to be read, ah! the humiliation of soul he goes
through, and how surely he expects father and grandmother
to find him out for a hypocrite. “Why did I
write it? She’s not here, and it was not necessary to
mention her; I love grandma, it’s true; I reverence
her, but still she is not the same. Why did I write
it? Why have I lied?” This is the sort of thing
there is in children. We recognise it as we read,
and remember the dim, childish days when we, too,
had an ‘organ of truth’ just so exquisitely delicate;
and the recollection should quicken our reverence for
the tender consciences of children.
“The Story of a Child.”—I should like while
speaking of this subject to mention another book
which contains the self-revelation of a child,—a child
that once was summoned, to give evidence, out of the
dark abysm of time. This is the sort of study of
a child that is really precious, because it is to be had
on no other terms than by harking back to our own
childhood, vivifying it, reproducing it, by mere force of
imaginative power. This is absolutely the only way to
get into sympathy with a child, for children, with all
their frank confidences and ready chatter, are quite
inscrutable little persons, who never tell anyone the
sort of things that we read in this ‘Story.’ There is
no need to tell each other, for other children know,
and, as for telling the grown-ups, children are fully
persuaded that no grown-up, not even mother, could
understand; Ponto might, perhaps, and confidences
will be poured into the ear of a dog which the loving
mother lays herself out for in vain.
“Each in his hidden sphere of joy or woe
Our hermit spirits dwell, and range apart,
Our eyes see all around in gloom or glow—
Hues of their own, fresh borrow’d from the heart.”
And this is even more notably the case with
children than with ourselves. It is a law of our nature
with which it is absolutely useless to contend, and our
only means of true intimacy with a child is the power
of recovering our own childhood—a power which we
are apt to let slip as of no vital importance. This,
Miss Margaret Deland helps us to do: we recognise
our old selves, with a difference, in Ellen. Just so
irrational, inconsequent, loving and heroic, and
generally tiresome to the grown-up world were our
own impulses in that long ago, on which we look back
with tenderness, but seldom with complacency. If
we rise, after reading The Story of a Child,[10] a little
more humble, a little more diffident, ready to believe
more than we see, why, it will do us no harm, and
should bless and help the children. From one word
of the author’s we should like to differ. Miss Deland
thinks that it may be wholesome for the elders to
understand children better, but for the children, why,
she thinks that most of us grow up wonderfully well in
spite of this and all other difficulties. In a sense this
is true, but, in another sense, one of the saddest things
in life is the issue of splendid child-material into commonplace,
uninteresting maturity, of a kind that the
world seems to be neither the better nor the worse for.
Tolstoi’s childhood and that of Miss Deland’s little
heroine would appear to be a far cry from ‘the Kindergarten’;
but as a matter of fact these two revelations
of what children are bring our contention to a point.
We are told that, “but yesterday, in the University
of Edinburgh, the greatest figure in the Faculty was
Sir James Simpson, the discoverer of chloroform.
The other day his successor and nephew, Professor
Simpson, was asked by the librarian of the University
to go to the library and pick out the books on his
subject that were no longer needed. And his reply
to the librarian was this: ‘Take every text-book that
is more than ten years old, and put it down in the
cellar.’” So far as education is a science, the truth
of even ten—much more, a hundred—years ago is
not the whole truth of to-day.
“Thoughts beyond their thought to those high seers were given”;
and, in proportion as the urgency of educational
effort presses upon us, will be the ardour of our
appreciation, the diligence of our employment, of
those truths which the great pioneers, Froebel and
the rest, have won for us by no less than prophetic
insight. But, alas, and alas, for the cravings of
lazy human nature—we may not have an educational
pope; we must think out for ourselves, as well as
work out, those things that belong to the perfect
bringing-up of our children.
What we Owe to Froebel.—We reverence
Froebel. Many of his great thoughts we share; we
cannot say borrow, because some, like the child’s
relations to the universe, are at least as old as
Plato; others belong to universal practice and experience,
and this shows their psychological rightness.
Froebel gathered diffused thought and practice into
a system, but he did a greater thing than this. He
raised an altar to the enthusiasm of childhood upon
which the flame has never since gone out. The
true Kindergärtnerin is the artist amongst teachers;
she is filled with the inspiration of her work, and
probably most sincere teachers have caught something
from her fervour, some sense of the beauty
of childhood, and of the enthralling delight of truly
educational work.
Requirements of a Person.—And yet I enter a
caveat. Our first care should be to preserve the
individuality, give play to the personality, of children.
Now persons do not grow in a garden, much less in
a greenhouse. It is a doubtful boon to a person to
have conditions too carefully adapted to his needs.
The exactly due sunshine and shade, pruning and
training, are good for a plant whose uses are subordinate,
so to say, to the needs and pleasures of its
owner. But a person has other uses in the world,
and mother or teacher who regards him as a plant
and herself as the gardener, will only be saved from
grave mistakes by the force of human nature in
herself and in her child.
Nature as an Educator.—The notion of supplementing
Nature from the cradle is a dangerous one.
A little guiding, a little restraining, much reverent
watching, Nature asks of us; but beyond that, it is
the wisdom of parents to leave children as much
as may be to Nature, and “to a higher Power than
Nature itself.”
Danger of undervaluing Children’s Intelligence.—Those
of us who have watched an urchin of seven
making Catherine-wheels down the length of a street,
or a group of little girls dancing to a barrel organ,
or small boys and girls on a door-step giving what
Dickens calls ‘dry nourishment’ to their babies, or
a small girl sent by her mother to make four careful
purchases out of sixpence and bring home the change—are
not ready to believe that physical, mental, and
moral development waits, so to speak, upon Kindergarten
teaching. Indeed, I am inclined to question
whether, in the interest of carrying out a system,
the charming Kindergärtnerin is not in danger sometimes
of greatly undervaluing the intelligence of her
children. I know a person of three who happened to
be found by a caller alone in the drawing-room. It
was spring, and the caller thought to make himself
entertaining with talk about the pretty ‘baa-lambs.’
But a pair of big blue eyes were fixed upon him and
a solemn person made this solemn remark, “Isn’t it
a dwefful howid thing to see a pig killed!” We
hope she had never seen or even heard of the killing
of a pig, but she made as effective a protest against
twaddle as would any woman of Society. Boers
and kopjes, Russians and Japs, Treasure Island,
Robinson Crusoe and his man Friday, the fight of
Thermopylæ, Ulysses and the Suitors—these are the
sorts of things that children play at by the month
together; even the toddlers of three and four will hold
their own manfully with their brothers and sisters.
And, if the little people were in the habit of telling
how they feel, we should learn perhaps that they are
a good deal bored by the nice little games in which
they frisk like lambs, flap their fins, and twiddle their
fingers like butterflies.
We all like to be Humoured.—‘But,’ says the
reader, ‘children do all these things so pleasantly
and happily in the Kindergarten!’ It is a curious
thing about human nature that we all like to be
managed by persons who take the pains to play on
our amiabilities. Even a dog can be made foolishly
sentimental; and, if we who are older have our
foibles in this kind, it is little wonder that children
can be wooed to do anything by persons whose
approaches to them are always charming. It is
true that ‘W. V.,’ the child whom the world has
been taught to love, sang her Kindergarten songs
with little hands waving in the ‘air so blue!’ but
that was for the delectation and delusion of the elders
when bedtime came. ‘W. V.’ had greater thoughts
at other times.
Teachers mediate too much.—There are still,
probably, Kindergartens where a great deal of
twaddle is talked in song and story, where the
teacher conceives that to make poems for the
children herself and to compose tunes for their
singing and to draw pictures for their admiration,
is to fulfil her function to the uttermost. The
children might echo Wordsworth’s complaint of
‘the world’ and say, the teacher is too much with
us, late and soon. Everything is directed, expected,
suggested. No other personality out of book, picture,
or song, no, not even that of Nature herself, can get
at the children without the mediation of the teacher.
No room is left for spontaneity or personal initiation
on their part.
Danger of Personal Magnetism.—Most of us
are misled by our virtues, and the entire zeal and
enthusiasm of the Kindergärtnerin is perhaps her
stone of stumbling. ‘But the children are so happy
and good!’ Precisely; the home-nursery is by no
means such a scene of peace, but I venture to think
it a better growing-place. I am delighted to see
that an eminent Fröbelian protests against the
element of personal magnetism in the teacher; but
there is, or has been, a good deal of this element in
the successful Kindergärtner, and we all know how we
lose vigour and individuality under this sort of influence.
Even apart from this element of charm, I doubt if
the self-adjusting property of life in the Kindergarten
is good for children.
‘Kindergarten’ a False Analogy.—The world
suffered that morning when the happy name of
‘Kindergarten’ suggested itself to the greatest among
educational ‘Fathers.’ No doubt it was simple and
fit in its first intention as meaning an out-of-door
garden life for the children; but, a false analogy
has hampered, or killed, more than one philosophic
system—the child became a plant in a well-ordered
garden. The analogy appealed to the orderly,
scientific German mind, which does not much
approve of irregular, spontaneous movement in any
sort. Culture, due stimulus, sweetness and light,
became the chief features of a great educational
code. From the potting-shed to the frame and
thence to the flower-bed, the little plant gets in
due proportion what is good for him. He grows
in a seemly way, in ordered ranks; and in fit
season puts forth his flower.
Now, to figure a person by any analogy whatsoever
is dangerous and misleading; there is nothing in
nature commensurable with a person. Because the
analogy of the garden plant is very attractive, it is
the more misleading; manifestations of purpose in
a plant are wonderful and delightful, but in a person
such manifestations are simply normal. The outcome
of any thought is necessarily moulded by that
thought, and to have a cultivated garden as the
ground-plan of our educational thought, either means
nothing at all, which it would be wronging the
Master to suppose, or it means undue interference
with the spontaneous development of a human being.
Mother-games too strenuous for a Child.—To
begin with the ‘Mother-games,’ a sweet conception,
most lovingly worked out. But let us consider;
the infant is exquisitely aware of every mood of
his mother, the little face clouds with grief or beams
with joy in response to the expression of hers. The
two left to themselves have rare games. He jumps
and pulls, crows and chuckles, crawls and kicks and
gurgles with joy; and, amid all the play, is taught
what he may not do. Hands and feet, legs and
arms, fingers and toes, are continually going while
he is awake; mouth, eyes and ears are agog. All is
play without intention, and mother plays with baby
as glad as he. Nature sits quietly by and sees to
it that all the play is really work; and development
of every sort is going on at a greater rate during
the first two years of life than at any like period
of after life—enough development and not too
much, for baby is an inordinate sleeper. Then comes
in the educator and offers a little more. The new
games are so pretty and taking that baby might
as well be doing these as his own meaningless and
clumsy jumpings and pattings. But a real labour
is being put upon the child in addition to the heaviest
two years’ work that his life will know. His sympathy
with his mother is so acute that he perceives something
strenuous in the new play, notwithstanding all
the smiles and pretty talk; he answers by endeavour,
great in proportion as he is small. His nerve centres
and brain power have been unduly taxed, some of the
joy of living has been taken from him, and though his
baby response to direct education is very charming,
he has less latent power left for the future calls of life.
The Society of his Equals too stimulating
for a Child.—Let us follow the little person to the
Kindergarten, where he has the stimulus of classmates
of his own age. It certainly is stimulating.
For ourselves, no society is so much so as that of a
number of persons of our own age and standing; this
is the great joy of college life; a wholesome joy for
all young people for a limited time. But persons of
twenty have, or should have, some command over
their inhibitory centres. They should not permit
the dissipation of nerve power caused by too much
social stimulus; yet even persons of twenty are not
always equal to the task of self-management in exciting
circumstances. What then, is to be expected
of persons of two, three, four, five? That the little
person looks rather stolid than otherwise is no
guarantee against excitement within. The clash and
sparkle of our equals now and then stirs us up to
health; but for everyday life, the mixed society of
elders, juniors and equals, which we get in a family,
gives at the same time the most repose and the
most room for individual development. We have all
wondered at the good sense, reasonableness, fun and
resourcefulness shown by a child in his own home
as compared with the same child in school life.
Danger of supplanting Nature.—Danger lurks
in the Kindergarten, just in proportion to the completeness
and beauty of its organisation. It is possible
to supplement Nature so skilfully that we run some
risk of supplanting her, depriving her of space and
time to do her own work in her own way. ‘Go and
see what Tommy is doing and tell him he mustn’t,’
is not sound doctrine. Tommy should be free to do
what he likes with his limbs and his mind through
all the hours of the day when he is not sitting up
nicely at meals. He should run and jump, leap and
tumble, lie on his face watching a worm, or on his
back watching the bees in a lime tree. Nature will
look after him and give him promptings of desire
to know many things, and somebody must tell as
he wants to know; and to do many things, and
somebody should be handy just to put him in the
way; and to be many things, naughty and good, and
somebody should give direction.
Importance of Personal Initiative.—Here we
come to the real crux of the Kindergarten question.
The busy mother says she has no leisure to be that
somebody, and the child will run wild and get into
bad habits; but we must not make a fetish of habit;
education is a life as well as a discipline. Health,
strength, and agility, bright eyes and alert movements,
come of a free life, out-of-doors, if it may be; and as
for habits, there is no habit or power so useful to man
or woman as that of personal initiative. The resourcefulness
which will enable a family of children
to invent their own games and occupations through
the length of a summer’s day is worth more in after
life than a good deal of knowledge about cubes and
hexagons, and this comes, not of continual intervention
on the mother’s part, but of much masterly inactivity.
Parents and Teachers must sow Opportunities.—The
educational error of our day is that we believe
too much in mediators. Now, Nature is her own
mediator, undertakes, herself, to find work for eyes
and ears, taste and touch; she will prick the brain
with problems and the heart with feelings; and the
part of mother or teacher in the early years (indeed,
all through life) is to sow opportunities, and then
to keep in the background, ready with a guiding or
restraining hand only when these are badly wanted.
Mothers shirk their work and put it, as they would say,
into better hands than their own, because they do
not recognise that wise letting alone is the chief
thing asked of them, seeing that every mother has
in Nature an all-sufficient handmaid, who arranges for
due work and due rest of mind, muscles, and senses.
In one way the children of the poor have better
chances than those of the rich. Poor children get
education out of household ways; but there is a great
deal of good teaching to be got out of a wisely ordered
nursery, and their own small persons and possessions
should, as I have said, afford much ‘Kindergarten’
training to the little family at home. At six or seven,
definite lessons should begin, and these need not
be watered down or served with jam for the acute
intelligences that will in this way be brought to
bear on them.
‘Only’ Children.—But what of only children, or the
child too old to play with her baby brother? Surely
the Kindergarten is a great boon for these! Perhaps
so; but a cottage-child as a companion, or a lively
young nursemaid, might be better. A child will have
taught himself to paint, paste, cut paper, knit, weave,
hammer and saw, make lovely things in clay and
sand, build castles with his bricks; possibly, too, will
have taught himself to read, write, and do sums,
besides acquiring no end of knowledge and notions
about the world he lives in, by the time he is six
or seven. What I contend for is that he shall do
these things because he chooses (provided that the
standard of perfection in his small works be kept
before him).
The Child should be allowed some Ordering of
his Life.—The details of family living will give him
the repose of an ordered life; but, for the rest, he
should have more free-growing time than is possible
in the most charming school. The fact that lessons
look like play is no recommendation: they just want
the freedom of play and the sense of his own ordering
that belongs to play. Most of us have little enough
opportunity for the ordering of our own lives, so it is
well to make much of the years that can be given to
children to gain this joyous experience.
Helen Keller.—I think what I have said of natural
development as opposed to any too carefully organised
system is supported by a recent contribution, of unique
value, to the science of education—I mean the autobiography
of Helen Keller.[11]
When she was nineteen months old, Helen had a
severe illness, in which she lost sight and hearing, and
consequently speech. She never recovered the lost
senses; and here, we should say, was a soul almost
inviolably sealed, to which there was no approach but
through the single sense of touch; yet, this lady’s
book, written with her own unaided hands (she used
a typewriter), with hardly any revision, should rank as
a classic for the purity and pregnancy of the style,
independently of the vital interest of the matter. How
was the miracle accomplished? Of her childhood
Helen says herself that, save for a few impressions, “the
shadows of the prison-house” enveloped it. But there
were always roses, and she had the sense of smell; and
there was love—but she was not loving then. When
she was seven Miss Sullivan came to her. This lady
had herself been blind for some years, and had been
at the Perkins Institute, founded by that Dr Howe
who liberated the intelligence of Laura Bridgman. But
Miss Sullivan is no mere output of any institution.
She is a person of fine sanity and wholesomeness,
trusting to her personal initiative, and aware from the
first that her work was to liberate the personality of
her little pupil and by no means to superimpose her
own. “Thus I came up out of Egypt,” says Miss
Keller of the arrival of her teacher, and the voice
which she heard from Sinai said, “Knowledge is love
and light and vision”; and then follows that amazing
and enthralling epic which tells how it was all done,
how the one word water was the key which opened the
doors of the child’s mind, while the word love opened
those of the closed heart. Thenceforth, many new
words came every day with crowds of ideas; and it is
not too much to say that this imprisoned and desolate
child entered upon such a large inheritance of thought
and knowledge, of gladness and vision, as few of us of
the seeing and hearing world attain to. The instrument
in this great liberation was nothing more than
the familiar manual alphabet, followed in course of
time by raised books and ‘Braille.’
Miss Sullivan on Systems of Education.—Like
all great discoveries, this, of a soul, was, in all its steps,
marked by simplicity. Miss Sullivan had little love
for psychologists and all their ways; would have no
experiments; would not have her pupil treated as a
phenomenon, but as a person. “No,” she says, “I
don’t want any more Kindergarten materials.... I
am beginning to suspect all elaborate and special
systems of education. They seem to me to be built
up on the supposition that every child is a kind of
idiot who must be taught to think, whereas if the
child is left to himself he will think more and better,
if less showily. Let him go and come freely, let him
touch real things, and combine his impressions for
himself, instead of sitting indoors at a little round table,
while a sweet-voiced teacher suggests that he build a
stone wall with his wooden blocks, or make a rainbow
out of strips of coloured paper, or plant straw trees in
bead flower-pots. Such teaching fills the mind with
artificial associations that must be got rid of before the
child can develop independent ideas out of actual experiences.”
It is a great thing to have a study of education
as it were de novo, in which we see the triumph of
mind, not only over apparently insuperable natural
obstacles, but over the dead wall of systematised education—a
more complete hindrance to many a poor
child than her grievous defects proved to Helen Keller.
The Kindergarten in the United States.—This
question of the Kindergarten, as the proper place for
the education of young children, is so important that I
should like to recommend to parents and teachers the
examination of the subject contained in the Special
Reports published by the Board of Education.[12]
We must go to the United States to witness the
apotheosis of educational theory; I say theory rather
than practice, because the American mind, like the
French, seems to me severely logical as well as
generously impulsive. A theory arrives, is liberally
entertained, and is set to work with due appliances
on a magnificent scale to do that which in it lies
for the education of a great people. That is to say,
educational science in America appears to be deductive
rather than inductive; theories are translated into
experiments with truly imposing zeal and generosity.
An inductive theory of education is, on the other
hand, arrived at by means of long, slow, various, and
laborious experiments which disclose, here a little,
and there a little, of universal truth. The Americans
have chosen, perhaps, the easier way, and in the end,
they too experiment upon their theory. The Kindergarten
system illustrates what I mean; notwithstanding
its German name, the Kindergarten is not a
common product in the Fatherland; it is in America
that the ideas of Froebel have received their greatest
development, that the Kindergarten has become a cult,
and the great teacher a prophet. But the impulse has
worn itself out; any way, it is waxing weak.
Mr Thistleton Mark on the Kindergarten.—According
to Mr Thistleton Mark—whose able paper
on ‘Moral Education in American Schools’ offers
matter for much profitable reflection—“Even a stationary
Froebelian is driven to have some better
holdfast than the ipse dixit of the great reformer.
The word Kindergarten is no longer a proper noun
signifying always and everywhere the one, sole,
original, and identical thing. It is a common noun,
and as such is assured of a more permanent place
in American speech.” That is to say, educational
thought in America is tending towards the broad and
natural conception expressed in the phrase ‘education
is a life.’ But I wish that educationalists would
give up the name Kindergarten. I cannot help
thinking that it is somewhat of a strain to conscientious
minds to draw the cover of Froebelian doctrine
and practice over the broader and more living conceptions
that are abroad to-day. Even revolutionised
Kindergarten practice must suffer from the memory
and habit of weaknesses such as are pointed out
by Dr Stanley Hall in the following words:—
Dr Stanley Hall on the Kindergarten.—“The
most decadent intellectual new departure of the
American Froebelists is the emphasis now laid upon
the mother-plays as the acme of Kindergarten wisdom.
These are represented by very crude poems, indifferent
music and pictures, illustrating certain incidents of
child life believed to be of fundamental and typical
significance. I have read these in German and in
English, have strummed the music, and have given a
brief course of lectures from the sympathetic standpoint,
trying to put all the new wine of meaning I
could think of into them. But I am driven to the
conclusion that, if they are not positively unwholesome
and harmful for the child, and productive of
anti-scientific and unphilosophical intellectual habits
in the teacher, they should nevertheless be superseded
by the far better things now available.”[13]
“Another cardinal error of the Kindergarten is
the intensity of its devotion to gifts and occupations.
In devising these Froebel showed great sagacity; but
the scheme as it left his own hands was a very
inadequate expression of his educational ideas, even
for his time. He thought it a perfect grammar of
play and an alphabet of industries; and in this
opinion he was utterly mistaken. Play and industry
were then relatively undeveloped; and while his
devices were beneficent for the peasant children in
the country, they lead in the interests of the modern
city child a very pallid and unreal life.” With these
important utterances I must conclude a superficial
examination of the very important question,—Is the
Kindergarten the best training-ground for a child?
