The History of Pedagogy

by Gabriel Compayré

FOOTNOTES:

[151] “Formerly secondary schools were schools in which was given a more advanced instruction then in the primary schools; and they were distinguished into communal secondary schools, or communal colleges, and into private secondary schools or institutions.... To-day, secondary instruction includes the colleges and lycées in which are taught the ancient languages, modern languages, history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and philosophy. Public instruction is divided into primary, secondary, and superior instruction.”—Littré.

[152] This refers to the University of Paris, which must be distinguished from the Napoleonic University. “The latter was founded by a decree of Napoleon I., March 17, 1808. It was first called the Imperial University, and then the University of France. It comprises: 1. The faculties;[153] 2. the lycées or colleges of the State; 3. the communal colleges; 4. the primary schools. All these are under the direction of a central administration.”—Littré.

[153] There are now five Faculties or institutions for special instruction,—the Faculties of the Sciences, of Letters, of Medicine, of Law, and of Theology. (P.)

[154] Save once, Rollin has scarcely made an allusion to primary instruction proper. We quote this passage on account of its singularity: “Several years ago there was introduced into most of the schools for the poor in Paris a method which is very useful to scholars, and which spares much trouble to the teachers. The school is divided into several classes. I select only one of them, that composed of children who already know how to write syllables; the others must be judged by this one. I suppose that the subject of the reading lesson is Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis. Each child pronounces one syllable, as Di. His competitor, who stands opposite, takes up the next, xit, and so on. The whole class is attentive; for the teacher, without warning, passes at once from the head of the line to the middle, or to the foot, and the recitation must continue without interruption. If a pupil makes a mistake in some syllable, the teacher, without speaking, raps upon the table with his stick, and the competitor is obliged to repeat as it should be the syllable that has been wrongly pronounced. If he fail also, the next, upon a second rap of the stick, goes back to the same syllable, and so on till it has been pronounced correctly. More than thirty years ago, I saw with unusual pleasure this method in successful operation at Orleans, where it originated through the care and industry of M. Garot, who presided over the schools of that city.”

[155] Rollin does not require it, however, of young men.

[156] Doctor Wolker, quoted by Cadet, in his edition of Rollin, Paris, 1882.

---

[CHAPTER XII.]
CATHOLICISM AND PRIMARY INSTRUCTION.—LA SALLE AND THE BRETHREN OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS.

STATE OF PRIMARY INSTRUCTION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY; DÉMIA AND THE INFANT SCHOOLS OF LYONS; CLAUDE JOLY, DIRECTOR OF THE PRIMARY SCHOOLS OF PARIS; THE BOOK OF THE PARISH SCHOOL; LA SALLE (1651-1719) AND THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS; LIFE AND CHARACTER OF LA SALLE; ASCETIC TENDENCIES; FOUNDATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF THE BRETHREN (1684); THE IDEA OF NORMAL SCHOOLS; THE IDEA OF GRATUITOUS AND COMPULSORY INSTRUCTION; PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTION; CONDUCT OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS; SUCCESSIVE EDITIONS; ABUSE OF SCHOOL REGULATIONS; DIVISION OF THE CONDUCT; INTERIOR ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOLS; SIMULTANEOUS INSTRUCTION; WHAT WAS LEARNED IN THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS; METHOD OF TEACHING; THE CHRISTIAN CIVILITY; CORPORAL CHASTISEMENTS; REPRIMANDS; PENANCES; THE FERULE; THE ROD; REWARDS; MUTUAL ESPIONAGE; GENERAL CONCLUSION; ANALYTICAL SUMMARY.

---

274. The State of Primary Instruction in the Seventeenth Century.—It does not form a part of our plan to follow from day to day the small increments of progress and the slow development of the primary schools of France; but we must confine ourselves to the essential facts and to the important dates.

The Catholic Church, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, did not altogether renounce her interest in popular instruction. She took measures, without doubt, to evangelize the poor people, and sometimes “even to teach them how to read and write.” Nevertheless, up to the organization of the Christian schools, by La Salle, no serious effort was made. Some religious foundations establish gratuitous schools in many places,—charity schools,—but no comprehensive purpose directs these establishments. Conflicts of prerogative among certain independent colleagues, as that between the writing-masters and the masters of the infant schools placed under the direct authority of the precentor, or among the rectors and the tutors (écolâtres), that is, the assistants of the bishops charged with the supervision of the schools,—such dissensions came still further to defeat the good intentions of individuals, and to embarrass the feeble movement that was exerted in favor of popular instruction. For example, towards 1680, the writing-masters attempted to prevent the masters of the primary schools[157] from giving writing lessons, at least, from giving their pupils any copies except monosyllables; and a decree of Parliament is necessary to re-establish the liberty—and then under certain restrictions—of teaching to write.