IV.—READING
Time of Teaching to Read, an Open Question.—Reading
presents itself first amongst the lessons to
be used as instruments of education, although it is
open to discussion whether the child should acquire
the art unconsciously, from his infancy upwards, or
whether the effort should be deferred until he is, say,
six or seven, and then made with vigour. In a
valuable letter, addressed to her son John, we have
the way of teaching to read adopted by that pattern
mother, the mother of the Wesleys:—
Mrs Wesley’s Plan.—“None of them was taught
to read till five years old, except Kezzy, in whose
case I was overruled; and she was more years in
learning than any of the rest had been months. The
way of teaching was this: the day before a child
began to learn, the house was set in order, every one’s
work appointed them, and a charge given that no
one should come into the room from nine to twelve,
or from two to five, which were our school hours.
One day was allowed the child wherein to learn its
letters, and each of them did in that time know all
its letters, great and small, except Molly and Nancy,
who were a day and a half before they knew them
perfectly, for which I thought them then very dull;
but the reason why I thought them so was because
the rest learned them so readily; and your brother
Samuel, who was the first child I ever taught, learned
the alphabet in a few hours. He was five years old
the tenth of February; the next day he began to
learn, and as soon as he knew the letters, began at
the first chapter of Genesis. He was taught to spell
the first verse, then to read it over and over until he
could read it off-hand without hesitation; so on, to
the second verse, etc., till he took ten verses for a
lesson, which he quickly did. Easter fell low that
year, and by Whitsuntide he could read a chapter
very well; for he read continually, and had such a
prodigious memory, that I cannot remember to have
told him the same word twice. What was yet
stranger, any word he had learnt in his lesson he
knew wherever he saw it, either in his Bible or any
other book, by which means he learned very soon to
read an English author well.”[14]
It is much to be wished that thoughtful mothers
would more often keep account of the methods they
employ with their children, with some definite note
of the success of this or that plan.
Many persons consider that to learn to read
a language so full of anomalies and difficulties as
our own is a task which should not be imposed too
soon on the childish mind. But, as a matter of fact,
few of us can recollect how or when we learned to
read: for all we know, it came by nature, like the
art of running; and not only so, but often mothers of
the educated classes do not know how their children
learned to read. ‘Oh, he taught himself,’ is all
the account his mother can give of little Dick’s proficiency.
Whereby it is plain, that this notion of the
extreme difficulty of learning to read is begotten by
the elders rather than by the children. There would
be no little books entitled Reading without Tears, if
tears were not sometimes shed over the reading
lesson; but, really, when that is the case, the fault
rests with the teacher.
The Alphabet.—As for his letters, the child usually
teaches himself. He has his box of ivory letters,
and picks out p for pudding, b for blackbird, h for
horse, big and little, and knows them both. But the
learning of the alphabet should be made a means of
cultivating the child’s observation: he should be made
to see what he looks at. Make big B in the air, and
let him name it; then let him make round O, and
crooked S, and T for Tommy, and you name the
letters as the little finger forms them with unsteady
strokes in the air. To make the small letters thus
from memory is a work of more art, and requires
more careful observation on the child’s part. A tray
of sand is useful at this stage. The child draws his
finger boldly through the sand, and then puts a back
to his D; and behold, his first essay in making a
straight line and a curve. But the devices for making
the learning of the ‘A B C’ interesting are endless.
There is no occasion to hurry the child: let him learn
one form at a time, and know it so well that he can
pick out the d’s, say, big and little, in a page of large
print. Let him say d for duck, dog, doll, thus:
d—uck, d—og, prolonging the sound of the initial
consonant, and at last sounding d alone, not dee, but
d’, the mere sound of the consonant separated as far
as possible from the following vowel.
Let the child alone, and he will learn the alphabet
for himself: but few mothers can resist the pleasure
of teaching it; and there is no reason why they
should, for this kind of learning is no more than
play to the child, and if the alphabet be taught
to the little student, his appreciation of both form
and sound will be cultivated. When should he begin?
Whenever his box of letters begins to interest him.
The baby of two will often be able to name half a
dozen letters; and there is nothing against it so long
as the finding and naming of letters is a game to him.
But he must not be urged, required to show off, teased
to find letters when his heart is set on other play.
Word-making.—The first exercises in the making
of words will be just as pleasant to the child.
Exercises treated as a game, which yet teach the
powers of the letters, will be better to begin with than
actual sentences. Take up two of his letters and
make the syllable ‘at’: tell him it is the word we use
when we say ‘at home,’ ‘at school.’ Then put b to
‘at’—bat; c to ‘at’—cat; fat, hat, mat, sat, rat, and
so on. First, let the child say what the word becomes
with each initial consonant; then let him add the
right consonant to ‘at,’ in order to make hat,
pat, cat. Let the syllables all be actual words
which he knows. Set the words in a row, and
let him read them off. Do this with the short
vowel sounds in combination with each of the consonants,
and the child will learn to read off dozens
of words of three letters, and will master the short-vowel
sounds with initial and final consonants without
effort. Before long he will do the lesson for himself.
‘How many words can you make with “en” and
another letter, with “od” and another letter?’ etc.
Do not hurry him.
Word-making with Long Vowels, etc.—When
this sort of exercise becomes so easy that it is no
longer interesting, let the long sounds of the vowels
be learnt in the same way: use the same syllables
as before with a final e; thus, ‘at’ becomes ‘ate,’
and we get late, pate, rate, etc. The child may be
told that a in ‘rate’ is long a; a in ‘rat’ is short
a. He will make the new sets of words with much
facility, helped by the experience he gained in the
former lessons.
Then the same sort of thing with final ‘ng’—‘ing,’
‘ang,’ ‘ong,’ ‘ung’; as ring, fang, long, sung: initial
‘th,’ as then, that: final ‘th,’ as with, pith, hath, lath,
and so on, through endless combinations which will
suggest themselves. This is not reading, but it is
preparing the ground for reading; words will be no
longer unfamiliar, perplexing objects, when the child
meets with them in a line of print. Require him to
pronounce the words he makes with such finish and
distinctness that he can himself hear and count the
sounds in a given word.
Early Spelling.—Accustom him from the first to
shut his eyes and spell the word he has made. This is
important. Reading is not spelling, nor is it necessary
to spell in order to read well; but the good speller is
the child whose eye is quick enough to take in the
letters which compose it, in the act of reading off a
word; and this is a habit to be acquired from the
first: accustom him to see the letters in the word, and
he will do so without effort.
If words were always made on a given pattern
in English, if the same letters always represented
the same sounds, learning to read would be an easy
matter; for the child would soon acquire the few
elements of which all words would, in that case, be
composed. But many of our English words are, each,
a law unto itself: there is nothing for it, but the child
must learn to know them at sight; he must recognise
‘which,’ precisely as he recognises ‘B,’ because he has
seen it before, been made to look at it with interest,
so that the pattern of the word is stamped on his
retentive brain. This process should go on side by
side with the other—the learning of the powers of the
letters; for the more variety you can throw into his
reading lessons, the more will the child enjoy them.
Lessons in word-making help him to take intelligent
interest in words; but his progress in the art of
reading depends chiefly on the ‘reading at sight’
lessons.
Reading at Sight.—The teacher must be content
to proceed very slowly, securing the ground under
her feet as she goes. Say—
“Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are,”
is the first lesson; just those two lines. Read the
passage for the child, very slowly, sweetly, with just
expression, so that it is pleasant to him to listen.
Point to each word as you read. Then point to
‘twinkle,’ ‘wonder,’ ‘star,’ ‘what,’—and expect the
child to pronounce each word in the verse taken
promiscuously; then, when he shows that he knows
each word by itself, and not before, let him read the
two lines with clear enunciation and expression:
insist from the first on clear, beautiful reading, and do
not let the child fall into a dreary monotone, no more
pleasant to himself than to his listener. Of course,
by this time he is able to say the two lines; and let
him say them clearly and beautifully. In his after
lessons he will learn the rest of the little poem.
The Reading of Prose.—At this stage, his reading
lessons must advance so slowly that he may just as
well learn his reading exercises, both prose and
poetry, as recitation lessons. Little poems suitable
to be learned in this way will suggest themselves at
once; but perhaps prose is better, on the whole, as
offering more of the words in everyday use, of Saxon
origin, and of anomalous spelling. Short fables, and
such graceful, simple prose as we have in Mrs Gatty’s
Parables from Nature, and, still better, in Mrs Barbauld’s
prose poems, are very suitable. Even for
their earliest reading lessons, it is unnecessary to put
twaddle into the hands of children.
But we have not yet finished the reading lesson on
‘Twinkle, twinkle, little star.’ The child should hunt
through two or three pages of good clear type for
‘little,’ ‘star,’ ‘you,’ ‘are,’ each of the words he has
learned, until the word he knows looks out upon him
like the face of a friend in a crowd of strangers,
and he is able to pounce upon it anywhere. Lest
he grow weary of the search, the teacher should
guide him, unawares, to the line or paragraph where
the word he wants occurs. Already the child has
accumulated a little capital; he knows eight or ten
words so well that he will recognise them anywhere,
and the lesson has occupied probably ten minutes.
The next ‘reading at sight’ lesson will begin with
a hunt for the familiar words, and then—
“Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky,”
should be gone through in the same way. As spelling
is simply the art of seeing, seeing the letters in a word
as we see the features of a face—say to the child,
‘Can you spell sky?’—or any of the shorter words.
He is put on his mettle, and if he fail this time, be
sure he will be able to spell the word when you ask
him next; but do not let him learn to spell or even
say the letters aloud with the word before him.
As for understanding what they read, the children
will be full of bright, intelligent remarks and questions,
and will take this part of the lesson into their own
hands; indeed, the teacher will have to be on her
guard not to let them carry her away from the subject.
Careful Pronunciation.—The little people will
probably have to be pulled up on the score of pronunciation.
They must render ‘high,’ ‘sky,’ ‘like,’
‘world,’ with delicate precision; ‘diamond,’ they will
no doubt wish to hurry over, and say as ‘di’mond,’
just as they will reduce ‘history’ to ‘hist’ry.’ But
here is another advantage of slow and steady progress—the
saying of each word receives due attention, and
the child is trained in the habit of careful enunciation.
Every day increases the number of words he is able
to read at sight, and the more words he knows
already, the longer his reading lesson becomes in
order to afford the ten or a dozen new words which
he should master every day.
A Year’s Work.—‘But what a snail’s progress!’
you are inclined to say. Not so slow, after all: a
child will thus learn, without appreciable labour, from
two to three thousand words in the course of a year;
in other words, he will learn to read, for the mastery
of this number of words will carry him with comfort
through most of the books that fall in his way.
Ordinary Method.—Now, compare the steady
progress and constant interest and liveliness of such
lessons with the deadly weariness of the ordinary
reading lesson. The child blunders through a page
or two in a dreary monotone without expression, with
imperfect enunciation. He comes to a word he does
not know, and he spells it; that throws no light on
the subject, and he is told the word: he repeats it,
but as he has made no mental effort to secure the
word, the next time he meets with it the same process
is gone through. The reading lesson for that day
comes to an end. The pupil has been miserably
bored, and has not acquired one new word. Eventually,
he learns to read, somehow, by mere dint of
repetition; but consider what an abuse of his
intelligence is a system of teaching which makes
him undergo daily labour with little or no result,
and gives him a distaste for books before he has
learned to use them.
V.—THE FIRST READING LESSON[15]
(Two Mothers Confer)
“You don’t mean to say you would go plump into
words of three or four syllables before a child knows
his letters?”
“It is possible to read words without knowing the
alphabet, as you may know a face without singling
out its features; but we learn not only the names
but the sounds of the letters before we begin to
read words.”
“Our children learn their letters without any
teaching. We always keep by us a shallow table
drawer, the bottom covered half an inch deep with
sand. Before they are two, the babies make round
O and crooked S, and T for Tommy, and so on,
with dumpy, uncertain little fingers. The elder
children teach the little ones by way of a game.”
“The sand is capital! We have various devices,
but none so good as that. Children love to be
doing. The funny, shaky lines the little finger
makes in the sand will be ten times as interesting
as the shapes the eye sees.”
“But the reading! I can’t get over three syllables
for the first lesson. Why, it’s like teaching a twelve-months
old child to waltz!”
“You say that because we forget that a group of
letters is no more than the sign of a word, while a word
is only the vocal sign of a thing or an act. This is how
the child learns. First, he gets the notion of table;
he sees several tables; he finds they have legs,
by which you can scramble up; very often covers
which you may pull off; and on them many
things lie, good and pleasant for a baby to enjoy;
sometimes, too, you can pull these things off the
table, and they go down with a bang, which is
nice. The grown-up people call this pleasant
thing, full of many interests, ‘table,’ and, by-and-by,
baby says ‘table’ too; and the word ‘table’
comes to mean, in a vague way, all this to him.
‘A round table,’ ‘on the table,’ and so on, form
part of the idea of ‘table’ to him. In the same
way baby chimes in when his mother sings. She
says, ‘Baby, sing,’ and, by-and-by, notions of ‘sing,’
‘kiss,’ ‘love,’ dawn on his brain.”
“Yes, the darlings! and it’s surprising how many
words a child knows even before he can speak them;
‘pussy,’ ‘dolly,’ ‘carriage,’ soon convey interesting
ideas to him.”
“That’s just it. Interest the child in the thing,
and he soon learns the sound-sign for it—that is,
its name. Now, I maintain that, when he is a
little older, he should learn the form-sign—that
is, the printed word—on the same principle. It is
far easier for a child to read plum-pudding
than to read ‘to, to,’ because ‘plum-pudding’ conveys
a far more interesting idea.”
“That may be, when he gets into words of three
or four syllables; but what would you do while he’s
in words of one syllable—indeed, of two or three
letters?”
“I should never put him into words of one
syllable at all. The bigger the word, the more
striking the look of it, and, therefore, the easier it
is to read, provided always that the idea it conveys
is interesting to a child. It is sad to see an intelligent
child toiling over a reading-lesson infinitely
below his capacity—ath, eth, ith, oth, uth—or, at
the very best, ‘The cat sat on the mat.’ How
should we like to begin to read German, for example,
by toiling over all conceivable combinations
of letters, arranged on no principle but similarity
of sound; or, worse still, that our readings should
be graduated according to the number of letters
each word contains? We should be lost in a
hopeless fog before a page of words of three letters,
all drearily like one another, with no distinctive
features for the eye to seize upon; but the child?
‘Oh, well—children are different; no doubt it is
good for the child to grind in this mill!’ But
this is only one of many ways in which children
are needlessly and cruelly oppressed!”
“You are taking high moral ground! All the
same, I don’t think I am convinced. It is far easier
for a child to spell cat, cat, than to spell plum-pudding,
plum-pudding.”
“But spelling and reading are two things. You
must learn to spell in order to write words, not to
read them. A child is droning over a reading-lesson,
spells cough; you say ‘cough,’ and she repeats.
By dint of repetition, she learns at last to associate
the look of the word with the sound, and says
‘cough’ without spelling it; and you think she
has arrived at ‘cough’ through cough. Not a bit
of it; cof spells cough!”
“Yes; but ‘cough’ has a silent u, and a gh with
the sound of f. There, I grant, is a great difficulty.
If only there were no silent letters, and if all letters
had always the same sound, we should, indeed, have
reading made easy. The phonetic people have something
to say for themselves.”
“You would agree with the writer of an article
in a number of a leading review: ‘Plough ought
to be written and printed plow; through, thru;
enough, enuf; ought, aut or ort’; and so on. All
this goes on the mistaken idea that in reading we
look at the letters which compose a word, think of
their sounds, combine these, and form the word.
We do nothing of the kind; we accept a word,
written or printed, simply as the symbol of a word
we are accustomed to say. If the word is new to
us we may try to make something of the letters,
but we know so well that this is a shot in the dark,
that we are careful not to say the new word until
we have heard some one else say it.”
“Yes, but children are different.”
“Children are the same, ‘only more so.’ We could,
if we liked, break up a word into its sounds, or put
certain sounds together to make a word. But these
are efforts of mind beyond the range of children.
First, as last, they learn to know a word by the look
of it, and the more striking it looks the easier it is to
recognise; provided always that the printed word is
one which they already know very well by sound and
by sense.”
“It is not clear yet; suppose you tell me, step by
step, how you would give your first reading lesson.
An illustration helps one so much.”
“Very well: Bobbie had his first lesson yesterday—on
his sixth birthday. The lesson was part of the
celebration. By the way, I think it’s rather a good
plan to begin a new study with a child on his birthday,
or some great day; he begins by thinking the
new study a privilege.”
“That is a hint. But go on; did Bobbie know his
letters?”
“Yes, he had picked them up, as you say; but I
had been careful not to allow any small readings.
You know how Susanna Wesley used to retire to her
room with the child who was to have his first reading-lesson,
and not to appear again for some hours, when
the boy came out able to read a good part of the first
chapter of Genesis? Well, Bobbie’s first reading-lesson
was a solemn occasion too, for which we had
been preparing for a week or two. First, I bought a
dozen penny copies of the ‘History of Cock Robin’—good
bold type, bad pictures, that we cut out.
“Then we had a nursery pasting day—pasting the
sheets on common drawing-paper—six one side down,
and six the other; so that now we had six complete
copies, and not twelve.
“Then we cut up the first page only, of all six
copies, line by line, and word by word. We gathered
up the words and put them in a box, and our preparations
were complete.
“Now for the lesson. Bobbie and I are shut in by
ourselves in the morning-room. I always use a blackboard
in teaching the children. I write up, in good
clear ‘print’ hand,
Cock Robin.
Bobbie watches with the more interest because he
knows his letters. I say, pointing to the word, ‘cock
robin,’ which he repeats.
“Then the words in the box are scattered on the
table, and he finds half a dozen ‘cock robins’ with
great ease.
“We do the same thing with ‘sparrow,’ ‘arrow,’
‘said,’ ‘killed,’ ‘who,’ and so on, till all the words in
the verse have been learned. The words on the blackboard
grow into a column, which Bob reads backwards
and forwards, and every way, except as the
words run in the verse.
“Then Bobbie arranges the loose words into
columns like that on the board.
“Then into columns of his own devising, which he
reads off.
“Lastly, culminating joy (the whole lesson has
been a delight!), he finds among the loose words, at
my dictation,
‘Who killed Cock Robin
I said the sparrow
With my bow and arrow
I killed Cock Robin,’
arranging the words in verse form.
“Then I had still one unmutilated copy, out of
which Bob had the pleasure of reading the verse, and
he read it forwards and backwards. So long as he
lives he will know those twelve words.”
“No doubt it was a pleasant lesson; but, think of
all the pasting and cutting!”
“Yes, that is troublesome. I wish some publisher
would provide us with what we want—nursery rhymes,
in good bold type, with boxes of loose words to
match—a separate box, or division, for each page, so
that the child may not be confused by having too
many words to hunt amongst. The point is that he
should see, and look at, the new word many times, so
that its shape becomes impressed on his brain.”
“I see; but he is only able to read ‘Cock Robin’;
he has no general power of reading.”
“On the contrary, he will read those twelve words
wherever he meets with them. Suppose he learns
ten words a day, in half a year he will have at least
six hundred words; he will know how to read a little.”
“Excellent, supposing your children remember all
they learn. At the end of a week, mine would
remember ‘Cock Robin,’ perhaps, but the rest would
be gone!”
“Oh, but we keep what we get! When we have
mastered the words of the second verse, Bob runs
through the first in the book, naming words here and
there as I point to them. It takes less than a minute,
and the ground is secured.”
“The first lesson must have been long?”
“I’m sorry to say it lasted half an hour. The
child’s interest tempted me to do more than I
should.”
“It all sounds very attractive—a sort of game—but
I cannot be satisfied that a child should learn to read
without knowing the powers of the letters. You
constantly see a child spell a word over to himself,
and then pronounce it; the more so, if he has been
carefully taught the sounds of the letters—not merely
their names.”
“Naturally; for though many of our English words
are each a law unto itself, others offer a key to a
whole group, as arrow gives us sp arrow, m arrow,
h arrow; but we have alternate days—one for reading,
the other for word-building—and that is one way to
secure variety, and, so, the joyous interest which is
the real secret of success.”
VI.—READING BY SIGHT AND BY SOUND
Learning to read is Hard Work.—Probably that
vague whole which we call ‘Education’ offers no more
difficult and repellent task than that to which every
little child is (or ought to be) set down—the task
of learning to read. We realise the labour of it when
some grown man makes a heroic effort to remedy
shameful ignorance, but we forget how contrary to
Nature it is for a little child to occupy himself with
dreary hieroglyphics—all so dreadfully alike!—when
the world is teeming with interesting objects which
he is agog to know. But we cannot excuse our
volatile Tommy, nor is it good for him that we should.
It is quite necessary he should know how to read; and
not only so—the discipline of the task is altogether
wholesome for the little man. At the same time, let
us recognise that learning to read is to many children
hard work, and let us do what we can to make the
task easy and inviting.
Knowledge of Arbitrary Symbols.—In the first
place, let us bear in mind that reading is not a science
nor an art. Even if it were, the children must still be
the first consideration with the educator; but it is not.
Learning to read is no more than picking up, how
we can, a knowledge of certain arbitrary symbols for
objects and ideas. There are absolutely no right and
necessary ‘steps’ to reading, each of which leads to
the next; there is no true beginning, middle, or end.
For the arbitrary symbols we must know in order to
read are not letters, but words. By way of illustration,
consider the delicate differences of sound represented
by the letter ‘o’ in the last sentence; to analyse and
classify the sounds of ‘o’ in ‘for,’ ‘symbols,’ ‘know,’
‘order,’ ‘to,’ ‘not,’ and ‘words,’ is a curious, not
especially useful, study for a philologist, but a laborious
and inappropriate one for a child. It is time we
faced the fact that the letters which compose an
English word are full of philological interest, and that
their study will be a valuable part of education by-and-by;
but meantime, sound and letter-sign are so
loosely wedded in English, that to base the teaching
of reading on the sounds of the letters only, is to lay
up for the child much analytic labour, much mental
confusion, due to the irregularities of the language;
and some little moral strain in making the sound of a
letter in a given word fall under any of the ‘sounds’
he has been taught.
Definitely, what is it we propose in teaching a child
to read? (a) that he shall know at sight, say, some
thousand words; (b) that he shall be able to build
up new words with the elements of these. Let him
learn ten new words a day, and in twenty weeks he
will be to some extent able to read, without any
question as to the number of letters in a word. For
the second, and less important, part of our task,
the child must know the sounds of the letters,
and acquire power to throw given sounds into new
combinations.
What we want is a bridge between the child’s
natural interests and those arbitrary symbols with
which he must become acquainted, and which, as we
have seen, are words, and not letters.
These Symbols should be Interesting.—The
child cares for things, not words; his analytic power is
very small, his observing faculty is exceedingly quick
and keen; nothing is too small for him; he will spy out
the eye of a fly; nothing is too intricate, he delights
in puzzles. But the thing he learns to know by looking
at it, is a thing which interests him. Here we
have the key to reading. No meaningless combinations
of letters, no cla, cle, cli, clo, clu, no ath, eth, ith,
oth, uth, should be presented to him. The child should
be taught from the first to regard the printed word as
he already regards the spoken word, as the symbol of
fact or idea full of interest. How easy to read ‘robin
redbreast,’ ‘buttercups and daisies’; the number of
letters in the words is no matter; the words themselves
convey such interesting ideas that the general
form and look of them fixes itself on the child’s brain
by the same law of association of ideas which makes it
easy to couple the objects with their spoken names.
Having got a word fixed on the sure peg of the idea
it conveys, the child will use his knowledge of the
sounds of the letters to make up other words containing
the same elements with great interest. When he
knows ‘butter’ he is quite ready to make ‘mutter’
by changing the b for an m.
Tommy’s First Lesson.—But example is better
than precept, and more convincing than the soundest
reasoning. This is the sort of reading lesson we have
in view. Tommy knows his letters by name and
sound, but he knows no more. To-day he is to be
launched into the very middle of reading, without any
‘steps’ at all, because reading is neither an art nor a
science, and has, probably, no beginning. Tommy is
to learn to read to-day—
“I like little pussy,
Her coat is so warm”—
and he is to know those nine words so well that he
will be able to read them wherever they may occur
henceforth and for evermore.
“Oh, yes,” says a reader, “as in the ‘Cock Robin’
lesson; grant that the principle is sound—and there
is much to be said on both sides of that question—but
grant it, who in the world could get through all
the pasting and cutting and general messing preparatory
to the great lesson? No; the method of the
books may be only second-best, but ready-made
books must do for me. I have no time to make
my own apparatus.”
I must own that the cutting and pasting was
very clumsy, but the lesson served its purpose because
it induced a good friend to education[16] to have a
delightful ‘Little Pussy’ box prepared for us, loose
words, nice big type, two lines in a bag. Whoso learns
‘Little Pussy’ as it should be learned will know
at least one hundred words—not a bad stock-in-trade
for a beginner—all of them good useful words that
we want every day. There is one objection; such
contractions as ‘I’ll’ are ugly at the best, and I hope
that in the word-lessons based upon ‘Little Pussy,’
pieces will be chosen in which this fault is avoided.
Steps.—And now, we begin. Matériel: Tommy’s
box of loose letters, the new ‘Little Pussy’ box, pencil
and paper, or much better, blackboard and chalk.
We write up in good big print hand ‘Pussy.’ Tommy
watches with interest: he knows the letters, and probably
says them as we write. Besides, he is prepared
for the great event of his life; he knows he is going
to begin to learn to read to-day. But we do not ask
anything yet of his previous knowledge. We simply
tell him that the word is ‘pussy.’ Interest at once;
he knows the thing, pussy, and the written symbol is
pleasant in his eyes because it is associated with an
existing idea in his mind. He is told to look at the
word ‘pussy’ until he is sure he would know it again.
Then he makes ‘pussy’ from memory with his own
loose letters. Then the little bag containing our two
lines in loose words is turned out, and he finds the
word ‘pussy’; and, lastly, the little sheet with the
poem printed on it is shown to him, and he finds
‘pussy,’ but is not allowed yet to find out the run of
the rhyme. ‘Coat, little, like, is, her, warm, I, so,’ are
taught in the same way, in less time than it takes to
describe the lesson. When each new word is learned,
Tommy makes a column of the old ones, and reads
up and down and cris-cras, the column on the blackboard.
Reading Sentences.—He knows words now, but
he cannot yet read sentences. Now for the delight of
reading. He finds at our dictation, amongst his loose
words, ‘pussy—is—warm,’ places them in ‘reading’
order, one after the other, and then reads off the
sentence. Joy, as of one who has found a new planet!
And Tommy has indeed found a new power. Then,
‘her—little—coat—is—warm,’ ‘Pussy—is—so—little,’
‘I—like—pussy,’ ‘Pussy—is—little—like—her—coat,’
and so on through a dozen more little arrangements.
If the rhyme can be kept a secret till the whole is
worked out, so much the better. To make the verses
up with his own loose words will give Tommy such
a delicious sense that knowledge is power, as few
occasions in after life will afford. Anyway, reading is
to him a delight henceforth, and it will require very
bad management indeed to make him hate it.
Tommy’s Second Lesson.—Tommy promises
himself another reading lesson next day, but he has
instead a spelling lesson, conducted somewhat in this
way:—
He makes the word ‘coat’ with his letters, from
memory if he can; if not, with the pattern word. Say
‘coat’ slowly; give the sound of the c. ‘Take away c,
and what have we left?’ A little help will get ‘oat’
from him. How would you make ‘boat’ (say the word
very slowly, bringing out the sound of b). He knows
the sounds of the letters, and says b-oat readily; fl-oat,
two added sounds, which you lead him to find out;
g-oat, he will give you the g, and find goat a charming
new word to know; m-oat, he easily decides on the
sound of m; a little talk about moat; the other
words are too familiar to need explanation. Tommy
will, no doubt, offer ‘note,’ and we must make a clean
breast of it and say, ‘No, note is spelt with other
letters’; but what other letters we do not tell him
now. Thus he comes to learn incidentally and very
gradually that different groups of letters may stand
for the same sounds. But we do not ask him to
generalise; we only let him have the fact that n-oat
does not spell the symbol we express by ‘note.’
‘Stoat’—he will be able to give the sounds of the
initial letters, and stoat again calls for a little talk—another
interesting word. He has made a group of
words with his letters, and there they are on the blackboard
in a column, thus—
- c-oat
- m-oat
- g-oat
- fl-oat
- st-oat
- b-oat
He reads the column up and down and cris-cras;
every word has a meaning and carries an idea. Then
the loose words he knows are turned out, and we
dictate new sentences, which he arranges: ‘I—like—her—goat’;
‘her—little—stoat—is—warm,’ and so
on, making the new words with loose letters.
Unknown Words.—Now for a new experience.
We dictate ‘pussy is in the boat.’ Consternation!
Tommy does not know ‘in’ nor ‘the.’ ‘Put counters
for the words you don’t know; they may soon come
in our lessons,’ and Tommy has a desire and a need—that
is, an appetite for learning.
Like Combinations have Different Sounds.—We
deal with the remaining words in the same way:
‘little’ gives brittle, tittle, skittle: pussy, is, I, and her,
give no new words. ‘Like’ gives mike and pike.
‘So’ gives no, do (the musical ‘do’), and lo! From
‘warm’ we get arm, harm, charm, barm, alarm;
we pronounce warm as arm. Tommy perceives that
such a pronunciation is wrong and vulgar, and sees
that all these words are sounded like ‘arm,’ but not
one of them like ‘warm’—that is, he sees that the
same group of letters need not always have the same
sound. But we do not ask him to ‘make a note of’
this new piece of knowledge; we let it grow into him
gradually, after many experiences.
By this time he has eighteen new words on the
blackboard of which to make sentences with the nine
loose words of ‘pussy.’ Her skittle is little, her
charm is brittle, her arm is warm, and so on. But we
take care that the sentences make sense. Her goat
is brittle, is ‘silly,’ and not to be thought of at all.
Tommy’s new words are written in his ‘note-book’
in print hand, so that he can take stock of his
possessions in the way of words.
Moral Training in Reading Lessons.—The next
day we do the last two lines of the stanza, as at first.
These lines afford hardly any material for a spelling
lesson, so in our next lesson we go on with the second
verse. But our stock of words is growing; we are
able, as we go on, to make an almost unlimited
number of little sentences. If we have to use counters
now and then, why, that only whets our appetite for
knowledge. By the time Tommy has worked ‘Little
Pussy’ through he has quite a large stock of words;
has considerable power to attack new words with
familiar combinations; what is more, he has achieved;
he has courage to attack all ‘learning,’ and has a
sense that delightful results are quite within reach.
Moreover, he learns to read in a way that affords him
some moral training. There is no stumbling, no
hesitation from the first, but bright attention and
perfect achievement. His reading lesson is a delight,
of which he is deprived when he comes to his lesson
in a lazy, drawling mood. Perfect enunciation and
precision are insisted on, and when he comes to
arrange the whole of the little rhyme in his loose
words and read it off (most delightful of all the lessons)
his reading must be a perfect and finished recitation.[17]
I believe that this is a practical common-sense way
to teach reading in English. It may be profitable
for the little German child to work through all
possible dreary combinations of letters before he
is permitted to have any joy in ‘reading,’ because
wherever these combinations occur they will have the
sounds the child has learned laboriously. The fact
that English is anomalous as regards the connection
between sign and sound, happily exonerates us from
enforcing this dreary grind.[18]
VII.—RECITATION
‘The Children’s Art’
On this subject I cannot do better than refer the
reader to Mr Arthur Burrell’s Recitation.[19] This book
purports to be a handbook for teachers in elementary
schools. I wish that it may be very largely used by
such teachers, and may also become a family handbook;
though many of the lessons will not be called
for in educated homes. There is hardly any ‘subject’
so educative and so elevating as that which Mr Burrell
has happily described as ‘The Children’s Art.’ All
children have it in them to recite; it is an imprisoned
gift waiting to be delivered, like Ariel from the pine.
In this most thoughtful and methodical volume we
are possessed of the fit incantations. Use them
duly, and out of the woodenness of even the
most commonplace child steps forth the child-artist,
a delicate sprite, who shall make you laugh and make
you weep. Did not the great Sir Walter “sway to
and fro, sobbing his fill,” to his little ‘Pet’s’ speaking
of—
“For I am sick, and capable of fears,
Oppressed with wrong, and therefore full of fears;
A widow, husbandless, subject to fears;
A woman, naturally born to fears”?
Marjorie Fleming was, to be sure, a child-genius;
but in this book we learn by what carefully graduated
steps a child who is not a genius, is not even born of
cultivated parents, may be taught the fine art of beautiful
and perfect speaking; but that is only the first
step in the acquisition of ‘The Children’s Art.’ The
child should speak beautiful thoughts so beautifully,
with such delicate rendering of each nuance of meaning,
that he becomes to the listener the interpreter of the
author’s thought. Now, consider what appreciation,
sympathy, power of expression this implies, and you
will grant that ‘The Children’s Art’ is, as Steele said
of the society of his wife, “a liberal education in itself.”
It is objected—‘Children are such parrots! They say
a thing as they hear it said; as for troubling themselves
to “appreciate” and “interpret,” not a bit of it!’
Most true of the ‘My name is Norval’ style of recitation;
but throughout this volume the child is led to
find the just expression of the thought for himself;
never is the poor teacher allowed to set a pattern—‘say
this as I say it.’ The ideas are kept well within
the child’s range, and the expression is his own. He is
caught with guile, his very naughtiness is pressed into
service, he finds a dozen ways of saying ‘I shan’t,’ is
led cunningly up to the point of expressing himself,
and—he does it, to his own surprise and delight.
The pieces given here for recitation are a treasure-trove
of new joys. ‘Winken, Blinken, and Nod,’ ‘Miss
Lilywhite’s Party,’ and ‘The Two Kittens,’ would
compel any child to recite. Try a single piece over
with the author’s markings and suggestions, and you
will find there is as much difference between the
result and ordinary reading aloud as there is in a
musical composition played with and without the
composer’s expression marks. I hope that my
readers will train their children in the art of recitation;
in the coming days, more even than in our own,
will it behove every educated man and woman to be
able to speak effectively in public; and, in learning
to recite you learn to speak.
Memorising.—Recitation and committing to
memory are not necessarily the same thing, and it is
well to store a child’s memory with a good deal of
poetry, learnt without labour. Some years ago I
chanced to visit a house, the mistress of which had
educational notions of her own, upon which she was
bringing up a niece. She presented me with a large
foolscap sheet written all over with the titles of
poems, some of them long and difficult: Tintern
Abbey, for example. She told me that her niece
could repeat to me any of those poems that I liked
to ask for, and that she had never learnt a single
verse by heart in her life. The girl did repeat several
of the poems on the list, quite beautifully and without
hesitation; and then the lady unfolded her secret.
She thought she had made a discovery, and I thought
so too. She read a poem through to E.; then the
next day, while the little girl was making a doll’s frock,
perhaps, she read it again; once again the next day,
while E.’s hair was being brushed. She got in about
six or more readings, according to the length of the
poem, at odd and unexpected times, and in the end E.
could say the poem which she had not learned.
I have tried the plan often since, and found it
effectual. The child must not try to recollect or to
say the verse over to himself, but, as far as may be,
present an open mind to receive an impression of
interest. Half a dozen repetitions should give
children possession of such poems as—‘Dolly and
Dick,’ ‘Do you ask what the birds say?’ ‘Little
lamb, who made thee?’ and the like. The gains of
such a method of learning are, that the edge of the
child’s enjoyment is not taken off by weariful verse
by verse repetitions, and, also, that the habit of
making mental images is unconsciously formed.
I remember once discussing this subject with the
late Miss Anna Swanwick in some connection with
Browning which I do not recall, but in the course of
talk an extremely curious incident transpired. A lady,
a niece of Miss Swanwick’s, said that after a long
illness, during which she had not been allowed to do
anything, she read ‘Lycidas’ through, by way of a
first treat to herself as a convalescent. She was
surprised to find herself the next day repeating to
herself long passages. Then she tried the whole
poem and found she could say it off, the result of
this single reading, for she had not learned the poem
before her illness, nor read it with particular attention.
She was much elated by the treasure-trove she had
chanced upon, and to test her powers, she read the
whole of ‘Paradise Lost,’ book by book, and with the
same result,—she could repeat it book by book after
a single reading! She enriched herself by acquiring
other treasures during her convalescence; but as
health returned, and her mind became preoccupied
with many interests, she found she no longer had this
astonishing power. It is possible that the disengaged
mind of a child is as free to take and as strong to
hold beautiful images clothed in beautiful words as
was that of this lady during her convalescence. But,
let me again say, every effort of the kind, however
unconscious, means wear and tear of brain substance.
Let the child lie fallow till he is six, and then, in this
matter of memorising, as in others, attempt only a
little, and let the poems the child learns be simple
and within the range of his own thought and imagination.
At the same time, when there is so much
noble poetry within a child’s compass, the pity of it,
that he should be allowed to learn twaddle!
VIII.—READING FOR OLDER CHILDREN
In teaching to read, as in other matters, c’est le
premier pas qui coûte. The child who has been
taught to read with care and deliberation until he
has mastered the words of a limited vocabulary,
usually does the rest for himself. The attention of
his teachers should be fixed on two points—that
he acquires the habit of reading, and that he does
not fall into slipshod habits of reading.
The Habit of Reading.—The most common and
the monstrous defect in the education of the day is
that children fail to acquire the habit of reading.
Knowledge is conveyed to them by lessons and talk,
but the studious habit of using books as a means of
interest and delight is not acquired. This habit
should be begun early; so soon as the child can read
at all, he should read for himself, and to himself,
history, legends, fairy tales, and other suitable matter.
He should be trained from the first to think that one
reading of any lesson is enough to enable him to
narrate what he has read, and will thus get the habit
of slow, careful reading, intelligent even when it is
silent, because he reads with an eye to the full
meaning of every clause.
Reading Aloud.—He should have practice, too, in
reading aloud, for the most part, in the books he is
using for his term’s work. These should include a
good deal of poetry, to accustom him to the delicate
rendering of shades of meaning, and especially to
make him aware that words are beautiful in themselves,
that they are a source of pleasure, and are
worthy of our honour; and that a beautiful word
deserves to be beautifully said, with a certain roundness
of tone and precision of utterance. Quite young
children are open to this sort of teaching, conveyed,
not in a lesson, but by a word now and then.
Limitation.—In this connection the teacher should
not trust to setting, as it were, a copy in reading for
the children’s imitation. They do imitate readily
enough, catching tricks of emphasis and action in an
amusing way; but these are mere tricks, an aping of
intelligence. The child must express what he feels
to be the author’s meaning; and this sort of intelligent
reading comes only of the habit of reading
with understanding.
Reading to Children.—It is a delight to older
people to read aloud to children, but this should be
only an occasional treat and indulgence, allowed
before bedtime, for example. We must remember
the natural inertness of a child’s mind; give him the
habit of being read to, and he will steadily shirk the
labour of reading for himself; indeed, we all like to
be spoon-fed with our intellectual meat, or we should
read and think more for ourselves and be less eager
to run after lectures.
Questions on the Subject-matter.—When a
child is reading, he should not be teased with
questions as to the meaning of what he has read,
the signification of this word or that; what is
annoying to older people is equally annoying to
children. Besides, it is not of the least consequence
that they should be able to give the meaning of
every word they read. A knowledge of meanings,
that is, an ample and correct vocabulary, is only
arrived at in one way—by the habit of reading. A
child unconsciously gets the meaning of a new word
from the context, if not the first time he meets with
it, then the second or the third: but he is on the
look-out, and will find out for himself the sense of any
expression he does not understand. Direct questions
on the subject-matter of what a child has read are
always a mistake. Let him narrate what he has
read, or some part of it. He enjoys this sort of consecutive
reproduction, but abominates every question
in the nature of a riddle. If there must be riddles,
let it be his to ask and the teacher’s to direct him
to the answer. Questions that lead to a side issue
or to a personal view are allowable because these
interest children—‘What would you have done in his
place?’
Lesson-Books.—A child has not begun his education
until he has acquired the habit of reading to
himself, with interest and pleasure, books fully on a
level with his intelligence. I am speaking now of his
lesson-books, which are all too apt to be written in a
style of insufferable twaddle, probably because they
are written by persons who have never chanced to
meet a child. All who know children know that
they do not talk twaddle and do not like it, and
prefer that which appeals to their understanding.
Their lesson-books should offer matter for their reading,
whether aloud or to themselves; therefore they
should be written with literary power. As for the
matter of these books, let us remember that children
can take in ideas and principles, whether the latter
be moral or mechanical, as quickly and clearly as we
do ourselves (perhaps more so); but detailed processes,
lists and summaries, blunt the edge of a child’s
delicate mind. Therefore, the selection of their first
lesson-books is a matter of grave importance, because
it rests with these to give children the idea that
knowledge is supremely attractive and that reading
is delightful. Once the habit of reading his lesson-books
with delight is set up in a child, his education
is—not completed, but—ensured; he will go on for
himself in spite of the obstructions which school too
commonly throws in his way.
Slipshod Habits; Inattention.—I have already
spoken of the importance of a single reading. If a
child is not able to narrate what he has read once,
let him not get the notion that he may, or that he
must, read it again. A look of slight regret because
there is a gap in his knowledge will convict him.
The power of reading with perfect attention will not
be gained by the child who is allowed to moon over
his lessons. For this reason, reading lessons must
be short; ten minutes or a quarter of an hour of
fixed attention is enough for children of the ages we
have in view, and a lesson of this length will enable
a child to cover two or three pages of his book. The
same rule as to the length of a lesson applies to
children whose lessons are read to them because they
are not yet able to read for themselves.
Careless Enunciation.—It is important that,
when reading aloud, children should make due use
of the vocal organs, and, for this reason, a reading
lesson should be introduced by two or three simple
breathing exercises, as, for example, a long inspiration
with closed lips and a slow expiration with open
mouth. If a child read through his nose, it is well
to consult a doctor; an operation for adenoids may
be necessary, which is rarely distressing, and should
be performed while children are young. Provincial
pronunciation and slipshod enunciation must be
guarded against. Practice in pure vowel sounds,
and the respect for words which will not allow of
their being hastily slurred over, should cure these
defects. By the way, quite little children commonly
enunciate beautifully, because a big word is a new
acquirement which they delight in and make the
most of; our efforts should be directed to make
older children hold words in like esteem.
The habit of ‘minding your stops’ comes of intelligent
reading. A child’s understanding of the passage
will lead him to correct pointing.
IX.—THE ART OF NARRATING
Children Narrate by Nature.—Narrating is an
art, like poetry-making or painting, because it is
there, in every child’s mind, waiting to be discovered,
and is not the result of any process of disciplinary
education. A creative fiat calls it forth. ‘Let him
narrate’; and the child narrates, fluently, copiously,
in ordered sequence, with fit and graphic details, with
a just choice of words, without verbosity or tautology,
so soon as he can speak with ease. This amazing
gift with which normal children are born is allowed
to lie fallow in their education. Bobbie will come
home with a heroic narrative of a fight he has seen
between ‘Duke’ and a dog in the street. It is
wonderful! He has seen everything, and he tells
everything with splendid vigour in the true epic vein;
but so ingrained is our contempt for children that we
see nothing in this but Bobbie’s foolish childish way!
Whereas here, if we have eyes to see and grace to
build, is the ground-plan of his education.
Until he is six, let Bobbie narrate only when and
what he has a mind to. He must not be called
upon to tell anything. Is this the secret of the
strange long talks we watch with amusement between
creatures of two, and four, and five? Is it possible
that they narrate while they are still inarticulate,
and that the other inarticulate person takes it all in?
They try us, poor dear elders, and we reply ‘Yes,’
‘Really!’ ‘Do you think so?’ to the babble of whose
meaning we have no comprehension. Be this as it
may; of what goes on in the dim region of ‘under
two’ we have no assurance. But wait till the little
fellow has words and he will ‘tell’ without end to
whomsoever will listen to the tale, but, for choice,
to his own compeers.