“Christian instruction was neglected, not to say dishonored,” is the statement of contemporaries. The children who attended the schools of the poor were subjected to public contempt. They were obliged to wear on their caps a distinctive badge. In brief, far from progressing, primary instruction was rather in a state of decadence.

275. Démia and the Primary Schools of Lyons.—Among the progressive men who struggled against this unhappy state of affairs, and who tried to develop the Catholic schools, we must mention, before La Salle, Démia, a priest of Lyons, who, in 1666, founded the Congregation of the Brethren of Saint Charles, for the instruction of poor children. The Institute of La Salle was not organized till eighteen years later, in 1684. In 1668, having addressed to the provosts of the merchants of the city of Lyons a warm appeal, his Proposals for the establishment of Christian schools for the instruction of the poor, Démia obtained an annual grant of two hundred livres. In 1675 he was charged by “express command” of the archbishop of Lyons “with the management and direction of the schools of that city and diocese,” and drew up a body of school regulations which was quoted as a model.[158] For the method of “teaching to read, of learning the catechism, of correcting children, and similar things,” Démia conformed to the book known as the Parish School (École paroissiale), of which we shall presently say a word. He took it upon himself to proceed “to the examination of the religion, the ability, and the good morals, of the persons who proposed to teach school.” But, what was of greater moment, he established, for preparing and training them, a sort of seminary.

A few quotations will give an idea of Démia’s zeal in the establishment of Christian schools.

“This establishment is of such importance and of so great utility, that there is nothing in our political organization which is more worthy of the care and the watchfulness of the magistrates, since on it depend our peace and public tranquillity. The poor, not having the means of educating their children, leave them in ignorance of their obligations.... Thus we see, with keen displeasure, that such an education of the children of the poor is totally neglected, although it is the most important interest of the State, of which they comprise the largest part; and, although it is quite as necessary, and even more so, to maintain public schools for them, as to support colleges for the children of families in good circumstances....”

276. Claude Joly.—In 1676, Claude Joly, precentor of Notre Dame, “collator, director, and judge of the primary schools of the city, the suburbs, and the outskirts of Paris,” published his Christian and Moral Counsels for the Instruction of Children. There is but little to gather from this work, where the author is so forgetful of elementary instruction as to speak only of secondary instruction and of the education of princes. What most concerns Claude Joly is to put in force the regulations which forbid the association of boys and girls in the schools. The separation of the sexes was for a long time an absolute principle in France. Démia, in article nine of his regulations, restores the ordinance of the archbishop of Lyons, “which forbids school-masters to admit girls, and school-mistresses to admit boys.” Rollin was of the same opinion. Claude Joly, in the capacity of chief precentor, bluntly claimed his sovereign rights in the matter of primary instruction:—

“We shall contest the power claimed by the rectors of Paris to control the schools, under the name and pretext of charity, without the permission of the chief precentor, to whom alone belongs this power. To him, also, belongs the right of nomination to the schools of the religious and secular communities. We shall disclose, besides, the attempts of writers to interfere with the teaching of orthography, which belongs only to good grammarians, that is, to the masters of the little schools.”

We see to what petty questions of prerogative was sacrificed, in the seventeenth century, the great cause of popular instruction.

277. The Book of the Parish School.—Under the title, The Parish School, or the Manner of Properly Instructing the Children in the Little Schools, a priest of the diocese of Paris had written, in 1655, a school manual, often reprinted,[159] which became the general standard of the schools during the years that followed, and which gives an exact idea of what was narrow and poorly defined in the primary instruction of that period.

The author of the Parish School does not have a high opinion of the office of the teacher, which he regards as an employment without lustre, without pleasure, and without interest. He does not expect great results from instruction, of which he is pleased to say, that it is not completely useless. It is true that instruction is reduced to a very few things,—reading, writing, and counting. To this the author adds religion and politeness.