This Power should be used in their Education.—Let
us take the goods the gods provide. When
the child is six, not earlier, let him narrate the fairy-tale
which has been read to him, episode by episode,
upon one hearing of each; the Bible tale read to
him in the words of the Bible; the well-written
animal story; or all about other lands from some
such volume as The World at Home.[20] The seven-years-old
boy will have begun to read for himself, but
must get most of his intellectual nutriment, by ear,
certainly, but read to him out of books. Geography,
sketches from ancient history, Robinson Crusoe,[20a] The
Pilgrim’s Progress,[20a] Tanglewood Tales,[20a] Heroes of
Asgard,[20a] and much of the same calibre, will occupy
him until he is eight. The points to be borne in
mind are, that he should have no book which is not a
child’s classic; and that, given the right book, it must
not be diluted with talk or broken up with questions,
but given to the boy in fit portions as wholesome
meat for his mind, in the full trust that a child’s
mind is able to deal with its proper food.
The child of eight or nine is able to tackle the
more serious material of knowledge; but our business
for the moment is with what children under nine
can narrate.
Method of Lesson.—In every case the reading
should be consecutive from a well-chosen book. Before
the reading for the day begins, the teacher should
talk a little (and get the children to talk) about the last
lesson, with a few words about what is to be read,
in order that the children may be animated by
expectation; but she should beware of explanation,
and, especially, of forestalling the narrative. Then,
she may read two or three pages, enough to include
an episode; after that, let her call upon the children
to narrate,—in turns, if there be several of them.
They not only narrate with spirit and accuracy, but
succeed in catching the style of their author. It is
not wise to tease them with corrections; they may
begin with an endless chain of ‘ands,’ but they soon
leave this off, and their narrations become good
enough in style and composition to be put in a
‘print book’!
This sort of narration lesson should not occupy
more than a quarter of an hour.
The book should always be deeply interesting, and
when the narration is over, there should be a little
talk in which moral points are brought out, pictures
shown to illustrate the lesson, or diagrams drawn on
the blackboard. As soon as children are able to
read with ease and fluency, they read their own lesson,
either aloud or silently, with a view to narration;
but where it is necessary to make omissions, as in
the Old Testament narratives and Plutarch’s Lives
for example, it is better that the teacher should
always read the lesson which is to be narrated.
X.—WRITING
Perfect Accomplishment.—I can only offer a
few hints on the teaching of writing, though much
might be said. First, let the child accomplish something
perfectly in every lesson—a stroke, a pothook,
a letter. Let the writing lesson be short; it should
not last more than five or ten minutes. Ease in
writing comes by practice; but that must be secured
later. In the meantime, the thing to be avoided is
the habit of careless work—humpy m’s, angular o’s.
Printing.—But the child should have practice in
printing before he begins to write. First, let him
print the simplest of the capital letters with single
curves and straight lines. When he can make the
capitals and large letters, with some firmness and
decision, he might go on to the small letters—‘printed’
as in the type we call ‘italics,’ only upright,—as simple
as possible, and large.
Steps in Teaching.—Let the stroke be learned
first; then the pothook; then the letters of which
the pothook is an element—n, m, v, w, r, h, p, y; then
o, and letters of which the curve is an element—a, c,
g, e, x, s, q; then looped and irregular letters--b, l, f,
t, etc. One letter should be perfectly formed in a day
and the next day the same elemental forms repeated
in another letter, until they become familiar. By-and-by
copies, three or four of the letters they have
learned grouped into a word—‘man,’ ‘aunt’; the
lesson to be the production of the written word once
without a single fault in any letter. At this stage the
chalk and blackboard are better than pen and paper,
as it is well that the child should rub out and rub out
until his own eye is satisfied with the word or letter
he has written.
Of the further stages, little need be said. Secure
that the child begins by making perfect letters and is
never allowed to make faulty ones, and the rest he
will do for himself; as for ‘a good hand,’ do not
hurry him; his ‘handwriting’ will come by-and-by,
out of the character that is in him; but, as a child, he
cannot be said, strictly speaking, to have character.
Set good copies before him, and see that he imitates
his model dutifully: the writing lesson being, not so
many lines, or ‘a copy’—that is, a page of writing—but
a single line which is as exactly as possible
a copy of the characters set. The child may have
to write several lines before he succeeds in producing
this.
Text-hand.—If he write in books with copperplate
headlines (which are, on the whole, to be eschewed),
discrimination should be exercised in the choice of
these; in many of them the writing is atrocious, and
the letters are adorned with flourishes which increase
the pupil’s labour but by no means improve his style.
One word more; do not hurry the child into ‘small
hand’; it is unnecessary that he should labour much
over what is called ‘large hand,’ but ‘text-hand,’ the
medium size, should be continued until he makes the
letters with ease. It is much easier for the child to
get into an irregular scribble by way of ‘small-hand,’
than to get out of it again. In this, as in everything
else, the care of the educator must be given, not
only to the formation of good, but to the prevention
of bad habits.
A ‘New Handwriting.’—Some years ago I heard
of a lady who was elaborating, by means of the study
of old Italian and other manuscripts, a ‘system of
beautiful handwriting’ which could be taught to
children. I waited patiently, though not without some
urgency, for the production of this new kind of ‘copy-book.’
The need for such an effort was very great,
for the distinctly commonplace writing taught from
existing copy-books, however painstaking and legible,
cannot but have a rather vulgarising effect both on
the writer and the reader of such manuscript. At
last the lady, Mrs Robert Bridges, has succeeded in
her tedious and difficult undertaking, and this book
for teachers will enable them to teach their pupils a
style of writing which is pleasant to acquire because
it is beautiful to behold. It is surprising how quickly
young children, even those already confirmed in
‘ugly’ writing, take to this ‘new handwriting.’
But Mrs Bridges’ purpose in A New Handwriting
will be better understood by some passages quoted,
with her permission, from her preface:—“The accompanying
ten plates are intended chiefly for those who
teach writing: a few words, both of apology and explanation,
are needed to introduce them. I was always
interested in handwriting, and after making acquaintance
with the Italianised Gothic of the sixteenth
century, I consciously altered my hand towards
some likeness with its forms and general character.
The script happening to please, I was often asked to
make alphabets and copies, and begged by professional
teachers to have such a book as this printed,
that they might use it in their schools. One can
never quite satisfy oneself in the making of models
for others to copy, but these plates are very much
what I intended, though, owing to my inexperience,
some of them have suffered in the reproduction....
A child must first learn to control his hand and
constrain it to obey his eye; at this earliest stage,
any simple forms will serve the purpose; and hence
it might be further argued that the forms are always
indifferent, and that full mastery of the hand can be
as well attained by copying bad models as good; but
this can hardly be: the ordinary copybook, the
aim of which seems to be to economise the component
parts of the letters, cannot train the hand as more
varied shapes will; nor does this uniformity, exclusive
of beauty, offer as good training to the eye. Moreover,
I should say that variety and beauty of form
are attractive, even to little children, and that the
attempt to create something which interests them,
cheers and crowns their stupendous efforts with a
pleasure that cannot be looked for in the task of
copying monotonous shapes. But whether such a
hand as that here shown lends itself as easily as the
more uniform model to the development of a quick,
useful cursive, I cannot say; and it is possible that
the degradations, inevitable in the habit of quick
writing, might produce a mere untidiness, almost the
worst reproach of penmanship. Some of the best
English hands of to-day are as good a quick cursive
as one can desire, and show points of real beauty;
but such hands are rare, and are only those which
have, as we say, character; which probably means
that the writer would have done well for himself
under any system: whereas the average hands, which
are the natural outcome of the old copybook writing,
degraded by haste, seem to owe their common
ugliness to the mean type from which they sprang;
and the writers, when they have occasion to write
well, find they can do but little better, and only
prove that haste was not the real cause of their bad
writing.”
How to Use.—The method of using Mrs Bridges’
Handwriting,[21] which we find most effectual, is to
practise each form on the blackboard from the plate,
and later to use pencil, and still later pen and ink.
By-and-by the children will be promoted to transcribe
little poems, and so on, in this very pleasing script.
Set headlines are to be avoided, as children fail
to use the forms of the headline in their ordinary
writing. It is sometimes objected that this rather
elaborate and beautiful handwriting will interfere with
a characteristic ‘hand,’ but it seems to me that to
have a beautiful, instead of a commonplace, basis for
handwriting is a great gain.
XI.—TRANSCRIPTION
Value of Transcription.—The earliest practice
in writing proper for children of seven or eight should
be, not letter-writing or dictation, but transcription,
slow and beautiful work, for which the New Handwriting
is to be preferred, though perhaps some of
the more ornate characters may be omitted with
advantage.
Transcription should be an introduction to spelling.
Children should be encouraged to look at the word,
see a picture of it with their eyes shut, and then
write from memory.
Children should Transcribe favourite Passages.—A
certain sense of possession and delight may
be added to this exercise if children are allowed to
choose for transcription their favourite verse in one
poem and another. This is better than to write a
favourite poem, an exercise which stales on the little
people before it is finished. But a book of their own,
made up of their own chosen verses, should give them
pleasure.
Small Text-hand—Double-ruled Lines.—Double-ruled
lines, small text-hand, should be used
at first, as children are eager to write very minute
‘small hand,’ and once they have fallen into this habit
it is not easy to get good writing. A sense of
beauty in their writing and in the lines they copy
should carry them over this stage of their work with
pleasure. Not more than ten minutes or a quarter
of an hour should be given to the early writing-lessons.
If they are longer the children get tired
and slovenly.
Position in Writing.—For the writing position
children should sit so that light reaches them from
the left, and desk or table should be at a comfortable
height.
It would be a great gain if children were taught
from the first to hold the pen between the first and
second fingers, steadying it with the thumb. This
position avoids the uncomfortable strain on the
muscles produced by the usual way of holding a pen—a
strain which causes writer’s cramp in later days
when there is much writing to be done. The pen
should be held in a comfortable position, rather near
the point, fingers and thumb somewhat bent, and the
hand resting on the paper. The writer should also be
allowed to support himself with the left hand on the
paper, and should write in an easy position, with bent
head but not with stooping figure. It would be
unnecessary to say that the flat of the nib should be
used if children had not a happy gift for making
spider marks with the nib held sideways. In all
writing lessons, free use should be made of the blackboard
by both teacher and children by way of model
and practice.
Desks.—The best desks I know are those recommended
by Dr Roth,[22] single desks which may be
raised or lowered, moved backwards or forwards, with
seat, back, and a back pad, and rests for the feet.
There may be others as good, even better, in the
market, but these seem to answer every purpose.
Children’s Table.—For little children it is a good
plan to have a table of the right height made by the
house carpenter, the top of the table consisting of two
leaves with hinges. These leaves open in the middle,
and disclose a sort of box in the space which is often
used for a drawer, the table-top itself making the
lids of the box. Such a receptacle for the children’s
books, writing materials, etc., is more easily kept neat
by themselves than is an ordinary drawer or box.
XII.—SPELLING AND DICTATION
Of all the mischievous exercises in which children
spend their school hours, dictation, as commonly
practised, is perhaps the most mischievous; and this,
because people are slow to understand that there
is no part of a child’s work at school which some
philosophic principle does not underlie.
A Fertile Cause of Bad Spelling.—The common
practice is for the teacher to dictate a passage, clause
by clause, repeating each clause, perhaps, three or
four times under a fire of questions from the writers.
Every line has errors in spelling, one, two, three,
perhaps. The conscientious teacher draws her pencil
under these errors, or solemnly underlines them with
red ink. The children correct in various fashions;
sometimes they change books, and each corrects the
errors of another, copying the word from the book or
from the blackboard. A few benighted teachers still
cause children to copy their own error along with
the correction, which last is written three or four
times, learned, and spelt to the teacher. The latter
is astonished at the pure perversity which causes the
same errors to be repeated again and again, notwithstanding
all these painstaking efforts.
The Rationale of Spelling.—But the fact is,
the gift of spelling depends upon the power the eye
possesses to ‘take’ (in a photographic sense) a detailed
picture of a word; and this is a power and habit which
must be cultivated in children from the first. When
they have read ‘cat,’ they must be encouraged to see
the word with their eyes shut, and the same habit will
enable them to image ‘Thermopylæ.’ This picturing
of words upon the retina appears to me to be the
only royal road to spelling; an error once made and
corrected leads to fearful doubt for the rest of one’s
life, as to which was the wrong way and which the
right. Most of us are haunted by some such doubt
as to whether ‘balance,’ for instance, should have one
‘l’ or two; and the doubt is born of a correction.
Once the eye sees a misspelt word, that image
remains; and if there is also the image of the word
rightly spelt, we are perplexed as to which is which.
Now we see why there could not be a more ingenious
way of making bad spellers than ‘dictation’ as it is
commonly taught. Every misspelt word is an image
in the child’s brain not to be obliterated by the right
spelling. It becomes, therefore, the teacher’s business
to prevent false spelling, and, if an error has been
made, to hide it away, as it were, so that the impression
may not become fixed.
Steps of a Dictation Lesson.—Dictation lessons,
conducted in some such way as the following, usually
result in good spelling. A child of eight or nine
prepares a paragraph, older children a page, or two or
three pages. The child prepares by himself, by
looking at the word he is not sure of, and then seeing
it with his eyes shut. Before he begins, the teacher
asks what words he thinks will need his attention.
He generally knows, but the teacher may point out
any word likely to be a cause of stumbling. He lets
his teacher know when he is ready. The teacher asks
if there are any words he is not sure of. These she
puts, one by one, on the blackboard, letting the child
look till he has a picture, and then rubbing the word
out. If anyone is still doubtful he should be called
to put the word he is not sure of on the board, the
teacher watching to rub out the word when a wrong
letter begins to appear, and again helping the child to
get a mental picture. Then the teacher gives out the
dictation, clause by clause, each clause repeated once.
She dictates with a view to the pointing, which the
children are expected to put in as they write; but
they must not be told ‘comma,’ ‘semicolon,’ etc.
After the sort of preparation I have described, which
takes ten minutes or less, there is rarely an error in
spelling. If there be, it is well worth while for the
teacher to be on the watch with slips of stamp-paper
to put over the wrong word, that its image may be
erased as far as possible. At the end of the lesson,
the child should again study the wrong word in his
book until he says he is sure of it, and should write it
correctly on the stamp-paper.
A lesson of this kind secures the hearty co-operation
of children, who feel they take their due part in it;
and it also prepares them for the second condition of
good spelling, which is—much reading combined with
the habit of imaging the words as they are read.
Illiterate spelling is usually a sign of sparse reading;
but, sometimes, of hasty reading without the
habit of seeing the words that are skimmed over.
Spelling must not be lost sight of in the children’s
other studies, though they should not be teased to
spell. It is well to write a difficult proper name, for
example, on the blackboard in the course of history
or geography readings, rubbing the word out when
the children say they can see it. The whole secret
of spelling lies in the habit of visualising words from
memory, and children must be trained to visualise in
the course of their reading. They enjoy this way of
learning to spell.
XIII.—COMPOSITION
George Osborne’s Essay.—“What a prodigiously
well-read and delightful person the Reverend Lawrence
Veal was, George’s master! ‘He knows everything,’
Amelia said. ‘He says there is no place in the bar
or the senate that Georgy may not aspire to. Look
here,’ and she went to the piano-drawer and drew
out a theme of George’s composition. This great
effort of genius, which is still in the possession of
Georgy’s mother, is as follows:—
“‘On Selfishness.—Of all the vices which degrade
the human character, Selfishness is the most odious
and contemptible. An undue love of Self leads to
the most monstrous crimes, and occasions the greatest
misfortunes both in States and Families. As a
selfish man will impoverish his family and often
bring them to ruin; so a selfish king brings ruin on his
people and often plunges them into war. Example:
The selfishness of Achilles, as remarked by the poet
Homer, occasioned a thousand woes to the Greeks—μυρί’ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκε—(Hom., Il.,
A. 2). The
selfishness of the late Napoleon Bonaparte occasioned
innumerable wars in Europe, and caused him
to perish, himself, in a miserable island—that of St
Helena in the Atlantic Ocean.
“‘We see by these examples that we are not to
consult our own interest and ambition, but that
we are to consider the interests of others as well as
our own.
George S. Osborne.
“‘Athenè House, 24 April 1827.’
“‘Think of him’ (George was 10) ‘writing such a
hand, and quoting Greek too, at his age,’ the delighted
mother said.”
And well might Mrs George Sedley be delighted.
Would not many a mother to-day triumph in such a
literary effort? What can Thackeray be laughing at?
Or does he, in truth, give us this little ‘theme’ as a
tour de force?
An Educational Futility.—I think this great
moral teacher here throws down the gauntlet in
challenge of an educational futility which is practised,
and an educational fallacy which is accepted, even
in the twentieth century. That futility is the exaction
of original composition from schoolboys and
schoolgirls. The proper function of the mind of the
young scholar is to collect material for the generalisations
of after-life. If a child is asked to generalise,
that is, to write an essay upon some abstract theme,
a double wrong is done him. He is brought up
before a stone wall by being asked to do what is
impossible to him, and that is discouraging. But a
worse moral injury happens to him in that, having
no thought of his own to offer on the subject, he puts
together such tags of commonplace thought as have
come in his way and offers the whole as his ‘composition,’
an effort which puts a strain upon his
conscience while it piques his vanity. In these days
masters do not consciously put their hand to the work
of their pupils as did that ‘prodigiously well-read and
delightful’ master who had the educating of George
Osborne. But, perhaps without knowing it, they give
the ideas which the cunning schoolboy seizes to
‘stick’ into the ‘essay’ he hates. Sometimes they do
more. They deliberately teach children how to ‘build
a sentence’ and how to ‘bind sentences’ together.
Lessons in Composition.—Here is a series of
preliminary exercises (or rather a part of the series,
which numbers 40) intended to help a child to write
an essay on ‘An Umbrella,’ from a book of the hour
proceeding from one of our best publishing houses:—
“Step I.
“1. What are you?
“2. How did you get your name?
“3. Who uses you?
“4. What were you once?
“5. What were you like then?
“6. Where were you obtained or found?
“7. Of what stuff or materials are you made?
“8. From what sources do you come?
“9. What are your parts?
“10. Are you made, grown, or fitted together?
* * * * *
“Step II.
“I am an umbrella, and am used by many people,
young and old.
“I get my name from a word which means a shade.
“The stick came perhaps from America, and is
quite smooth, even, and polished, so that the metal
ring may slide easily up and down the stick.
“My parts are a frame and a cover. My frame
consists of a stick about a yard long, wires, and a
sliding metal band. At the lower end of the stick
is a steel ferrule or ring. This keeps the end from
wearing away when I am used in walking.
“Step III.
“Now use it, is, are, and was, instead of I, have, my,
and am.
* * * * *
“Exercise.
“Now write out your own description of it.”
Such Teaching a Public Danger.—And this is
work intended for Standards VI. and VII.! That is
to say, this kind of thing is the final literary effort to
be exacted from children in our elementary schools!
The two volumes (I quote from near the end of
the second and more advanced volume) are not to
be gibbeted as exceptionally bad. A few years
ago the appalling discovery was made that, both in
secondary and elementary schools, ‘composition’ was
dreadfully defective, and, therefore, badly taught.
Since then many volumes have been produced, more
or less on the lines indicated in the above citation,
and distinguished publishers have not perceived that
to offer to the public, with the sanction of their name,
works of this sterilising and injurious character, is an
offence against society. The body of a child is sacred
in the eye of the law, but his intellectual powers may
be annihilated on such starvation diet as this, and
nothing said! The worst of it is, both authors and
publishers in every case act upon the fallacy that
well-intentioned effort is always excusable, if not
praiseworthy. They do not perceive that no effort
is permissible towards the education of children
without an intelligent conception, both of children,
and of what is meant by education.
‘Composition’ comes by Nature.—In fact,
lessons on ‘composition’ should follow the model of
that famous essay on “Snakes in Ireland”—“There
are none.” For children under nine, the question of
composition resolves itself into that of narration, varied
by some such simple exercise as to write a part and
narrate a part, or write the whole account of a walk
they have taken, a lesson they have studied, or of some
simple matter that they know. Before they are ten,
children who have been in the habit of using books
will write good, vigorous English with ease and
freedom; that is, if they have not been hampered by
instructions. It is well for them not even to learn
rules for the placing of full stops and capitals until
they notice how these things occur in their books.
Our business is to provide children with material in
their lessons, and, leave the handling of such material
to themselves. If we would believe it, composition is as
natural as jumping and running to children who have
been allowed due use of books. They should narrate
in the first place, and they will compose, later, readily
enough; but they should not be taught ‘composition.’
XIV.—BIBLE LESSONS
Children enjoy the Bible.—We are apt to
believe that children cannot be interested in the
Bible unless its pages be watered down—turned into
the slipshod English we prefer to offer them. Here
is a suggestive anecdote of the childhood of Mrs
Harrison, one of the pair of little Quaker maidens
introduced to us in the Autobiography of Mary Howitt,
the better known of the sisters. “One day she found
her way into a lumber room. There she caught sight
of an old Bible, and turning over its yellow leaves she
came upon words that she had not heard at the usual
morning readings, the opening chapters of St Luke—which
her father objected to read aloud—and the
closing chapter of Revelation. The exquisite picture
of the Great Child’s birth in the one chapter, and the
beauty of the description of the New Jerusalem in the
other, were seized upon by the eager little girl of six
years old with a rapture which, she used to say, no
novel in after years ever produced.”
And here is a mention of a child of five. “The
little ones read every day the events of Holy Week
with me. Z. is inexpressibly interesting in his deep,
reverent interest, almost excitement.”
We are probably quite incapable of measuring the
religious receptivity of children. Nevertheless, their
fitness to apprehend the deep things of God is a fact
with which we are called to ‘deal prudently,’ and to
deal reverently. And that, because, as none can
appreciate more fully than the ‘Darwinian,’ the
attitude of thought and feeling in which you place
a child is the vital factor in his education.
Should know the Bible Text.—Children between
the ages of six and nine should get a considerable
knowledge of the Bible text. By nine they should
have read the simple (and suitable) narrative portions
of the Old Testament, and, say, two of the gospels.
The Old Testament should, for various reasons, be
read to children. The gospel stories, they might read
for themselves as soon as they can read them beautifully.
It is a mistake to use paraphrases of the text;
the fine roll of Bible English appeals to children with
a compelling music, and they will probably retain
through life their first conception of the Bible scenes,
and, also, the very words in which these scenes are portrayed.
This is a great possession. Half the clever
talk we hear to-day, and half the uneasiness which
underlies this talk, are due to a thorough and perfect
ignorance of the Bible text. The points of assault are
presented to men’s minds naked and jagged, without
atmosphere, perspective, proportion; until the Bible
comes to mean for many, the speaking of Balaam’s ass
or the standing still of the sun at Joshua’s bidding.
But let the imaginations of children be stored with
the pictures, their minds nourished upon the words,
of the gradually unfolding story of the Scriptures, and
they will come to look out upon a wide horizon within
which persons and events take shape in their due
place and in due proportion. By degrees, they will
see that the world is a stage whereon the goodness of
God is continually striving with the wilfulness of man;
that some heroic men take sides with God; and that
others, foolish and headstrong, oppose themselves to
Him. The fire of enthusiasm will kindle in their
breast, and the children, too, will take their side, without
much exhortation, or any thought or talk of
spiritual experience.
Essential and Accidental Truth.—As for
whether such and such a narrative be a myth, or a
parable, or a circumstance that has actually occurred,
such questions do not affect the sincere mind of a child,
because they have nothing to do with the main issues.
It is quite well to bring before children, in the course
of their Bible readings, whatever new light modern
research puts in our way; the more we can help them
in this way, the more vivid and real will Bible teaching
become to them. But this grace, at any rate, the
children may claim at our hands, that they shall not
be disturbed by questions of authenticity in their Bible
reading any more than in their reading of English
history. Let them hear the story of the Garden of
Eden, for example, as it stands; just so, we might even
let them have the story of the man who went fishing
and found a goodly pearl; and this, because the thing
that matters in both stories is the essential truths they
embody, and not the mere accidents of time and place.
It is conceivable that the ‘pearl of great price’ was
matter of current talk at the time; a so-called ‘fact’
seized upon by our Lord to make of it the vehicle
for essential truth. If we will believe it, the minds
of children are, perhaps, more fit than our own to
appropriate and deal with truth. By-and-by they
will perceive, and discard, if necessary, the accidental
circumstances with which the truth is clothed upon;
but let us be very chary of our own action. Let us
remember that neither we nor the children can bear
the white light of naked truth; that if, for example,
we succeed in destroying the clothing that covers the
story of the first fall—the tree and its fruit, the
tempting serpent, the yielding woman—we have no
other clothing at hand for the fundamental truths of
responsibility, temptation, sin; and, once uncovered,
with no vesture which we can lay hold upon, the
truths themselves will assuredly slip from our grasp.
We need not be at the pains to discriminate, in
teaching children Bible narratives, between essential
and accidental truth—the truth which interprets our
own lives, and that which concerns only the time,
place, and circumstances proper to the narrative.
The children themselves will discern and keep fast
hold of the essential, while the merely accidental slips
from their memory as from ours. Therefore, let the
minds of young children be well stored with the
beautiful narratives of the earlier portions of the Old
Testament and of the gospels; but, in order that these
stories may be always fresh and delightful to them,
care must be taken lest Bible teaching stale upon their
minds. Children are more capable of being bored
than even we ourselves, and many a revolt has been
brought about by the undue rubbing-in of the Bible,
in season and out of season, even in nursery days. But
we are considering, not the religious life of children,
but their education by lessons; and their Bible lessons
should help them to realise in early days that the knowledge
of God is the principal knowledge, and, therefore,
that their Bible lessons are their chief lessons.
Method of Bible Lessons.—The method of such
lessons is very simple. Read aloud to the children a
few verses covering, if possible, an episode. Read
reverently, carefully, and with just expression. Then
require the children to narrate what they have listened
to as nearly as possible in the words of the Bible. It
is curious how readily they catch the rhythm of the
majestic and simple Bible English. Then, talk the
narrative over with them in the light of research and
criticism. Let the teaching, moral and spiritual, reach
them without much personal application. I know
of no better help in the teaching of young children
than we get in Canon Paterson Smyth’s Bible for the
Young. Mr Smyth brings both modern criticism and
research to bear, so that children taught from his little
manuals will not be startled to be told later that the
world was not made in six days; and, at the same time,
they will be very sure that the world was made by God.
The moral and spiritual teaching in these manuals is on
broad and convincing lines. It is rather a good plan
occasionally to read aloud Mr Smyth’s lesson on the
subject after the Bible passage has been narrated.
Children are more ready to appropriate lessons that
are not directly levelled at themselves; while the
teacher makes the teaching her own by the interest
with which she reads, the pictures and other illustrations
she shows, and her conversational remarks.
Picture Illustrations.—The pictures in the Illustrated
New Testament are, at the same time, reverent
and actual, an unusual combination, and children
enjoy them greatly. It would be well for them to
have only the penny gospel they are reading, but
it should perhaps be protected (and honoured) by
an embroidered cover. A tattered Bible is not a
wholesome sight for children. The Holy Gospels with
Illustrations from the Old Masters,[23] published by the
S.P.C.K., is admirable. The study of such pictures
as are here reproduced should be a valuable part of a
child’s education; it is no slight thing to realise how
the Nativity and the visit of the Wise Men filled the
imagination of the early Masters, and with what exceeding
reverence and delight they dwelt upon every
detail of the sacred story. This sort of impression is
not to be had from any up-to-date treatment, or up-to-date
illustrations; and the child who gets it in early
days, will have a substratum of reverent feeling upon
which should rest his faith. But it is well to let the
pictures tell their own tale. The children should study
a subject quietly for a few minutes; and then, the
picture being removed, say what they have seen in it.
It will be found that they miss no little reverent or
suggestive detail which the artist has thought well to
include.
The various R.T.S. publications issued in the series
of Bypaths of Bible Knowledge will be found very
helpful by the teacher, as illustrating modern research;
notably, Professor Sayce’s Fresh Light from
Ancient Monuments, and Budge’s Dwellers on the Nile.[24]
Bible Recitations.—The learning by heart of
Bible passages should begin while the children are
quite young, six or seven. It is a delightful thing
to have the memory stored with beautiful, comforting,
and inspiring passages, and we cannot tell when and
how this manner of seed may spring up, grow, and
bear fruit; but the learning of the parable of the
Prodigal Son, for example, should not be laid on the
children as a burden. The whole parable should be
read to them in a way to bring out its beauty and
tenderness; and then, day by day, the teacher should
recite a short passage, perhaps two or three verses,
saying it over some three or four times until the
children think they know it. Then, but not before,
let them recite the passage. Next day the children
will recite what they have already learned, and so on,
until they are able to say the whole parable.
XV.—ARITHMETIC
Educative Value of Arithmetic.—Of all his early
studies, perhaps none is more important to the child
as a means of education than that of arithmetic.
That he should do sums is of comparatively small
importance; but the use of those functions which
‘summing’ calls into play is a great part of education;
so much so, that the advocates of mathematics
and of language as instruments of education have,
until recently, divided the field pretty equally between
them.
The practical value of arithmetic to persons in
every class of life goes without remark. But the use
of the study in practical life is the least of its uses.
The chief value of arithmetic, like that of the higher
mathematics, lies in the training it affords to the
reasoning powers, and in the habits of insight, readiness,
accuracy, intellectual truthfulness it engenders.
There is no one subject in which good teaching effects
more, as there is none in which slovenly teaching has
more mischievous results. Multiplication does not
produce the ‘right answer,’ so the boy tries division;
that again fails, but subtraction may get him out of
the bog. There is no must be to him; he does not
see that one process, and one process only, can give
the required result. Now, a child who does not know
what rule to apply to a simple problem within his grasp,
has been ill taught from the first, although he may
produce slatefuls of quite right sums in multiplication
or long division.
Problems within the Child’s Grasp.—How is
this insight, this exercise of the reasoning powers,
to be secured? Engage the child upon little problems
within his comprehension from the first, rather than
upon set sums. The young governess delights to
set a noble ‘long division sum,’—953,783,465 ÷ 873—which
shall fill the child’s slate, and keep him occupied
for a good half-hour; and when it is finished, and the
child is finished too, done up with the unprofitable
labour, the sum is not right after all: the two last
figures in the quotient are wrong, and the remainder
is false. But he cannot do it again—he must not be
discouraged by being told it is wrong; so, ‘nearly
right’ is the verdict, a judgment inadmissible in
arithmetic. Instead of this laborious task, which
gives no scope for mental effort, and in which he
goes to sea at last from sheer want of attention, say
to him—
“Mr Jones sent six hundred and seven, and Mr
Stevens eight hundred and nineteen, apples to be
divided amongst the twenty-seven boys at school on
Monday. How many apples apiece did they get?”
Here he must ask himself certain questions. ‘How
many apples altogether? How shall I find out? Then
I must divide the apples into twenty-seven heaps to
find out each boy’s share.’ That is to say, the child
perceives what rules he must apply to get the required
information. He is interested; the work goes on
briskly: the sum is done in no time, and is probably
right, because the attention of the child is concentrated
on his work. Care must be taken to give the
child such problems as he can work, but yet which
are difficult enough to cause him some little mental
effort.
Demonstrate.—The next point is to demonstrate
everything demonstrable. The child may learn the
multiplication-table and do a subtraction sum without
any insight into the rationale of either. He may even
become a good arithmetician, applying rules aptly,
without seeing the reason of them; but arithmetic
becomes an elementary mathematical training only
in so far as the reason why of every process is clear
to the child. 2 + 2 = 4, is a self-evident fact, admitting
of little demonstration; but 4 × 7 = 28 may be proved.
He has a bag of beans; places four rows with seven
beans in a row; adds the rows, thus: 7 and 7 are 14,
and 7 are 21, and 7 are 28; how many sevens in 28?
4. Therefore it is right to say 4 × 7 = 28; and the
child sees that multiplication is only a short way of
doing addition.
A bag of beans, counters, or buttons should be used
in all the early arithmetic lessons, and the child should
be able to work with these freely, and even to add,
subtract, multiply, and divide mentally, without the
aid of buttons or beans, before he is set to ‘do sums’
on his slate.
He may arrange an addition table with his beans,
thus—
| ⬭⬭ |
⬭ |
= 3 beans |
| ⬭⬭ |
⬭⬭ |
= 4 ” |
| ⬭⬭ |
⬭⬭⬭ |
= 5 ” |
and be exercised upon it until he can tell, first without
counting, and then without looking at the beans, that
2 + 7 = 9, etc.
Thus with 3, 4, 5,—each of the digits: as he learns
each line of his addition table, he is exercised upon
imaginary objects, ‘4 apples and 9 apples,’ ‘4 nuts
and 6 nuts,’ etc.; and lastly, with abstract numbers—6
+ 5, 6 + 8.
A subtraction table is worked out simultaneously
with the addition table. As he works out each line
of additions, he goes over the same ground, only
taking away one bean, or two beans, instead of
adding, until he is able to answer quite readily, 2
from 7? 2 from 5? After working out each line of
addition or subtraction, he may put it on his slate
with the proper signs, that is, if he have learned to
make figures. It will be found that it requires a
much greater mental effort on the child’s part to
grasp the idea of subtraction than that of addition,
and the teacher must be content to go slowly—one
finger from four fingers, one nut from three nuts, and
so forth, until he knows what he is about.
When the child can add and subtract numbers
pretty freely up to twenty, the multiplication and
division tables may be worked out with beans, as far
as 6 × 12; that is, ‘twice 6 are 12’ will be ascertained
by means of two rows of beans, six beans in a row.
When the child can say readily, without even a
glance at his beans, 2 × 8 = 16, 2 × 7 = 14, etc., he will
take 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 beans, and divide them into groups
of two: then, how many twos in 10, in 12, in 20?
And so on, with each line of the multiplication table
that he works out.
Problems.—Now he is ready for more ambitious
problems: thus, ‘A boy had twice ten apples; how
many heaps of 4 could he make?’ He will be able
to work with promiscuous numbers, as 7 + 5 - 3. If
he must use beans to get his answer, let him; but
encourage him to work with imaginary beans, as a
step towards working with abstract numbers. Carefully
graduated teaching and daily mental effort on
the child’s part at this early stage may be the means
of developing real mathematical power, and will
certainly promote the habits of concentration and
effort of mind.
Notation.—When the child is able to work pretty
freely with small numbers, a serious difficulty must
be faced, upon his thorough mastery of which will
depend his apprehension of arithmetic as a science;
in other words, will depend the educational value of
all the sums he may henceforth do. He must be
made to understand our system of notation. Here,
as before, it is best to begin with the concrete: let the
child get the idea of ten units in one ten after he has
mastered the more easily demonstrable idea of twelve
pence in one shilling.
Let him have a heap of pennies, say fifty: point
out the inconvenience of carrying such weighty
money to shops. Lighter money is used—shillings.
How many pennies is a shilling worth? How many
shillings, then, might he have for his fifty pennies?
He divides them into heaps of twelve, and finds that
he has four such heaps, and two pennies over; that
is to say, fifty pence are (or are worth) four shillings
and twopence. I buy ten pounds of biscuits at
fivepence a pound; they cost fifty pence, but the
shopman gives me a bill for 4s. 2d.; show the child
how put down: the pennies, which are worth least,
to the right; the shillings, which are worth more,
to the left.
When the child is able to work freely with shillings
and pence, and to understand that 2 in the right-hand
column of figures is pence, 2 in the left-hand column,
shillings, introduce him to the notion of tens and
units, being content to work very gradually. Tell
him of uncivilised peoples who can only count so far
as five—who say ‘five-five beasts in the forest,’ ‘five-five
fish in the river,’ when they wish to express an
immense number. We can count so far that we
might count all day long for years without coming
to the end of the numbers we might name; but after
all, we have very few numbers to count with, and
very few figures to express them by. We have but
nine figures and a nought: we take the first figure
and the nought to express another number, ten; but
after that we must begin again until we get two tens,
then, again, till we reach three tens, and so on. We
call two tens, twenty, three tens, thirty, because ‘ty’
(tig) means ten.
But if I see figure 4, how am I to know whether it
means four tens or four ones? By a very simple
plan. The tens have a place of their own; if you
see figure 6 in the ten-place, you know it means
sixty. The tens are always put behind the units:
when you see two figures standing side by side, thus,
‘55,’ the left-hand figure stands for so many tens;
that is, the second 5 stands for ten times as many
as the first.
Let the child work with tens and units only until
he has mastered the idea of the tenfold value of the
second figure to the left, and would laugh at the folly
of writing 7 in the second column of figures, knowing
that thereby it becomes seventy. Then he is ready
for the same sort of drill in hundreds, and picks up
the new idea readily if the principle have been made
clear to him, that each remove to the left means a
tenfold increase in the value of a number. Meantime,
‘set’ him no sums. Let him never work with
figures the notation of which is beyond him, and
when he comes to ‘carry’ in an addition or multiplication
sum, let him not say he carries ‘two,’ or
‘three,’ but ‘two tens,’ or ‘three hundreds,’ as the
case may be.
Weighing and Measuring.—If the child do not
get the ground under his feet at this stage, he works
arithmetic ever after by rule of thumb. On the same
principle, let him learn ‘weights and measures’ by
measuring and weighing; let him have scales and
weights, sand or rice, paper and twine, and weigh,
and do up, in perfectly made parcels, ounces, pounds,
etc. The parcels, though they are not arithmetic, are
educative, and afford considerable exercise of judgment
as well as of neatness, deftness, and quickness.
In like manner, let him work with foot-rule and yard
measure, and draw up his tables for himself. Let
him not only measure and weigh everything about
him that admits of such treatment, but let him use his
judgment on questions of measure and weight. How
many yards long is the tablecloth? how many feet
long and broad a map, or picture? What does he
suppose a book weighs that is to go by parcel post?
The sort of readiness to be gained thus is valuable in
the affairs of life, and, if only for that reason, should
be cultivated in the child. While engaged in measuring
and weighing concrete quantities, the scholar is
prepared to take in his first idea of a ‘fraction,’ half
a pound, a quarter of a yard, etc.
Arithmetic a Means of Training.—Arithmetic
is valuable as a means of training children in habits
of strict accuracy, but the ingenuity which makes
this exact science tend to foster slipshod habits
of mind, a disregard of truth and common honesty,
is worthy of admiration! The copying, prompting,
telling, helping over difficulties, working with an eye
to the answer which he knows, that are allowed in
the arithmetic lesson, under an inferior teacher, are
enough to vitiate any child; and quite as bad as
these is the habit of allowing that a sum is nearly
right, two figures wrong, and so on, and letting the
child work it over again. Pronounce a sum wrong,
or right—it cannot be something between the two.
That which is wrong must remain wrong: the child
must not be let run away with the notion that wrong
can be mended into right. The future is before him:
he may get the next sum right, and the wise teacher
will make it her business to see that he does, and that
he starts with new hope. But the wrong sum must
just be let alone. Therefore his progress must be
carefully graduated; but there is no subject in
which the teacher has a more delightful consciousness
of drawing out from day to day new power in
the child. Do not offer him a crutch: it is in his
own power he must go. Give him short sums, in
words rather than in figures, and excite in him the
enthusiasm which produces concentrated attention
and rapid work. Let his arithmetic lesson be to
the child a daily exercise in clear thinking and
rapid, careful execution, and his mental growth will
be as obvious as the sprouting of seedlings in the
spring.
The A B C Arithmetic.—Instead of entering
further into the subject of the teaching of elementary
arithmetic, I should like to refer the reader to the
A B C Arithmetic by Messrs Sonnenschein & Nesbit.
The authors found their method upon the following
passage from Mill’s Logic:—“The fundamental truths
of the science of Number all rest on the evidence of
sense; they are proved by showing to our eyes and
our fingers that any given number of objects, ten balls
for example, may by separation and re-arrangement
exhibit to our senses all the different sets of numbers
the sum of which is equal to ten. All the improved
methods of teaching arithmetic to children proceed
on a knowledge of this fact. All who wish to carry
the child’s mind along with them in learning arithmetic,
all who wish to teach numbers and not mere ciphers,
now teach it through the evidence of the senses in the
manner we have described.”
Here we may, I think, trace the solitary source of
weakness in a surpassingly excellent manual. It is
quite true that the fundamental truths of the science of
number all rest on the evidence of sense; but, having
used eyes and fingers upon ten balls or twenty balls,
upon ten nuts, or leaves, or sheep, or what not, the
child has formed the association of a given number
with objects, and is able to conceive of the association
of various other numbers with objects. In fact, he
begins to think in numbers and not in objects, that is,
he begins mathematics. Therefore I incline to think
that an elaborate system of staves, cubes, etc., instead
of tens, hundreds, thousands, errs by embarrassing the
child’s mind with too much teaching, and by making
the illustration occupy a more prominent place than
the thing illustrated.
Dominoes, beans, graphic figures drawn on the
blackboard, and the like, are, on the other hand, aids
to the child when it is necessary for him to conceive
of a great number with the material of a small one;
but to see a symbol of the great numbers and to work
with such a symbol are quite different matters.
With the above trifling exception, which does not
interfere at all with the use of the books, nothing can be
more delightful than the careful analysis of numbers
and the beautiful graduation of the work, “only one
difficulty at a time being presented to the mind.”
The examples and the little problems could only have
been invented by writers in sympathy with children.
I advise the reader who is interested in the teaching
of arithmetic to turn to Mr Sonnenschein’s paper on
‘The Teaching of Arithmetic in Elementary Schools,’
in one of the volumes published by the Board of
Education.[25]
Preparation for Mathematics.—In the ‘forties’
and ‘fifties’ it was currently held that the continual
sight of the outward and visible signs (geometrical
forms and figures) should beget the inward and
spiritual grace of mathematical genius, or, at any rate,
of an inclination to mathematics. But the educationalists
of those days forgot, when they gave children
boxes of ‘form’ and stuck up cubes, hexagons, pentagons,
and what not, in every available schoolroom
space, the immense capacity for being bored which is
common to us all, and is far more strongly developed
in children than in grown-up people. The objects
which bore us, or the persons who bore us, appear
to wear a bald place in the mind, and thought turns
from them with sick aversion. Dickens showed us
the pathos of it in the schoolroom of the little
Gradgrinds, which was bountifully supplied with
objects of uncompromising outline. Ruskin, more
genially, exposes the fallacy. No doubt geometric
forms abound,—the skeletons of which living beauty,
in contour and gesture, in hill and plant, is the covering;
and the skeleton is beautiful and wonderful
to the mind which has already entered within the
portals of geometry. But children should not be
presented with the skeleton, but with the living
forms which clothe it. Besides, is it not an inverse
method to familiarise the child’s eye with patterns
made by his compasses, or stitched upon his card,
in the hope that the form will beget the idea? For
the novice, it is probably the rule that the idea must
beget the form, and any suggestion of an idea from
a form comes only to the initiated. I do not think
that any direct preparation for mathematics is desirable.
The child, who has been allowed to think and
not compelled to cram, hails the new study with
delight when the due time for it arrives. The reason
why mathematics are a great study is because there
exists in the normal mind an affinity and capacity
for this study; and too great an elaboration, whether
of teaching or of preparation, has, I think, a tendency
to take the edge off this manner of intellectual interest.
XVI.—NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
A Basis of Facts.—Of the teaching of Natural
Philosophy, I will only remind the reader of what was
said in an earlier chapter—that there is no part of a
child’s education more important than that he should
lay, by his own observation, a wide basis of facts
towards scientific knowledge in the future. He must
live hours daily in the open air, and, as far as possible,
in the country; must look and touch and listen; must
be quick to note, consciously, every peculiarity of
habit or structure, in beast, bird, or insect; the
manner of growth and fructification of every plant.
He must be accustomed to ask why—Why does the
wind blow? Why does the river flow? Why is a
leaf-bud sticky? And do not hurry to answer his
questions for him; let him think his difficulties out
so far as his small experience will carry him. Above
all, when you come to the rescue, let it not be in
the ‘cut and dried’ formula of some miserable little
text-book; let him have all the insight available,
and you will find that on many scientific questions
the child may be brought at once to the level of
modern thought. Do not embarrass him with too
much scientific nomenclature. If he discover for
himself (helped, perhaps, by a leading question or
two), by comparing an oyster and his cat, that some
animals have backbones and some have not, it is
less important that he should learn the terms vertebrate
and invertebrate than that he should class the
animals he meets with according to this difference.