Let us observe in particular, that the programme of the parish school also comprises the principles of the Latin language. The primary school of that period was still confounded with the college of secondary instruction; the ancient languages and rhetoric were taught in it. In the catalogue of the master’s books, drawn up by the author of the Parish School, we find a Greek grammar. In the classes, the reading of Latin precedes the reading of French.

Some good advice in practical pedagogy might be extracted from the first part of the work, especially on the duties of a school-master, on the power of example, and on the necessity of knowing the disposition of pupils. But how many artless assertions and mischievous precepts, in that school code of the city of Paris, in the near presence of the grand century! The Parish School complains that the scholars eat too much bread:—

“The children of Paris, as a rule, eat a great deal of bread. This food stupefies the mind, and very often makes them, at the age of nine or ten, incapable of learning. Omnis repletio mala, panis vero pessima.” A serious matter is that espionage is not only authorized, but is encouraged and organized:—

“The master will select two of the most reliable and intelligent to be on the lookout for the disorders and the improprieties of the school and the church. They shall write the names of the offenders, and of those guilty of improprieties, on pieces of paper or on tablets, to be given to the master. These officers shall be called observers.”

278. La Salle (1651-1719) and the Christian Schools.—The reading of the Parish School prepares us the better to comprehend the work of La Salle. If one were in any degree tempted to depreciate the Institute of the Brethren of the Christian Schools, it would suffice, to counteract this disposition, to contrast the reforms of La Salle, however insufficient they may be, with the real state of the schools of that period. To be equitably judged, human institutions ought to be replaced in their setting and in their environment. It is easy to-day to formulate charges against the pedagogy of the Brethren of the Christian Schools. But considered in their time, and compared with what existed, or rather with what did not exist, the establishments of La Salle deserve the esteem and the gratitude of the friends of instruction. They represent the first systematic effort of the Catholic Church to organize popular instruction. What the Jesuits did in the matter of secondary instruction, with immense resources and for pupils who paid them for their efforts, La Salle attempted in primary instruction, through a thousand obstacles and for pupils who did not pay.

279. Life and Character of La Salle.—We shall have to criticise in the most of its principles and in many details of its practice, the educational institute of La Salle. But that which merits an admiration without reserve is the professional zeal of the founder of the order, the dauntless spirit of improvement which he displayed in the organization of his schools, and in the recruitment of his teachers; it is also his tenacious zeal which was discouraged neither by the jealous opposition of corporations, the writing-masters for example, nor by the inexplicable opposition of the clergy; and, finally, it is the indefatigable devotion of a beautiful life consecrated to the cause of instruction, which was a long series of efforts and sacrifices.

At an early hour, La Salle had given proofs of the energy of his character. Weak and sickly, he was obliged to struggle against the infirmities of his constitution. To overcome sleep, and to prolong his studious vigils, he sometimes kneeled on sharp stones, and sometimes he placed in front of him, upon his study-table, a board fitted with iron points, against which his head would strike as soon as fatigue made him doze and he leaned forward. Canon of the chapter of Reims in 1667, ordained priest in 1678, he resigned his prebendship in 1683, and, voluntarily making himself poor, in order to approach those whose souls he would save, he renounced his whole patrimony, to the great disgust of his friends, who treated him as a madman.

280. Ascetic Tendencies.—But it is not a disinterested love of the people, it is not the thought of their moral regeneration, and of their intellectual progress, which animated and sustained the efforts of La Salle. His purpose was above all else religious. He pushed devotion even to asceticism. In his childhood, while he still lived at home, he came to have a sense of unrest in the parlors of his mother; and one evening, as his biographers relate, while those about him were engaged in music, or were talking on worldly matters, he threw himself into the arms of one of his aunts, and said to her, “Madam, relate to me the life of one of the saints.” He himself was a saint, though the Church did not think him worthy of this venerable title. In his youth he passed whole nights in prayer, and slept on boards. All his life he was severe to himself and also to others, considering abstinence and privations as the regimen of the Christian. His adversaries, at different times, imputed this to him as a crime. He was represented as a hardened man, pushing his ascetic requirements to the extreme of cruelty. To appease their anger, he removed penances and bodily inflictions from his institution, but he maintained them for himself, and continued his life of voluntary suffering. Heroic virtues, it may be; but it may be added also, an unfortunate disposition for a teacher of children. We distrust, in advance, a system of teaching whose beginning was so sad, whose founder inclosed his life within so narrow an horizon, and which, at first, was illuminated by no rays of gladness and good humor.