Eyes and No-eyes.—The method of this sort of instruction
is shown in Evenings at Home, where ‘Eyes
and No-eyes’ go for a walk. No-eyes comes home
bored; he has seen nothing, been interested in
nothing: while Eyes is all agog to discuss a hundred
things that have interested him. As I have already
tried to point out, to get this sort of instruction for
himself is simply the nature of a child: the business
of the parent is to afford him abundant and varied
opportunities, and to direct his observations, so that,
knowing little of the principles of scientific classification,
he is, unconsciously, furnishing himself with the
materials for such classification. It is needless to
repeat what has already been said on this subject;
but, indeed, the future of the man or woman depends
very largely on the store of real knowledge gathered,
and the habits of intelligent observation acquired, by
the child. “Think you,” says Mr Herbert Spencer,
“that the rounded rock marked with parallel scratches
calls up as much poetry in an ignorant mind as in the
mind of the geologist, who knows that over this rock
a glacier slid a million of years ago? The truth is,
that those who have never entered on scientific
pursuits are blind to most of the poetry by which
they are surrounded. Whoever has not in youth
collected plants and insects, knows not half the halo
of interest which lanes and hedgerows can assume.”
Principles.—In this connection I should like to
recommend The Sciences, by Mr Holden. America
comes to the fore with a schoolbook after my own
heart. The Sciences is a forbidding title, but since
the era of Joyce’s Scientific Dialogues I have met with
nothing on the same lines which makes so fit an approach
to the sensible and intelligent mind of a child.
This is what we may call a ‘first-hand’ book. The
knowledge has of course all been acquired; but then
it has been assimilated, and Mr Holden writes freely
out of his own knowledge both of his subject-matter
and of his readers. The book has been thrown into
the form of conversations between children—simple
conversations without padding. About three hundred
topics are treated of: Sand-dunes, Back-ice, Herculaneum,
Dredging, Hurricanes, Echoes, the Prism,
the Diving-bell, the Milky Way, and, shall I say,
everything else? But the amazing skill of the author
is shown in the fact that there is nothing scrappy and
nothing hurried in the treatment of any topic, but each
falls naturally and easily under the head of some principle
which it elucidates. Many simple experiments
are included, which the author insists shall be performed
by the children themselves. I venture to
quote from the singularly wise preface, a vade mecum
for teachers:—
“The object of the present volume is to present
chapters to be read in school or at home that shall
materially widen the outlook of American schoolchildren
in the domain of science, and of the applications
of science to the arts and to daily life. It is in
no sense a text-book, although the fundamental
principles underlying the sciences treated are here
laid down. Its main object is to help the child to
understand the material world about him.”
To be Comprehended by Children.—“All natural
phenomena are orderly; they are governed by law;
they are not magical. They are comprehended by
someone; why not by the child himself? It is not
possible to explain every detail of a locomotive to a
young pupil, but it is perfectly practicable to explain
its principles so that this machine, like others, becomes
a mere special case of certain well-understood general
laws. The general plan of the book is to awaken
the imagination; to convey useful knowledge; to
open the doors towards wisdom. Its special aim is
to stimulate observation and to excite a living and
lasting interest in the world that lies about us.
“The sciences of astronomy, physics, chemistry,
meteorology, and physiography are treated as fully
and as deeply as the conditions permit; and the
lessons that they teach are enforced by examples
taken from familiar and important things. In astronomy,
for example, emphasis is laid upon
phenomena that the child himself can observe, and
he is instructed how to go about it. The rising and
setting of the stars, the phases of the moon, the uses
of the telescope, are explained in simple words. The
mystery of these and other matters is not magical, as
the child at first supposes. It is to deeper mysteries
that his attention is here directed. Mere phenomena
are treated as special cases of very general laws. The
same process is followed in the exposition of the other
sciences.
“Familiar phenomena, like those of steam, of
shadows, of reflected light, of musical instruments, of
echoes, etc., are referred to their fundamental causes.
Whenever it is desirable, simple experiments are described
and fully illustrated, and all such experiments
can very well be repeated in the schoolroom....
The volume is the result of a sincere belief that much
can be done to aid young children to comprehend the
material world in which they live, and of a desire to
have a part in a work so very well worth doing.”
I cannot help quoting also in this connection from
an article[26] by the Rev. H. H. Moore dealing with
a forgotten pioneer of a rational education and his
experiment. This pioneer was the Rev. Richard
Dawes, at one time Rector of Kings Somborne parish,
Hampshire, who, in 1841, worked out the problem of
rational education in an agricultural village, in which
he found the population unusually ignorant and
debased. The whole story is of great interest, but
our concern is with the question of Natural Philosophy,
the staple of the teaching given in this school.
As taught in a Village School.—Mr Dawes thus
explained his object:—“I aimed at teaching what
would be profitable and interesting to persons in the
position in life which the children were likely to
occupy. I aimed at their being taught what may be
called the philosophy of common things—of everyday
life. They were shown how much there is that is
interesting, and which it is advantageous for them
to know, in connection with the natural objects with
which they are familiar; they had explained to them,
and were made acquainted with, the principles of a
variety of natural phenomena, as well as the principles
and construction of various instruments of a useful
kind. A practical turn was given to everything; the
uses and fruits of the knowledge they were acquiring
were never lost sight of.” A list of some of the
subjects included in this kind of teaching will be the
best commentary on Mr Dawes’ scheme:—
“Some of the properties of air, explaining how its
pressure enables them to pump up water, to amuse
themselves with squirts and popguns, to suck up
water through a straw; explaining also the principles
and construction of a barometer, the common pump,
the diving-bell, a pair of bellows. That air expands
by heat, shown by placing a half-blown bladder near
the fire, when the wrinkles disappear. Why the
chimney-smoke sometimes rises easily in the air,
sometimes not. Why there is a draught up the
chimney, and under the door, and towards the fire.
Air as a vehicle of sound, and why the flash of a
distant gun fired is seen before the report is heard;
how to calculate the distance of a thunderstorm; the
difference in the speeds at which different materials
conduct sound. Water and its properties, its solid,
fluid, and vaporous state; why water-pipes are
burst by frost; why ice forms and floats on the surface
of ponds, and not at the bottom; why the kettle-lid
jumps up when the water is boiling on the fire;
the uses to which the power of steam is applied;
the gradual evolution of the steam-engine, shown by
models and diagrams; how their clothes are dried,
and why they feel cold sitting in damp clothes; why
a damp bed is so dangerous; why one body floats in
water, and another sinks; the different densities of
sea and fresh water; why, on going into the school
on a cold morning, they sometimes see a quantity of
water on the glass, and why on the inside and not
on the outside; why, on a frosty day, their breath is
visible as vapour; the substances water holds in
solution, and how their drinking water is affected by
the kind of soil through which it has passed. Dew,
its value, and the conditions necessary for its formation;
placing equal portions of dry wool on gravel,
glass, and the grass, and weighing them the next
morning. Heat and its properties; how it is that the
blacksmith can fit iron hoops so firmly on the wheels
of carts and barrows; what precautions have to be
taken in laying the iron rails of railways and in
building iron bridges, etc.; what materials are good,
and what bad, conductors of heat; why at the same
temperature some feel colder to our touch than
others; why a glass sometimes breaks when hot
water is poured into it, and whether thick or thin
glass would be more liable to crack; why water
can be made to boil in a paper kettle or an eggshell
without its being burned. The metals, their
sources, properties, and uses; mode of separating
from the ores. Light and its properties, illustrated
by prisms, etc.; adaptation of the eye; causes of long- and
short-sightedness. The mechanical principles of
the tools more commonly used, the spade, the plough,
the axe, the lever, etc.”
“It may surprise some who read carefully the
above list that such subjects should have been taught
to the children of a rural elementary school. But it
is an undeniable fact that they were taught in Kings
Somborne school, and so successfully that the children
were both interested and benefited by the
teaching. Mr Dawes, in answer to the objection
that such subjects are above the comprehension of the
young, said:—‘The distinguishing mark of Nature’s
laws is their extreme simplicity. It may doubtless
require intellect of a high order to make the discovery
of these laws; yet, once evolved, they are within
the capacity of a child,—in short, the principles of
natural philosophy are the principles of common
sense, and if taught in a simple and common-sense
way, they will be speedily understood and eagerly
attended to by children; and it will be found that
with pupils of even from ten to twelve years of
age much may be done towards forming habits of
observation and inquiry.’ Such a fact, I think,
suggests some valuable practical lessons for those who
have the responsibility of deciding what subjects to
include in an educational system for children.”
In reading of this remarkable experiment, we
feel that we must at once secure a man, all-informed
like the late Dean Dawes, to teach our own Jack and
Elsie; but it is something to realise what these young
persons should know, and Mr Holden has done a
great deal for us. Some of the chapters in The
Sciences may be beyond children under nine, but they
will be able to master a good deal. One thing is
to be borne in mind: nothing should be done without
its due experiment. By the way, our old friend,
Joyce’s Scientific Dialogues, if it is still to be had,
describes a vast number of easy and interesting experiments
which children can work for themselves.
XVII.—GEOGRAPHY
Geography is, to my mind, a subject of high
educational value; though not because it affords
the means of scientific training. Geography does
present its problems, and these of the most interesting,
and does afford materials for classification;
but it is physical geography only which falls within
the definition of a science, and even that is rather
a compendium of the results of several sciences than a
science itself. But the peculiar value of geography lies
in its fitness to nourish the mind with ideas, and
to furnish the imagination with pictures. Herein
lies the educational value of geography.
As commonly Taught.—Now, how is the subject
commonly taught? The child learns the names
of the capital cities of Europe, or of the rivers of
England, or of the mountain-summits of Scotland,
from some miserable text-book, with length in miles,
and height in feet, and population, finding the
names on his map or not, according as his teacher is
more or less up to her work. Poor little fellow!
the lesson is hard work to him; but as far as education
goes—that is, the developing of power, the
furnishing of the mind—he would be better employed
in watching the progress of a fly across the windowpane.
But, you will say, geography has a further
use than this strictly educative one; everybody
wants the sort of information which the geography
lesson should afford. That is true, and is to be
borne in mind in the schoolroom; the child’s geography
lesson should furnish just the sort of information
which grown-up people care to possess. Now,
do think how unreasonable we are in this matter;
nothing will persuade us to read a book of travel
unless it be interesting, graphic, with a spice of personal
adventure. Even when we are going about
with Murray in hand, we skip the dry facts and
figures, and read the suggestive pictorial scraps; these
are the sorts of things we like to know, and remember
with ease. But none of this pleasant padding for
the poor child, if you please; do not let him have little
pictorial sentences that he may dream over; facts and
names and figures—these are the pabulum for him!
Geography should be Interesting.—But, you
say, this sort of knowledge, though it may be a
labour to the child to acquire it, is useful in after
life. Not a bit of it; and for this reason—it has
never been really received by the brain at all; has
never got further than the floating nebulæ of mere
verbal memory of which I have already had occasion
to speak. Most of us have gone through a good
deal of drudgery in the way of ‘geography’ lessons,
but how much do we remember? Just the pleasant
bits we heard from travelled friends, about the Rhine,
or Paris, or Venice, or bits from The Voyages of
Captain Cook, or other pleasant tales of travel and
adventure. We begin to see the lines we must go
upon in teaching geography: for educative purposes,
the child must learn such geography, and in such a
way, that his mind shall thereby be stored with
ideas, his imagination with images; for practical purposes
he must learn such geography only as, the
nature of his mind considered, he will able to
remember; in other words, he must learn what
interests him. The educative and the practical run
in one groove, and the geography lesson becomes
the most charming occupation of the child’s day.
How to begin.—But, how to begin? In the first
place, the child gets his rudimentary notions of geography
as he gets his first notions of natural science,
in those long hours out of doors of which we have
already seen the importance. A pool fed by a mere
cutting in the fields will explain the nature of a lake,
will carry the child to the lovely lakes of the Alps,
to Livingstone’s great African lake, in which he
delighted to see his children ‘paidling’—“his own
children ‘paidling’ in his own lake.” In this connection
will come in a great deal of pleasant talk
about places, ‘pictorial geography,’ until the child
knows by name and nature the great rivers and
mountains, deserts and plains, the cities and countries
of the world. At the same time, he gets his first
notions of a map from a rude sketch, a mere few
lines and dots, done with pencil and paper, or,
better still, with a stick in the sand or gravel. ‘This
crooked line is the Rhine; but you must imagine
the rafts, and the island with the Mouse Tower,
and the Nuns’ Island, and the rest. Here are the
hills, with their ruined castles—now on this side,
now on that. This dot is Cologne,’ etc. Especially,
let these talks cover all the home scenery and
interests you are acquainted with, so that, by-and-by,
when he looks at the map of England, he finds a
score of familiar names which suggest landscapes
to him—places where ‘mother has been,’—the woody,
flowery islets of the Thames; the smooth Sussex
downs, delightful to run and roll upon, with soft
carpet of turf and nodding harebells; the York or
Devon moors, with bilberries and heather:—and
always give him a rough sketch-map of the route
you took in a given journey.
What next?—Give him next intimate knowledge,
with the fullest details, of any country or region of
the world, any county or district of his own country.
It is not necessary that he should learn at this stage
what is called the ‘geography’ of the countries of
Europe, the continents of the world—mere strings of
names for the most part; he may learn these, but it
is tolerably certain that he will not remember them.
But let him be at home in any single region; let him
see, with the mind’s eye, the people at their work and
at their play, the flowers and fruits in their seasons,
the beasts, each in its habitat; and let him see all
sympathetically, that is, let him follow the adventures
of a traveller; and he knows more, is better furnished
with ideas, than if he had learnt all the names
on all the maps. The ‘way’ of this kind of teaching
is very simple and obvious; read to him, or read
for him, that is, read bit by bit, and tell as you
read, Hartwig’s Tropical World,[27] the same author’s
Polar World,[27a] Livingstone’s missionary travels, Mrs
Bishop’s Unbeaten Tracks in Japan[27a]—in fact, any
interesting, well-written book of travel. It may be
necessary to leave out a good deal, but every illustrative
anecdote, every bit of description, is so much
towards the child’s education. Here, as elsewhere, the
question is, not how many things does he know, but
how much does he know about each thing.
Maps.—Maps must be carefully used in this kind
of work,—a sketch-map following the traveller’s progress,
to be compared finally with a complete map of
the region; and the teacher will exact a description
of such and such a town, and such and such a district,
marked on the map, by way of testing and confirming
the child’s exact knowledge. In this way, too, he
gets intelligent notions of physical geography; in the
course of his readings he falls in with a description
of a volcano, a glacier, a cañon, a hurricane; he hears
all about, and asks and learns the how and the why,
of such phenomena at the moment when his interest
is excited. In other words, he learns as his elders
elect to learn for themselves, though they rarely allow
the children to tread in paths so pleasant.
What General Knowledge a Child of Nine
should have.—Supposing that between the child’s
sixth and his ninth year half a dozen well-chosen
standard books of travel have been read with him in
this way, he has gained distinct ideas of the contours,
the productions, and the manners of the people, of
every great region of the world; has laid up a store
of reliable, valuable knowledge, that will last his lifetime;
and besides, has done something to acquire a
taste for books and the habit of reading. Such
books as Lady Brassey’s Voyage in the ‘Sunbeam’
should be avoided, as covering too much ground,
and likely to breed some confusion of ideas.
Particular Knowledge.—But we are considering
lessons as ‘Instruments of Education’; and the sort
of knowledge of the world I have indicated will be
conveyed rather by readings in the ‘Children’s Hour’
and at other times than by way of lessons. I know
of nothing so good as the old-fashioned World at
Home (for lessons) for children between six and seven.
As they hear, they wonder, admire, imagine, and can
even ‘play at’ a hundred situations. The first ideas of
geography, the lessons on place, which should make a
child observant of local geography, of the features of
his own neighbourhood, its heights and hollows, and
level lands, its streams and ponds, should be gained,
as we have seen, out of doors, and should prepare him
for a certain amount of generalisation—that is, he
should be able to discover definitions of river, island,
lake, and so on, and should make these for himself in
a tray of sand, or draw them on the blackboard.
Definitions.—But definitions should come in the
way of recording his experiences. Before he is taught
what a river is, he must have watched a stream and
observed that it flows; and so on with the rest.
Children easily simulate knowledge, and at this
point the teacher will have to be careful that nothing
which the child receives is mere verbiage, but that
every generalisation is worked out somewhat in this
way:—The child observes a fact, as, for example, a
wide stretch of flat ground; the teacher amplifies. He
reads in his book about Pampas, the flat countries of the
north-west of Europe, the Holland of our own eastern
coast, and, by degrees, he is prepared to receive the
idea of a plain, and to show it on his tray of sand.
Fundamental Ideas.—By the time he is seven,
or before, he finds himself in need of further knowledge.
He has read of hot countries and cold
countries, has observed the seasons and the rising
and setting of the sun, has said to himself—
“Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!”—
knows something of ocean and sea, has watched the
tide come in and go out, has seen many rough sketch-maps
made and has made some for himself, and has,
no doubt, noticed the criss-cross lines on a ‘proper’
map; that is to say, his mind is prepared for knowledge
in various directions; there are a number of
things concerned with geography which he really
wants to know.
The shape and motions of the earth are fundamental
ideas,[28] however difficult to grasp, but the
difficulty is of a kind which increases with years.
The principle in each case is simple enough, and a
child does not concern himself, as do his elders, with
the enormous magnitude of the scale upon which
operations in space are carried on. It is probable
that a child’s vivid imagination puts him on a level
with the mathematician in dealing with the planetary
system, with the behaviour and character of Earth,
with the causes of the seasons, and much besides.
Meaning of a Map.—Then, again, geography
should be learned chiefly from maps. Pictorial readings
and talks introduce him to the subject, but so
soon as his geography lessons become definite they
are to be learned, in the first place, from the map.
This is an important principle to bear in mind. The
child who gets no ideas from considering the map,
say of Italy or of Russia, has no knowledge of geography,
however many facts about places he may
be able to produce. Therefore he should begin
this study by learning the meaning of a map and
how to use it. He must learn to draw a plan of
his schoolroom, etc., according to scale, go on to
the plan of a field, consider how to make the plan
of his town, and be carried gradually from the idea
of a plan to that of a map; always beginning with
the notion of an explorer who finds the land and
measures it, and by means of sun and stars, is able
to record just where it is on the earth’s surface, east
or west, north or south.
Now he will arrive at the meaning of the lines of
latitude and longitude. He will learn how sea and
land are shown on a map, how rivers and mountains
are represented; and having learned his points of
direction and the use of his compass, and knowing
that maps are always made as if the beholder were
looking to the north, he will be able to tell a good
deal about situation, direction, and the like, in very
early days. The fundamental ideas of geography
and the meaning of a map are subjects well fitted to
form an attractive introduction to the study. Some
of them should awaken the delightful interest which
attaches in a child’s mind to that which is wonderful,
incomprehensible, while the map lessons should lead
to mechanical efforts equally delightful. It is only
when presented to the child for the first time in the
form of stale knowledge and foregone conclusions
that the facts taught in such lessons appear dry and
repulsive to him. An effort should be made to treat
the subject with the sort of sympathetic interest and
freshness which attracts children to a new study.
XVIII.—HISTORY
A Storehouse of Ideas.—Much that has been
said about the teaching of geography applies equally
to that of history. Here, too, is a subject which
should be to the child an inexhaustible storehouse
of ideas, should enrich the chambers of his House
Beautiful with a thousand tableaux, pathetic and
heroic, and should form in him, insensibly, principles
whereby he will hereafter judge of the behaviour of
nations, and will rule his own conduct as one of a
nation. This is what the study of history should do
for the child; but what is he to get out of the miserable
little chronicle of feuds, battles, and death which
is presented to him by way of ‘a reign’—all the more
repellent because it bristles with dates? As for the
dates, they never come right; the tens and units he
can get, but the centuries will go astray; and how
is he to put the right events in the right reign, when,
to him, one king differs from another only in number,
one period from another only in date? But he
blunders through with it; reads in his pleasant, chatty
little history book all the reigns of all the kings, from
William the Conqueror to William IV., and back to
the dim days of British rule. And with what result?
This: that, possibly, no way of warping the judgment
of the child, of filling him with crude notions, narrow
prejudices, is more successful than that of carrying
him through some such course of English history;
and all the more so if his little text-book be moral or
religious in tone, and undertake to point the moral
as well as to record the fact. Moral teaching falls,
no doubt, within the province of history; but the one
small volume which the child uses affords no scope
for the fair and reasonable discussion upon which
moral decisions should be based, nor is the child old
enough to be put into the judicial attitude which such
a decision supposes.
‘Outlines’ Mischievous.—The fatal mistake is
in the notion that he must learn ‘outlines,’ or a baby
edition of the whole history of England, or of Rome,
just as he must cover the geography of all the world.
Let him, on the contrary, linger pleasantly over the
history of a single man, a short period, until he thinks
the thoughts of that man, is at home in the ways of
that period. Though he is reading and thinking of
the lifetime of a single man, he is really getting
intimately acquainted with the history of a whole
nation for a whole age. Let him spend a year of
happy intimacy with Alfred, ‘the truth-teller,’ with
the Conqueror, with Richard and Saladin, or with
Henry V.—Shakespeare’s Henry V.—and his victorious
army. Let him know the great people and
the common people, the ways of the court and of
the crowd. Let him know what other nations were
doing while we at home were doing thus and thus.
If he come to think that the people of another age
were truer, larger-hearted, simpler-minded than ourselves,
that the people of some other land were, at
one time, at any rate, better than we, why, so much
the better for him.
So are most History Books written for Children.—For
the matter for this intelligent teaching of
history, eschew, in the first place, nearly all history
books written expressly for children; and in the next
place, all compendiums, outlines, abstracts whatsoever.
For the abstracts, considering what part the study of
history is fitted to play in the education of the child,
there is not a word to be said in their favour; and
as for what are called children’s books, the children
of educated parents are able to understand history
written with literary power, and are not attracted by
the twaddle of reading-made-easy little history books.
Given, judicious skipping, and a good deal of the
free paraphrasing mothers are so ready at, and the
children may be taken through the first few volumes
of a well-written, illustrated, popular history of England,
say as far as the Tudors. In the course of such
reading a good deal of questioning into them, and
questioning out of them, will be necessary, both to
secure their attention and to fix the facts. This
is the least that should be done; but better than
this would be fuller information, more graphic details
about two or three early epochs.
Early History of a Nation best fitted for
Children.—The early history of a nation is far better
fitted than its later records for the study of children,
because the story moves on a few broad, simple lines;
while statesmanship, so far as it exists, is no more
than the efforts of a resourceful mind to cope with
circumstances. Mr Freeman has provided interesting
early English history for children; but is it not on
the whole better to take them straight to the fountainhead,
where possible? In these early years, while
there are no examinations ahead, and the children
may yet go leisurely, let them get the spirit of history
into them by reading, at least, one old Chronicle
written by a man who saw and knew something of
what he wrote about, and did not get it at secondhand.
These old books are easier and pleasanter
reading than most modern works on history, because
the writers know little of the ‘dignity of history’;
they purl along pleasantly as a forest brook, tell you
‘all about it,’ stir your heart with the story of a great
event, amuse you with pageants and shows, make you
intimate with the great people, and friendly with the
lowly. They are just the right thing for the children
whose eager souls want to get at the living people
behind the words of the history book, caring nothing
at all about progress, or statutes, or about anything
but the persons, for whose action history is, to the
child’s mind, no more than a convenient stage. A child
who has been carried through a single old chronicler
in this way has a better foundation for an historical
training than if he knew all the dates and names
and facts that ever were crammed for examination.
Some old Chronicles.—First in order of time, and
full of the most captivating reading, is the Ecclesiastical
History of England[29] of the Venerable Bede, who,
writing of himself so early as the seventh century,
says, “It was always sweet to me to learn, to teach,
and to write.” “He has left us,” says Professor
Morley, “a history of the early years of England,
succinct, yet often warm with life; business-like, and
yet childlike in its tone; at once practical and
spiritual, simply just, and the work of a true scholar,
breathing love to God and man. We owe to Bede
alone the knowledge of much that is most interesting
in our early history.” William of Malmesbury (twelfth
century) says of Bede, “That almost all knowledge
of past events was buried in the same grave with
him”; and he is no bad judge, for in his Chronicles
of the Kings of England he himself is considered to
have carried to perfection the art of chronicle-making.
He is especially vivid and graphic about contemporary
events—the story of the dreary civil war of
Stephen and Matilda. Meantime, there is Asser,
who writes the life of Alfred, whose friend and fellow-worker
he is. “It seems to me right,” he says, “to
explain a little more fully what I have heard from
my lord Alfred.” He tells us how, “When I had
come into his presence at the royal villa, called Leonaford,
I was honourably received by him, and remained
that time with him at his court about eight months,
during which I read to him whatever books he liked,
and such as he had at hand; for this is his most usual
custom, both night and day, amid his many other
occupations of mind and body, either himself to read
books, or to listen whilst others read them.” When
he was not present to see for himself, as at the battle
of Ashdown, Asser takes pains to get the testimony
of eye-witnesses. “But Alfred, as we have been told
by those who were present and would not tell an
untruth, marched up promptly with his men to give
them battle; for King Ethelred remained a long time
in his tent in prayer.” Then there are Chronicles of
the Crusades, contemporary narratives of the crusades
of Richard Cœur de Lion, by Richard of Devizes,
and Geoffrey de Vinsany, and of the crusade of St
Louis, by Lord John de Joinville.
It is needless to extend the list; one such old
chronicle in a year, or the suitable bits of one such
chronicle, and the child’s imagination is aglow, his
mind is teeming with ideas; he has had speech of
those who have themselves seen and heard: and the
matter-of-fact way in which the old monks tell their
tales is exactly what children prefer. Afterwards,
you may put any dull outlines into their hands, and
they will make history for themselves.
Age of Myths.—But every nation has its heroic
age before authentic history begins: there were giants
in the land in those days, and the child wants to
know about them. He has every right to revel in
such classic myths as we possess as a nation; and to
land him in a company of painted savages, by way of
giving him his first introduction to his people, is a
little hard; it is to make his vision of the past harsh
and bald as a Chinese painting. But what is to be
done? If we ever had an Homeric age, have we not,
being a practical people, lost all record thereof? Here
is another debt that we owe to those old monkish
chroniclers: the echoes of some dim, rich past had
come down to, at any rate, the twelfth century: they
fell upon the ear of a Welsh priest, one Geoffrey of
Monmouth; and while William of Malmesbury was
writing his admirable History of the Kings of England,
what does Geoffrey do but weave the traditions
of the people into an orderly History of the British
Kings, reaching back all the way to King Brut,
the grandson of Æneas. How he came to know
about kings that no other historian had heard of, is a
matter he is a little roguish about; he got it all, he
says, out of “that book in the British language which
Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, brought out of Brittany.”
Be that as it may, here we read of Gorboduc,
King Lear, Merlin, Uther Pendragon, and, best of all,
of King Arthur, the writer making ‘the little finger of
his Arthur stouter than the back of Alexander the
Great.’ Here is, indeed, a treasure-trove which the
children should be made free of ten years before they
come to read the Idylls of the King. Some caution
must, however, be exercised in reading Geoffrey of
Monmouth. His tales of marvel are delightful; but
when he quits the marvellous and romances freely
about historical facts and personages, he becomes
a bewildering guide. Many of these ‘chronicles,’
written in Latin by the monks, are to be had in
readable English; the only caution to be observed is,
that the mother should run her eye over the pages
before she reads them aloud.[30]
Froissart, again, most delightful of chroniclers,
himself ‘tame’ about the court of Queen Philippa,
when he chose to be in England—from whom else
should the child get the story of the French wars?
And so of as much else as there is time for; the
principle being, that, wherever practicable, the child
should get his first notions of a given period, not
from the modern historian, the commentator and
reviewer, but from the original sources of history,
the writings of contemporaries. The mother must,
however, exercise discrimination in her choice of
early ‘Chronicles,’ as all are not equally reliable.
Plutarch’s ‘Lives.’—In the same way, readings
from Plutarch’s Lives will afford the best preparation
for the study of Grecian or of Roman history.
Alexander the Great is something more than a name
to the child who reads this sort of thing:—
“When the horse Bucephalus was offered in sale to
Philip, at the price of thirteen talents (= £2518, 15s.),
the king, with the prince and many others, went into
the field to see some trial made of him. The horse
appeared very vicious and unmanageable, and was so
far from suffering himself to be mounted, that he
would not bear to be spoken to, but turned fiercely
upon all the grooms. Philip was displeased at their
bringing him so wild and ungovernable a horse, and
bade them take him away. But Alexander, who had
observed him well, said, ‘What a horse are they losing
for want of skill and spirit to manage him!’
“Philip at first took no notice of this; but upon
the prince’s often repeating the same expression, and
showing great uneasiness, he said, ‘Young man, you
find fault with your elders as if you knew more than
they, or could manage the horse better.’
“‘And I certainly could,’ answered the prince.
“‘If you should not be able to ride him, what forfeiture
will you submit to for your rashness?’
“‘I will pay the price of the horse.’
“Upon this all the company laughed; but the king
and prince agreeing as to the forfeiture, Alexander
ran to the horse, and laying hold on the bridle, turned
him to the sun, for he had observed, it seems, that the
shadow which fell before the horse, and continually
moved as he moved, greatly disturbed him. While
his fierceness and fury lasted, he kept speaking to
him softly and stroking him; after which he gently
let fall his mantle, leaped lightly upon his back, and
got his seat very safe. Then, without pulling the
reins too hard, or using either whip or spur, he set
him agoing. As soon as he perceived his uneasiness
abated, and that he wanted only to run, he put him
in a full gallop, and pushed him on both with the
voice and spur.
“Philip and all his court were in great distress for
him at first, and a profound silence took place; but
when the prince had turned him and brought him safe
back, they all received him with loud exclamations,
except his father, who wept for joy, and kissing him,
said, ‘Seek another kingdom, my son, that may be
worthy of thy abilities, for Macedonia is too small
for thee.’”
Here, again, in North’s inimitable translation, we
get the sort of vivid graphic presentation which makes
‘History’ as real to the child as are the adventures
of Robinson Crusoe.
To sum up, to know as much as they may about
even one short period, is far better for the children
than to know the ‘outlines’ of all history. And in
the second place, children are quite able to take in
intelligent ideas in intelligent language, and should
by no means be excluded from the best that is written
on the period they are about.
History Books.—It is not at all easy to choose the
right history books for children. Mere summaries
of facts must, as we have seen, be eschewed; and
we must be equally careful to avoid generalisations.
The natural function of the mind, in the early years
of life, is to gather the material of knowledge with a
view to that very labour of generalisation which is
proper to the adult mind; a labour which we should
all carry on to some extent for ourselves. As it is,
our minds are so poorly furnished that we accept the
conclusions presented to us without demur; but we
can, at any rate, avoid giving children cut-and-dried
opinions upon the course of history while they are
yet young. What they want is graphic details concerning
events and persons upon which imagination
goes to work; and opinions tend to form themselves
by slow degrees as knowledge grows.
Mr York Powell has, perhaps more than others,
hit upon the right teaching for the young children I
have in view. In the preface to his Old Stories from
British History,[31] he says:—“The writer has chosen
such stories as he thought would amuse and please
his readers, and give them at the same time some
knowledge of the lives and thoughts of their forefathers.
To this end he has not written solely of
great folk—kings and queens and generals—but also
of plain people and children, ay, and birds and beasts
too”; and we get the tale of King Lear and of
Cuculain, and of King Canute and the poet Otter,
of Havelock and Ubba, and many more, all brave
and glorious stories; indeed, Mr. York Powell gives
us a perfect treasure-trove in his two little volumes
of Old Stories and Sketches from British History,[31a]
which are the better for our purpose, because children
can read them for themselves so soon as they
are able to read at all. These tales, written in
good and simple English, and with a certain charm
of style, lend themselves admirably to narration.
Indeed, it is most interesting to hear children of
seven or eight go through a long story without
missing a detail, putting every event in its right order.
These narrations are never a slavish reproduction of
the original. A child’s individuality plays about what
he enjoys, and the story comes from his lips, not
precisely as the author tells it, but with a certain
spirit and colouring which express the narrator. By
the way, it is very important that children should
be allowed to narrate in their own way, and should
not be pulled up or helped with words and expressions
from the text. A narration should be original
as it comes from a child—that is, his own mind should
have acted upon the matter it has received. Narrations
which are mere feats of memory are quite
valueless. I have already spoken of the sorts of old
chronicles upon which children should be nourished;
but these are often too diffuse to offer good matter
for narration, and it is well to have quite fitting
short tales for this purpose.
I should like to mention two other little volumes
in which children delight, which feed patriotic sentiment
and lay a broad basis for historical knowledge.
I mean Mrs Frewen Lord’s Tales from St Paul’s[32] and
Tales from Westminster Abbey.[32a] It is a beautiful and
delightful thing to take children informed by these
tales to the Abbey or St Paul’s, and let them
identify for themselves the spots consecrated to
their heroes. They know so much and are so full
of vivid interest that their elders stand by instructed
and inspired. There are, no doubt, multitudes of
historical tales and sketches for children, and some of
them, like Miss Brooke Hunt’s Prisoners of the Tower,[33]
are very good; but let the mother beware: there is
nothing which calls for more delicate tact and understanding
sympathy with the children than this apparently
simple matter of choosing their lesson-books,
and especially, perhaps, their lesson-books in history.
Many children of eight or nine will be quite ready
to read with pleasure A History of England, by H. O.
Arnold Forster, who has long since won his spurs in
the field of educational literature. In this, as in matters
of more immediate statecraft, Mr Arnold Forster has
the gift to see a defect and a remedy, an omission
and the means of supplying it. He saw that English
children grew up without any knowledge of the conditions
under which they live, and of the laws which
govern them; but, since the appearance of The Citizen
Reader and The Laws of Every-day Life, we have
changed all that. The History of England, or, as the
children call it, History, ignoring the fact that there
is any other history than that of England, has hitherto
been presented to young people as “outlines of dates
and facts, or as collections of romantic stories, with
little coherence and less result on the fortunes of the
country.” Mr Arnold Forster says in his preface
that he “is reluctant to introduce his book by any
such repellent title as ‘A Summary,’ or ‘An Outline
of English History.’ Such titles seem on the face of
them to imply that the element of interest and the
romance inseparable from the life and doings of individuals
are excluded, and that an amplified chronological
table has been made to do duty for history.
But to read English history and fail to realise that it
is replete with interest, sparkling with episode, and
full of dramatic incident, is to miss all the pleasure
and most of the instruction which its study, if properly
pursued, can give.” The author fulfils his implied
promise, and his work is, I venture to say, as “replete
with interest, sparkling with episode, and full of
dramatic incident” as is possible, considering the
limitations imposed upon him by the facts that he
writes for uneducated readers, and gives us a survey
of the whole of English History in a pleasant,
copiously and wisely illustrated volume of some eight
hundred pages. How telling and lucid this is, for
example, and how we all wish we had come across such
a paragraph in our early studies of architecture:—“On
page 23 we have pictures of two windows. One
of them is what is called a Pointed window. All the
arches in it go up to a point. It was built a long
time before the Tudor period. The other was built
in the time of Queen Elizabeth. In it the upright
shaft, or mullion, of the window goes straight up to
the top without forming an arch. This style of
building a window is called the Perpendicular Style,
because the mullions of the windows are ‘perpendicular.’
Some of the most famous buildings
in England built in Tudor times, and in the perpendicular
style, are the Chapel of King’s College,
Cambridge, and Hatfield House, the residence of the
Marquis of Salisbury, in Hertfordshire.” Mr Arnold
Forster has done in this volume for children and the
illiterate, what Professor Green did in his Shorter
History of England for somewhat more advanced
students, awakening many to the fact that history
is an entrancing subject of study. This is a real
introduction to real history. The portraits are an
especially valuable feature of the work.
Dates.—In order to give definiteness to what may
soon become a pretty wide knowledge of history—mount
a sheet of cartridge-paper and divide it into
twenty columns, letting the first century of the Christian
era come in the middle, and let each remaining column
represent a century B.C. or A.D., as the case may be.
Then let the child himself write, or print, as he is
able, the names of the people he comes upon in due
order, in their proper century. We need not trouble
ourselves at present with more exact dates, but this
simple table of the centuries will suggest a graphic
panorama to the child’s mind, and he will see events
in their time-order.
Illustrations by the Children.—History readings
afford admirable material for narration, and children
enjoy narrating what they have read or heard. They
love, too, to make illustrations. Children who had
been reading Julius Cæsar (and also, Plutarch’s Life),
were asked to make a picture of their favourite scene,
and the results showed the extraordinary power of
visualising which the little people possess. Of course
that which they visualise, or imagine clearly, they
know; it is a life possession.
The drawings of the children in question are
psychologically interesting as showing what various
and sometimes obscure points appeal to the mind
of a child; and also, that children have the same
intellectual pleasure as persons of cultivated mind
in working out new hints and suggestions. The
drawings, be it said, leave much to be desired, but they
have this in common with the art of primitive peoples:
they tell the tale directly and vividly. A girl of nine
and a half pictures Julius Cæsar conquering Britain.
He rides in a chariot mounted on scythes, he is robed
in blue, and bits of blue sky here and there give the
complementary colour. In the distance, a soldier
plants the ensign bearing the Roman eagle, black
on a pink ground! In the foreground, is a hand-to-hand
combat between Roman and Briton, each
having a sword of enormous length. Other figures
are variously employed.
Another, gives us Antony ‘making his speech after
the death of Cæsar.’ This girl, who is older, gives us
architecture; you look through an arch, which leads
into a side street, and, in the foreground, Antony
stands on a platform at the head of a flight of
marble steps. Antony’s attitude expresses indignation
and scorn. Below, is a crowd of Romans
wearing the toga, whose attitudes show various shades
of consternation and dismay. Behind, is Antony’s
servant in uniform, holding his master’s horse; and on
the platform, in the rear of Antony, lies Cæsar, with
the royal purple thrown over him. The chief value of
the drawing, as a drawing, is that it tells the tale.
Another girl draws Calpurnia begging Cæsar not
to go to the Senate. Cæsar stands armed and perturbed,
while Calpurnia holds his outstretched hand
with both of hers as she kneels before him, her face
raised in entreaty; her loose blue night-robe and long
golden hair give colour to the picture. This artist
is fourteen, and the drawing is better done.
Another artist presents Brutus and Portia in the
orchard with a ‘south-wall’ of red brick, espaliers,
and two dignified figures which hardly tell their tale.
Another child gives us the scene in the forum,
Cæsar seated in royal purple, Brutus kneeling before
him, and Casca standing behind his chair with outstretched
hand holding a dagger, saying “Speak,
hands, for me,” while Cæsar says, “Doth not Brutus
bootless kneel?”
Again, we get Lucius playing to Brutus in the tent.
Brutus, armed cap-à-pie, seated on a stool, is vainly
trying to read, while Lucius, a pretty figure, seated
before him, plays the harp. The two sentries, also
fully armed, are stretched on the floor sound asleep.
Another, gives us Claudius dressed as a woman
at the women’s festival—the ladies with remarkable
eyes, and each carrying a flaming torch.
Another pictures, with great spirit, Cæsar reading
his history to the conquered Gauls, who stand in rows
on the hillside listening to the great man with
exemplary patience.
In these original illustrations (several of them by
older children than those we have in view here), we
get an example of the various images that present
themselves to the minds of children during the reading
of a great work; and a single such glimpse into
a child’s mind convinces us of the importance of sustaining
that mind upon strong meat. Imagination
does not stir at the suggestion of the feeble, much-diluted
stuff that is too often put into children’s hands.
‘Playing at’ History.—Children have other ways
of expressing the conceptions that fill them when
they are duly fed. They play at their history lessons,
dress up, make tableaux, act scenes; or they have
a stage, and their dolls act, while they paint the
scenery and speak the speeches. There is no end to
the modes of expression children find when there is
anything in them to express.
The mistake we make is to suppose that imagination
is fed by nature, or that it works on the insipid
diet of children’s story-books. Let a child have the
meat he requires in his history readings, and in the
literature which naturally gathers round this history,
and imagination will bestir itself without any help of
ours; the child will live out in detail a thousand
scenes of which he only gets the merest hint.
XIX.—GRAMMAR
Grammar a Difficult Study.—Of grammar, Latin
and English, I shall say very little here. In the
first place, grammar, being a study of words and not
of things, is by no means attractive to the child, nor
should he be hurried into it. English grammar,
again, depending as it does on the position and
logical connection of words, is peculiarly hard for him
to grasp. In this respect the Latin grammar is
easier; a change in the form, the shape of the word, to
denote case, is what a child can see with his bodily
eye, and therefore is plainer to him than the abstract
ideas of nominative and objective case as we have
them in English. Therefore, if he learns no more at
this early stage than the declensions and a verb or
two, it is well he should learn thus much, if only to
help him to see what English grammar would be
at when it speaks of a change in case or mood, yet
shows no change in the form of the word.
Latin Grammar.—Of the teaching of Latin
grammar, I think I cannot do better than mention a
book for beginners that really answers. Children of
eight and nine take to this First Latin Course (Scott
and Jones)[34] very kindly, and it is a great thing to
begin a study with pleasure. It is an open question,
however, whether it is desirable to begin Latin at so
early an age.
English Grammar a Logical Study.—Because
English grammar is a logical study, and deals with
sentences and the positions that words occupy in
them, rather than with words, and what they are in
their own right, it is better that the child should
begin with the sentence, and not with the parts of
speech; that is, that he should learn a little of what
is called analysis of sentences before he learns to
parse; should learn to divide simple sentences into
the thing we speak of, and what we say about it—‘The
cat—sits on the hearth’—before he is lost in
the fog of person, mood, and part of speech.
“‘So then I took up the next book. It was about
grammar. It said extraordinary things about nouns
and verbs and particles and pronouns, and past
participles and objective cases and subjunctive
moods. ‘What are all these things?’ asked the
King. ‘I don’t know, your Majesty,’ and the Queen
did not know, but she said it would be very suitable
for children to learn. It would keep them quiet.’”[35]
It is so important that children should not be puzzled
as were this bewildered King and Queen, that I add a
couple of introductory grammar lessons; as a single
example is often more useful than many precepts.
Lesson I
Words put together so as to make sense form what
is called a sentence.
‘Barley oats chair really good and cherry’ is not
a sentence, because it makes no(n)sense.
‘Tom has said his lesson’ is a sentence.
It is a sentence because it tells us something about
Tom.
Every sentence speaks of someone or of something,
and tells us something about that of which it speaks.
So a sentence has two parts:
(1) The thing we speak of;
(2) What we say about it.
In our sentence, we speak of ‘Tom.’
We say about him that he ‘has learned his
lesson.’
The thing we speak of is often called the Subject,
which just means that which we talk about.
People sometimes say ‘the subject of conversation
was so and so,’ which is another way of saying ‘the
thing we were speaking about was so and so.’
To be learnt—
Words put together so as to make sense form a
sentence.
A sentence has two parts: that which we speak of,
and what we say about it.
That which we speak of is the Subject.
Exercises on Lesson I
1. Put the first part to—
—— has a long mane.
—— is broken.
—— cannot do his sums.
—— played for an hour; etc., etc.
2. Put the second part to—
That poor boy ——.
My brother Tom ——.
The broken flowerpot ——.
Bread and jam ——.
Brown’s tool-basket ——; etc., etc.
3. Put six different subjects to each half sentence
in 1.
4. Make six different sentences with each subject
in 2.
5. Say which part of the sentence is wanting, and
supply it in—
Has been mended
Tom’s knife
That little dog
Cut his finger
Ate too much fruit
My new book
The snowdrops in our garden, etc., etc.
N.B.—Be careful to call the first part of each
sentence the subject.
Draw a line under the subject of each sentence in
all the exercises.