281. Foundations of the Institute.—The Institute of the Brethren was founded in 1684, but it was not sanctioned by pontifical authority and royal power till forty years later, in 1724.

We shall not recite at full length the vicissitudes of the first years of the Institute. We simply state that La Salle inaugurated his work by offering hospitality in his own house to several poor teachers. In 1679 he opened at Reims a school for boys. In 1684 he imposed on his disciples vows of stability and obedience, and prescribed their costume. In 1688 he went to Paris in order to found schools there, and it was here in particular, as he himself says, that “he saw himself persecuted by the men from whom he expected help.” In spite of all these difficulties his enterprise prospered, and when he died, in 1720, the Institute of the Brethren already counted a large number of establishments for primary instruction.

282. The Idea of Normal Schools.—We know how the teaching force was then recruited. In Paris, if we may believe Pourchot, the chief precentor, Claude Joly, was obliged to employ, for the direction of schools, old-clothes-men, innkeepers, cooks, masons, wig-makers, puppet-players—the list might be continued. In 1682 Marie Moreau, a teacher, was sent by Bossuet to keep the school at Ferté-Gaucher. The rector of the place, in his capacity as tutor (écolâtre), wishing to ascertain her competence, subjected her to an examination, of which the following is an account:—

“1. He asked her if she could read, and she replied that she read passably well, but not well enough to teach.

“2. He gave her a pen to mend, and she declared that she could not do it.

“3. He handed her a Latin book and requested her to read it, but she was prevented from making the attempt by sister Remy, who had just prevented her from exhibiting her writing.”[160]

Ignorance, and often moral unfitness, was the general character of the teachers of that period. They often entered upon their duties without the least preparation. La Salle had too great an anxiety for the good condition of his schools to accept improvised teachers. So in 1685 he opened at Reims, under the name of Seminary for Schoolmasters, a real normal school, in which teachers were to be trained for the rural districts. Only Démia had preceded him in this work. Later he founded an establishment of the same kind in Paris, and—a thing worthy of note—he annexed to this normal school a primary school, in which the teaching was done by the students in training under the direction of an experienced teacher.

In the third part of his Conduct of Schools La Salle has drawn up the rules for what he calls the training of new masters. Here are the faults that he notices in young teachers:—

1. An itching to talk; 2. too great activity, which degenerates into petulance; 3. indifference; 4. preoccupation and embarrassment; 5. harshness; 6. spite; 7. partiality; 8. slowness and negligence; 9. pusillanimity and lack of force; 10. despondency and fretfulness; 11. familiarity and trifling; 12. distractions and loss of time; 13. fickleness; 14. giddiness; 15. exclusiveness; 16. lack of attention to the different characters and dispositions of children.

283. The Idea of Gratuitous and Obligatory Instruction.—The Institute of the Brethren of the Christian Schools, say the statutes of the order in so many words, is a society whose members make a profession to conduct schools gratuitously. “La Salle thought only of the children of artisans and of the poor, who, he said, being occupied during the whole day in earning their own livelihood and that of their families, could not give their children the instruction they need, and a respectable and Christian education.” In 1694, the founder of the Institute and his first twelve disciples went and kneeled at the foot of the altar, and pledged themselves to “conduct collectively and through organized effort schools of gratuitous instruction, even when, in order to do this, they might be obliged to ask alms and to live on bread alone.”

But a thing still more remarkable than to have popularized gratuitous instruction, already realized in many places through charity schools, is to have formed the conception of obligatory instruction. La Salle, who did not believe that this was any encroachment on the liberty of parents, proposes, in this Conduct of Schools, a means for affecting their will:—

“If among the poor there are certain ones who are unwilling to take advantage of the opportunities for instruction, they should be reported to the rectors. The latter will be able to cure them of their indifference by threatening to give them no more assistance till they send their children to school.”

284. Professional Instruction.—Besides primary schools proper, La Salle, who is truly an innovator, inaugurated the organization of a technical and professional instruction. At Saint Yon, near Rouen, he organized a sort of college where was taught “all that a young man can learn, with the exception of Latin, and whose purpose was to prepare the student for commercial, industrial, and administrative occupations.”

285. Conduct of the Christian Schools: Successive Editions.—La Salle took the trouble to draw up for his Institute a very minute code of rules, with this title: The Conduct of Schools. The first edition bears the date of 1720. It appeared at Avignon a year after the author’s death.[161] Two other editions have since appeared, in 1811 and in 1870, with some important modifications. The substance has not been changed, but certain passages relative to discipline, and to the use of the rod, have been suppressed.

“With the view to adapt our education to the mildness of the present state of manners,” says the preface of 1811, “we have suppressed or modified whatever includes corporal correction, and have advantageously (sic) replaced this, on the one hand, by good marks, by promises and rewards, and on the other by bad marks, by deprivations and tasks.”

On the other hand, some additions have been made. The Institute of the Brethren had to yield in part to the demands of the times, and to subtract something from the inflexibility of its government.

“The Brethren,” it is said in the preface to the edition of 1870, written by the Frère Philip, “the Brethren have little by little enlarged the original Conduct, in proportion as they have perfected their methods.... It is plain that a book of this kind cannot receive a final form. New experiments, progress in methods, legislative enactments, new needs, etc., require that it receive divers modifications from time to time.”

286. Abuse of Regulations.—A feature common to the pedagogy of the Jesuits, and to that of the Brethren of the Christian Schools, is, that everything is regulated in advance with extraordinary exactness. No discretion is left to the teachers. The instruction is but a rule in action. All novelty is interdicted.

“It has been necessary,” says the Preface of La Salle, to prepare this Conduct of the Christian schools, “to the end that there may be uniformity in all the schools, and in all the places where there are Brethren of the Institute, and that the methods employed may always be the same. Man is so subject to slackness, and even to changeableness, that there must be written rules for him, in order to keep him within the bounds of his duty, and to prevent him from introducing something new, or from destroying that which has been wisely established.”

Need we be astonished, after this, that the teaching of the Brethren often became a useless routine?

287. Division of the Conduct.—The Conduct of the Christian Schools is divided into three parts. The first treats of all the exercises of the school, and of what is done in it from the time the pupils enter till they leave. The second describes the means for establishing and maintaining order; in a word, the discipline. The third treats of the duties of the inspector of schools, of the qualities of the teachers, and of the rules to be followed in the education of the teachers themselves. This may be called, so to speak, the manual of the normal schools of the Institute.

288. Interior Organization of the Schools.—That which first strikes the attention in the Christian Schools, such as La Salle organized, is the complete silence that reigns in them. Nothing is better than silence on the part of pupils, when it can be obtained, but La Salle enjoins silence on teachers as well. The Frère is a professor who does not talk.

“He will watch carefully over himself, to speak very rarely, and very low.” “It would be of but little use for the teacher to try to make his pupils keep silence if he does not do this himself.” “When necessity obliges him to speak—and he is careful that this necessity is rare—he will always speak in a moderate tone.”

It might be said that La Salle fears a strong and sonorous voice.

How, then, shall the teacher communicate with his pupils, since he is almost debarred from the use of speech? La Salle has invented, to supersede language, a complete system of signs, a sort of scholastic telegraphy, a long account of which will be found in several chapters of the Conduct. To have prayers repeated, the teacher will fold his hands; to have the catechism repeated, he will make the sign of the cross. In other cases he will strike his breast, will look at the pupil steadily, etc. Besides, he will employ an instrument of iron named a signal, which he will raise or lower, and handle in a hundred ways, to indicate his wish, or to announce the beginning or the close of such or such an exercise.

What is the meaning of this distrust of speech? And what are we to think of these schools of mutes where teachers and pupils proceed only by signs? When a scholar asks permission to speak, he will stand erect in his place, with hands crossed and eyes modestly lowered. Doubtless, to attempt to excuse these practices, we must consider the annoyances of a noisy school, and the advantages of a silent school where everything is done discreetly and noiselessly. Is there not, however, in these odd regulations, something besides the desire for order and good conduct,—the revelation of a complete system of pedagogy which is afraid of life and liberty, and which, under the pretext of making the school quiet, deadens the school, and, in the end, reduces teachers and pupils to mere machines?

289. Simultaneous Instruction.—By the side of the evil we must note the good. Up to the time of La Salle, the individual method was almost alone in use in primary instruction; but he substituted for this the simultaneous method, that is, teaching given to all the pupils at the same time. For this purpose, La Salle divided each school into three divisions: “The division of the weakest, that of the mediocres, and that of the more intelligent or the more capable.”

“All the scholars of the same order will receive the same lesson together. The instructor will see that all are attentive, and that, in reading for example, all read in a low voice what the teacher reads in a loud voice.”

To aid the instructor, La Salle gives him one or two of the better pupils of each division, who become his assistants, and whom he calls inspectors. “The more children have taught,” said La Salle, “the more they will learn.”

To be just, however, we must recognize, in certain recommendations of La Salle, some desire to appeal to the judgment and the reason of the child:—

“The teacher will not speak to the scholars during the catechism, as in preaching, but he will interrogate them almost continually by questions, direct or indirect, in order to make them comprehend that which he is teaching them.”

The Frère Luccard, in his Life of the Venerable J. B. de La Salle,[162] quotes this still more expressive passage, borrowed from his manuscript Counsels:—

“Let the teacher be careful not to lend his pupils too much help in resolving the questions that have been proposed to them. He ought, on the contrary, to invite them not to be discouraged, but to seek with ardor what he knows they will be able to find for themselves. He will convince them that they will the better retain the knowledge they have acquired by a personal and persevering effort.”

290. What was learned in the Christian Schools.—Reading, writing, orthography, arithmetic, and the catechism,—this is the programme of La Salle.

In reading, La Salle, agreeing in this respect with Port Royal, requires that French books be used in the beginning.

“The book in which the pupil will begin to learn Latin is the Psalter; but this lesson will be given only to those who can readily read in French.”

La Salle requires that the pupil shall not be exercised in writing till “he can read perfectly.” He attaches, moreover, an extreme importance to calligraphy, and it is known that the Brethren have remained masters in this art. La Salle does not weary in giving advice on this subject: the pens, the knife for mending them, the ink, the paper, the tracing-papers and blotters, round letters and italic letters (a bastard script),—everything is passed in review.[163] The Conduct also insists “on the manner of teaching the proper posture of the body” and “on the manner of teaching how to hold the pen and the paper.”

“It will be useful and timely in the beginning to give the pupil a stick of the bigness of a pen, on which there are three notches, two on the right and one on the left, to mark the places where his fingers should be put.”

The exercises in writing are to be followed by exercises in orthography and in composition:—

“The teacher will require the pupils to compose and write for themselves notes, receipts, bills, etc. He will also require them to write out what they remember of the catechism, and of the lectures that they have heard.”[164]

As to arithmetic, reduced to the four rules, we must commend La Salle’s attempt to have it learned by reason and not by routine. Thus, he requires the teacher to interrogate the pupil, in order to make him the better comprehend and retain the rule, or to make sure that he is attentive. He “will give him a complete understanding” of what he teaches; and, finally, he will require him “to produce a certain number of rules that he has discovered for himself.”

Prayers and religious exercises naturally hold a large place in the schools organized by La Salle:—

“There shall always be two or three scholars kneeling, one from each class, who will tell their beads one after another.”

“Care will everywhere be taken that the scholars hear the holy mass every day.”

“A half hour each day shall be devoted to the catechism.”

291. Method of Teaching.—The Institute of the Brethren has often been criticised for the mechanical character of its instruction. The Frère Philip, in the edition of the Conduct published in 1870, implicitly acknowledges the justice of this criticism when he writes: “Elementary instruction has assumed a particular character in these last days, of which we must take account. Proposing for its chief end to train the judgment of the pupil, it gives less importance than heretofore to the culture of the memory; it makes especial use of methods which call into activity the intelligence, and lead the child to reflect, to take account of facts, to withdraw from the domain of words to enter into that of ideas.” Do not these wise cautions unmistakably betray the existence of an evil tradition which should be corrected, but which tends to hold its ground? He who has read the Conduct is not left in doubt that the general character of the pedagogy of the Christian Schools, at the first, was a mechanical and routine exercise of the memory, and the absence of life.

292. Christian Politeness.—Under the title of Rules of Decorum and Christian Civility, La Salle had composed a reading book, intended for pupils already somewhat advanced, and printed in Gothic characters.[165] It was not only a manual of politeness, but was, the Conduct claims, a treatise on ethics, “containing all the duties of children, both towards God and towards their parents.” But we would examine the work in vain for the justification of this remark. In it are discussed only the puerile details of outward behavior and of worldly bearing. It would, however, be in bad taste to criticise at this day a book of another age, whose artlessness makes us smile. La Salle’s purpose was certainly praiseworthy, though attempting a little too much. It is said in the Preface that “there is not a single one of our actions which ought not to be regulated by motives purely Christian.” Hence an infinite number of minute prescriptions upon the simplest acts of daily life.[166]

But here are a few specimens of this pretended elementary ethics:—

“It is not proper to talk when one has retired, the bed being made for rest.”

“One should try to make no noise and not to snore while asleep; nor should one often turn from side to side in bed as if he were restless and did not know on which side to lie.”

“It is not becoming, when one is in company, to take off one’s shoes.”

“It is impolite to play with a stick or a cane, and to use it to strike the ground or pebbles, etc., etc.”

How many mistakes in politeness we should make every day of our lives if the rules of La Salle were infallible!

293. Corporal Chastisements.—The Brethren, within two centuries, have singularly ameliorated their system of correction. “Imperative circumstances,” said the Frère Philip in 1870, “no longer permit us to tolerate corporal punishment in our schools.” Already, in 1811, there was talk of suppressing entirely, or at least modifying, the use of these punishments. The instruments of torture were perfected. “We reduce the heavy ferule, the inconvenience of which has been only too often felt, to a simple piece of leather, about a foot long and an inch wide, and slit in two at one end; still we hope that by divine help and by the mildness of our very dear and dearly beloved colleagues, they will make use of it only in cases of unavoidable necessity, and only to give a stroke with it on the hand, without the permission ever to make any other use of it.”

But at first, and in the original Conduct,[167] corporal punishment is freely permitted and regulated with exactness. La Salle distinguished five sorts of corrections,—reprimand, penances, the ferule, the rod, expulsion from school.

294. Reprimands.—Silence, we have seen, is the fundamental rule of La Salle’s schools: “There must be as little speaking as possible. Consequently, corrections by word of mouth are very rarely to be employed.” It even seems, adds the Conduct, that “it is much better not to use them at all”!

A curious system of discipline, verily, where it is as good as forbidden to resort to admonitions, to severe reprimands, to an appeal through speech to the reason and the feelings of the child; where, consequently, there is no place for the moral authority of the teacher, but where there is at once invoked the ultima ratio of constraint and violence, of the ferule and the rod!

295. Penances.—La Salle recommends penances as well as corporal corrections. By this term he means punishments like the following: maintaining a kneeling posture in the school; learning a few pages of the catechism by heart; “holding his book before his eyes for the space of half an hour without looking off;” keeping motionless, with clasped hands and downcast eyes, etc.

296. The Ferule.—We have not to discuss in this place the use of material means of correction. The Brethren themselves have repudiated them. Only it is provoking that they bow to what they call “imperative circumstances,” and not to considerations based on principles. But it is interesting, were it only from an historical point of view, to recall the minute prescriptions of the founder of the Order.

The Conduct first describes the ferule, “an instrument formed of two pieces of leather sewed together; it shall be from ten to twelve inches long, including the handle; the palm shall be oval, and two inches in diameter; the palm shall be lined on the inside so as not to be wholly flat, but rounded to fit the hand.” Nothing is overlooked, we observe; the form of the ferule is officially defined. But what shocks us still more is the nature of the faults that provoke the application of the ferule: “1. for not having attended to the lesson, or for having played; 2. for being tardy at school; 3. for not having obeyed the first signal.” It is true that La Salle, always preoccupied with writing, orders the ferule to be applied only to the left hand; the right hand shall always be spared. The child, moreover, is not to cry while he receives the ferule; if he does, he is to be punished and corrected anew.

297. The Rod.—In the penal code of La Salle, the categories of faults worthy of punishment are sharply defined. The rod shall be employed for the following faults: 1. refusal to obey; 2. when the pupil has formed the habit of not giving heed to the lesson; 3. when he has made blots upon his paper instead of writing; 4. when he has had a fight with his comrades; 5. when he has neglected his prayers in church; 6. when he has been wanting in “modesty” at mass or during the catechism; 7. when he has been absent from school, from mass, or from the catechism.

Even supposing