Lesson II
We may make a sentence with only two words—the
name of the thing we speak of and what we say
about it:—
John writes.
Birds sing.
Mary sews.
We speak about ‘John.’
We say about him that he ‘writes.’
We speak about ‘birds.’
We say about them that they ‘sing.’
These words, writes, sing, sews, all come out of the
same group of words, and the words in that group are
the chief words of all, for this reason—we cannot
make sense, and therefore cannot make a sentence,
without using at least one of them.
They are called Verbs, which means words, because
they are the chief words of all.
A verb always tells one of two things about the
subject. Either it tells what the subject is, as—
I am hungry.
The chair is broken.
The birds are merry;
or it tells what the subject does, as—
Alice writes.
The cat mews.
He calls.
To be learnt—
We cannot make a sentence without a verb.
Verb means word.
Verbs are the chief words.
Verbs show that the subject is something—
He is sleepy;
or does something—
He runs.
Exercises on Lesson II
1. Put in a verb of being:—
Mary —— sleepy.
Boys —— rough.
Girls —— —— quiet.
He —— first yesterday.
I —— a little boy.
Tom and George —— swinging before dinner.
We —— —— busy to-morrow.
He —— —— punished; etc., etc.
2. Make three sentences with each of the following
verbs:—Is, are, should be, was, am, were, shall be,
will be.
3. Make six sentences with verbs of being in each.
4. Put a verb of doing to—
Tigers ——.
The boy with the pony ——.
My cousins ——; etc., etc.
5. Make twenty sentences about—
That boy in kilts,
with verbs showing what he does.
6. Find the verbs, and say whether of being or
doing, in—
The bright sun rises over the hill.
We went away.
You are my cousin.
George goes to school.
He took his slate.
We are seven.
7. Count how many verbs you use in your talk for
the next ten minutes.
8. Write every verb you can find in these exercises,
and draw a line under it.
XX.—FRENCH
French should be acquired as English is, not as a
grammar, but as a living speech. To train the ear to
distinguish and the lips to produce the French vocables
is a valuable part of the education of the senses,
and one which can hardly be undertaken too soon.
Again, all educated persons should be able to speak
French. Sir Lyon Playfair, once speaking at a conference
of French masters, lamented feelingly our
degeneracy in this respect, and instanced the grammar
school of Perth to show that in a Scotch school
in the sixteenth century the boys were required to
speak Latin during school hours, and French at all
other times. There is hardly another civilised nation
so dull in acquiring foreign tongues as we English of
the present time; but, probably, the fault lies rather
in the way we set about the study than in any
natural incapacity for languages.
As regards French, for instance, our difficulties are
twofold—the want of a vocabulary, and a certain
awkwardness in producing unfamiliar sounds. It is
evident that both these hindrances should be removed
in early childhood. The child should never see
French words in print until he has learned to say
them with as much ease and readiness as if they
were English. The desire to give printed combinations
of letters the sounds they would bear in English
words is the real cause of our national difficulty in
pronouncing French. Again, the child’s vocabulary
should increase steadily, say, at the rate of half a
dozen words a day. Think of fifteen hundred words
in a year! The child who has that number of words,
and knows how to apply them, can speak French.
Of course, his teacher will take care that, in giving
words, she gives idioms also, and that as he learns
new words, they are put into sentences and kept in use
from day to day. A note-book in which she enters
the child’s new words and sentences will easily
enable the teacher to do this. The young child has
no foolish shame about saying French words—he pronounces
them as simply as if they were English;
but it is very important that he should acquire a
pure accent from the first. It is not often advisable
that young English children should be put into the
hands of a French governess or nurse; but would
it not be possible for half a dozen families, say, to
engage a French lady, who would give half an hour
daily to each family?
M. Gouin’s Method.—A serious effort is being
made to approach the study of foreign languages
rationally and scientifically. I have no hesitation
in saying that M. Gouin’s work (The Art of Teaching
and Studying Languages)[36] is the most important
attempt that has yet been made to bring the study
of languages within the sphere of practical education.
Indeed, the great reform in our methods
of teaching modern languages owe their origin to
this remarkable work. The initial idea, that we
must acquire a new language as a child acquires
his mother tongue, is absolutely right, whether the
attempt to follow this idea out by analysing a
language into a certain number, say fifteen, exhaustive
‘series,’ be right or not. Again, it is
incontestable that the ear, and not the eye, is the
physical organ for apprehending a language, just
as truly as it is by the mouth, and not the ear, we
appropriate food. If M. Gouin’s book establish these
two points only, it will be a valuable contribution
to educational thought. Equally important is his
third position, that the verb is the key to the sentence,
and more, is the living bridge between thought
and act. He maintains, too, that the child thinks in
sentences, not in words; that his sentences have a
logical sequence; that this sequence is one of time—the
order of the operations in, for example, the
growth of a plant, or the grinding of corn in a mill;
that, as the child perceives the operations, he has an
absolute need to express them; that his ear solicits,
his memory cherishes, his tongue reproduces, the
words which say the thing he thinks. No doubt
M. Gouin’s method should be more successful than
any other in steeping the student (child or man) in
German or French thought. If you are all day
long trying to work out a ‘series’ in French, say,
you come to think in French, to ‘dream in French,’
to speak French. Moreover, one has a delightful
sense that at last the way is made clear to us to
conduct all teaching in the language under study.
You have the ‘Art Series’ and the ‘Bee Series’
and the ‘River’ and the ‘Character Series’ and
the ‘Poet Series,’ and any series you like. You
think the thing out in the order of time and natural
sequence; you get the right verbs, nouns, and such
epithets as are necessary, follow suit, and in amazingly
few sentences, very short sentences too, connected
by ‘and,’ you have said all that is essential
to the subject. The whole thing is a constant
surprise, like the children’s game which unearths
the most extraordinary and out-of-the-way thing
you can think of by means of a dozen or so
questions.
The ‘Series.’—Thus, a language learned by M.
Gouin’s method is ‘a liberal education in itself.’ One
learns how few and simple are, after all, the conceptions
of which the human mind is cognisant, and how
few and simple, putting mere verbiage aside, are the
words necessary to express these.
You really learn to think in the new language,
because you have no more than vague impressions
about these acts or facts in your mother tongue.
You order your thoughts in the new language,
and, having done so, the words which express these
are an inalienable possession.
Here is an example of an elementary ‘Series,’
showing how ‘the servant lights the fire’:
| “The servant takes a box of matches, | takes. |
| She opens the match-box, | opens. |
| She takes out a match, | takes out. |
| She shuts up the match-box, | shuts up. |
| She strikes the match on the cover, | strikes. |
| The match takes fire, | takes fire. |
| The match smokes, | smokes. |
| The match flames, | flames. |
| The match burns, | burns. |
| And spreads a smell of burning over the kitchen, | spreads. |
| The servant bends down to the hearth, | bends down. |
| Puts out her hand, | puts out. |
| Puts the match under the shavings, | puts. |
| Holds the match under the shavings, | holds. |
| The shavings take fire, | take fire. |
| The servant leaves go of the match, | leaves go. |
| Stands up again, | stands up. |
| Looks at her fire burning, | looks. |
| And puts back the box of matches in its place, | puts back.” |
But any attempt to quote gives an uncertain and
unsatisfactory idea of this important work.
How does the Child learn?—Whatever may be
said of M. Gouin’s methods, the steps by which he
arrives at them are undoubtedly scientific. He learns
from a child:
“Unhappily the child has remained up to the present
a hackneyed riddle, which we have never taken
sufficient trouble to decipher or examine....”
“The little child, which at the age of two years
utters nothing but meaningless exclamations, at the
age of three finds itself in possession of a complete
language. How does it accomplish this? Does
this miracle admit of explanation or not? Is it a
problem of which there is a possibility of finding the
unknown quantity?... The organ of language—ask
the little child—is not the eye: it is the ear.
The eye is made for colours, and not for sounds and
words.... This tension, continuous and contrary
to nature, of the organ of sight, the forced precipitancy
of the visual act, produced what it was bound
to produce, a disease of the eyesight.”
This refers to M. Gouin’s herculean labours in the
attempt to learn German. He knew everybody’s
‘Method,’ learned the whole dictionary through, and
found at the end that he did not know one word of
German ‘as she is spoke.’
He returned to France, after a ten months’ absence,
and found that his little nephew—whom he had left,
a child of two and a half, not yet able to talk—had
in the interval done what his uncle had signally
failed to do. “‘What!’ I thought; ‘this child and
I have been working for the same time, each at a
language. He, playing round his mother, running
after flowers, butterflies and birds, without weariness,
without apparent effort, without even being conscious
of his work, is able to say all he thinks, express all
he sees, understand all he hears; and when he began
his work, his intelligence was yet a futurity, a
glimmer, a hope. And I, versed in the sciences,
versed in philosophy, armed with a powerful will,
gifted with a powerful memory ... have arrived
at nothing, or at practically nothing!’”
“The linguistic science of the college has deceived
me, has misguided me. The classical method, with
its grammar, its dictionary, and its translations, is a
delusion.” “To surprise Nature’s secret, I must
watch this child.”
M. Gouin watches the child—the work in question
is the result of his observations.
The method of teaching may be varied, partly
because that recommended by M. Gouin requires a
perfect command of the French tongue, and teachers
who are diffident find a conversational method founded
on book and picture[37] easier to work and perhaps as
effectual—more so, some people think; but, be this
as it may, it is to M. Gouin we owe the fundamental
idea.
It is satisfactory to find principles, which we have
urged continually, enunciated in this most thoughtful
work. For example: “If one learns French
without being able to read it—as the child does—there
will be no longer much greater difficulty in
pronouncing it than in pronouncing words in English.
‘How about the spelling?’ you will ask. The
spelling? You would learn it as the young French
children learn it, as you yourself have learnt the
English spelling, ten times more difficult than the
French; and this without letting the study of the
spelling spoil your already acquired pronunciation.
Besides, the spelling is a thing that can be reformed—the
pronunciation hardly at all. We must choose
between the two evils.” M. Gouin speaks of the
possibility of a child’s picking up another tongue—even
Chinese from a Chinese nurse; and his words
remind me of an extraordinary instance of a child’s
facility in picking up languages, which once came
before me. Having occasion to speak in public of
three little children, all aged three, belonging to
different families, where one parent was English, the
other German, I said that these three children of my
acquaintance could each say everything they had
to say, express the whole range of their ideas, with
equal ease and fluency in the two languages. At
the close of the meeting, a gentleman present came
forward and endorsed my remarks. He said he had
a son whose wife was a German lady, and who was
now a missionary in Bagdad. They have a child of
three, and their child speaks three languages with
perfect fluency—English, German, and Arabic! No
doubt the child will forget two of the three, and this
is no argument for teaching foreign tongues to
babies, but surely it does prove that the acquisition
of a foreign tongue need not present insuperable
difficulties to any of us.
XXI.—PICTORIAL ART
Study of Pictures.—The art training of children
should proceed on two lines. The six-year-old child
should begin both to express himself and to appreciate,
and his appreciation should be well in advance
of his power to express what he sees or imagines.
Therefore it is a lamentable thing when the appreciation
of children is exercised only upon the coloured
lithographs of their picture-books or of the ‘Christmas
number.’ But the reader will say, ‘A young child
cannot appreciate art; it is only the colour and
sentiment of a picture that reach him. A vividly
coloured presentation of Bobbie’s Birthday, or of
Barbara’s Broken Doll, will find its way straight to his
“business and bosom.”’ ‘Therefore,’ says the reader,
‘Nature indicates the sort of art proper for the
children!’ But, as a matter of fact, the minds of
children and of their elders alike accommodate themselves
to what is put in their way; and if children
appreciate the vulgar and sentimental in art, it
is because that is the manner of art to which they
become habituated. A little boy of about nine was
(with many others) given reproductions of some half-dozen
of the pictures of Jean François Millet to study
during a school term. At the end, the children were
asked to describe the one of these pictures which they
liked best. Of course they did it, and did it well.
This is what the little boy I mentioned makes of it:—“I
liked the Sower best. The sower is sowing seeds;
the picture is all dark except high up on the right-hand
side where there is a man ploughing the field.
While he is ploughing the field the sower sows.
The sower has got a bag in his left hand and is
sowing with his right hand. He has wooden clogs
on. He is sowing at about six o’clock in the
morning. You can see his head better than his legs
and body, because it is against the light.”
A little girl of seven prefers the ‘Angelus,’ and
says:—“The picture is about people in the fields, a
man and a woman. By the woman is a basket with
something in it; behind her is a wheelbarrow. They
are praying; the man has his hat off in his hand.
You can tell that it is evening, because the wheelbarrow
and the basket are loaded.”
Should be Regular.—When children have begun
regular lessons (that is, as soon as they are
six), this sort of study of pictures should not
be left to chance, but they should take one artist
after another, term by term, and study quietly some
half-dozen reproductions of his work in the course
of a term.
The little memory outlines I have quoted show
that something definite remains with a child after
his studies; but this is the least of the gains. We
cannot measure the influence that one or another
artist has upon the child’s sense of beauty, upon his
power of seeing, as in a picture, the common sights
of life; he is enriched more than we know in having
really looked at even a single picture. It is a
mistake to think that colour is quite necessary to
children in their art studies. They find colour in
many places, and are content, for the time, with form
and feeling in their pictures. By the way, for schoolroom
decorations, I know of nothing better than the
Fitzroy Pictures,[38] especially those of the Four Seasons,
where you get beauty, both of line and colour, and
poetic feeling. I should like, too, to quote Ruskin’s
counsel that English children should be brought up
on Jean Richter’s picture-books for children, the
Unser Vater, Sontag,[38a] and the rest.
I subjoin notes of a lesson on a Picture-talk[39] given
to children of eight and nine, to show how this sort of
lesson may be given.
Picture-talk
“Objects
“1. To continue the series of Landseer’s pictures
the children are taking in school.
“2. To increase their interest in Landseer’s works.
“3. To show the importance of his acquaintance
with animals.
“4. To help them to read a picture truly.
“5. To increase their powers of attention and
observation.
“Step I.—Ask the children if they remember what
their last picture-talk was about, and what artist was
famous for animal-painting. Tell them Landseer was
acquainted with animals when he was quite young:
he had dogs for pets, and because he loved them he
studied them and their habits—so was able to paint
them.
“Step II.—Give them the picture ‘Alexander and
Diogenes’ to look at, and ask them to find out all
they can about it themselves, and to think what idea
the artist had in his mind, and what idea or ideas he
meant his picture to convey to us.
“Step III.—After three or four minutes, take the
picture away and see what the children have noticed.
Then ask them what the different dogs suggest to
them: the strength of the mastiff representing
Alexander; the dignity and stateliness of the bloodhounds
in his rear; the look of the wise counsellor
on the face of the setter; the rather contemptuous
look of the rough-haired terrier in the tub. Ask
the children if they have noticed anything in the
picture which shows the time of day: for example,
the tools thrown down by the side of the workman’s
basket suggesting the mid-day meal; and the bright
sunshine on the dogs who cast a shadow on the tub
shows it must be somewhere about noon.
“Step IV.—Let them read the title, and tell any
facts they know about Alexander and Diogenes; then
tell them Alexander was a great conqueror who lived
B.C. 356-323, famous for the battles he won against
Persia, India, and along the coast of the Mediterranean.
He was very proud, strong, and boastful. Diogenes
was a cynic philosopher. Explain cynic, illustrating
by the legend of Alexander and Diogenes; and from
it find out which dog represents Alexander and which
Diogenes.
“Step V.—Let the children draw the chief lines of
the picture, in five minutes, with pencil and paper.”
Original Illustrations.—I have spoken, from time
to time, of original illustrations drawn by the children.
It may be of use to subjoin notes of a lesson[40]
showing the sort of occasional help a teacher may
give in this kind of work; but in a general way it is
best to leave children to themselves.
“Objects
“1. To help the children to make clear mental
pictures from description, and to reproduce the same
in painting.
“2. To increase their power of imagination.
“3. To help them in their ideas of form and colour.
“4. To increase their interest in the story of Beowulf
by letting them illustrate a scene from the book they
are reading.
“5. To bring out their idea of an unknown creature
(Grendel).
“Steps
“Step I.—To draw from the children what they
know of the poem ‘Beowulf,’ and of the hero himself.
“Step II.—To tell them any points they may miss
in the story, as far as they have read (i.e. to the death
of Grendel).
“Step III.—To read the description of the dress at
that time, and the account of Grendel’s death (including
three possible pictures).
“Step IV.—To draw from the children what mental
pictures they have made—and to re-read the passage.
“Step V.—To let them produce their mental picture
with brush and paint.
“Step VI.—To show them George Harrow’s
‘original illustration’ of Beowulf in Heroes of
Chivalry and Romance.”
Drawing Lessons.—But ‘for their actual drawing
lessons,’ says the reader, ‘I suppose you use
“blobs”?’—‘blobs,’ i.e. splashes of paint made with
the flat of the brush, which take an oval form. I think
blobs have one use—they give a certain freedom in
using colour. Otherwise ‘blobs’ seem to me a sort
of apparatus of art which a child acquires with a good
deal of labour, and with which, by proper combinations
into flowers, and so on, he can produce effects beyond
his legitimate power as an artist, while all the time he
can do this without a particle of the feeling for the
natural object which is the very soul of art. The
power of effective creation by a sort of clever trick
maims those delicate feelers of a child’s nature by
which he apprehends art.
“Let the eye” (says Ruskin) “but rest on a rough
piece of branch of curious form during a conversation
with a friend, rest, however unconsciously, and
though the conversation be forgotten, though every
circumstance connected with it be as utterly lost to
the memory as though it had not been, yet the eye
will, through the whole life after, take a certain
pleasure in such boughs which it had not before,
a pleasure so slight, a trace of feeling so delicate, as
to leave us utterly unconscious of its peculiar power,
but undestroyable by any reasoning, a part thenceforward
of our constitution.”
This is what we wish to do for children in teaching
them to draw—to cause the eye to rest, not unconsciously,
but consciously, on some object of beauty
which will leave in their minds an image of delight
for all their lives to come. Children of six and seven
draw budding twigs of oak and ash, beech and larch,
with such tender fidelity to colour, tone, and gesture,
that the crude little drawings are in themselves things
of beauty.
Children have ‘Art’ in them.—With art, as with
so many other things in a child, we must believe that
it is there, or we shall never find it. Once again, here
is a delicate Ariel whom it is our part to deliver from
his bonds. Therefore we set twig or growing flower
before a child and let him deal with it as he chooses.
He will find his own way to form and colour, and our
help may very well be limited at first to such
technical matters as the mixing of colours and the
like. In order that we may not impede the child’s
freedom or hinder the deliverance of the art that is
in him, we must be careful not to offer any aids in
the way of guiding lines, points, and such other
crutches; and, also, he should work in the easiest
medium, that is, with paint brush or with charcoal, and
not with a black-lead pencil. Boxes of cheap colours
are to be avoided. Children are worthy of the best, and
some half-dozen tubes of really good colours will last
a long time, and will satisfy the eye of the little artists.
Clay-modelling.—While speaking of the art training
of children, it may be as well to give a word to
clay-modelling. Neat little birds’-nests, baskets of
eggs, etc., are of no use in the way of art development,
and soon cease to be amusing. The chief thing the
teacher has to do is to show the child how to prepare
his clay so as to expel air-bubbles, and to give him
the idea of making a little platform for his work, so
that it may from the first have an artistic effect.
Then put before him an apple, a banana, a Brazil
nut, or the like; let him, not take a lump of clay
and squeeze it into shape, but build up the shape he
desires morsel by morsel. His own artistic perception
seizes on the dint in the apple, the crease in the child’s
shoe, the little notes of expression in the objects
which break uniformity and make for art.
The Piano and Singing.—I must close, with the
disappointing sense that subjects of importance in
the child’s education have been left out of count, and
that no one matter has been adequately treated.
Certain subjects of peculiar educational value,
music, for instance, I have said nothing about, partly
for want of space, and partly because if the mother
have not Sir Joshua Reynolds’s ‘that!’ in her, hints
from an outsider will not produce the art-feeling
which is the condition of success in this sort of
teaching. If possible, let the children learn from
the first under artists, lovers of their work: it is
a serious mistake to let the child lay the foundation of
whatever he may do in the future under ill-qualified
mechanical teachers, who kindle in him none of the
enthusiasm which is the life of art. I should like,
in connection with singing, to mention the admirable
educational effects of the Tonic Sol-fa method.[41]
Children learn by it in a magical way to produce sign
for sound and sound for sign, that is, they can not
only read music, but can write the notes for, or make
the proper hand signs for, the notes of a passage
sung to them. Ear and voice are simultaneously
and equally cultivated.
Mrs Curwen’s Child Pianist[42] method is worked out,
with minute care, upon the same lines; that is, the
child’s knowledge of the theory of music and his ear
training keep pace with his power of execution, and
seem to do away with the deadly dreariness of
‘practising.’
Handicrafts and Drills.—It is not possible
to do more than mention two more important
subjects—the Handicrafts and Drills—which should
form a regular part of a child’s daily life. For
physical training nothing is so good as Ling’s Swedish
Drill, and a few of the early exercises are within the
reach of children under nine. Dancing, and the
various musical drills, lend themselves to grace of
movement, and give more pleasure, if less scientific
training, to the little people.
The Handicrafts best fitted for children under
nine seem to me to be chair-caning, carton-work,
basket-work, Smyrna rugs, Japanese curtains, carving
in cork, samplers on coarse canvas showing a
variety of stitches, easy needlework, knitting (big
needles and wool), etc. The points to be borne in
mind in children’s handicrafts are: (a) that they
should not be employed in making futilities such
as pea and stick work, paper mats, and the like; (b)
that they should be taught slowly and carefully
what they are to do; (c) that slipshod work should
not be allowed; (d) and that, therefore, the children’s
work should be kept well within their compass.
May I hope, in concluding this short review of the
subjects proper for a child’s intellectual education,
that enough has been said to show the necessity of
grave consideration on the mother’s part before she
allows promiscuous little lesson-books to be put into
the hands of her children, or trusts ill-qualified persons
to strike out methods of teaching for themselves?
FOOTNOTES: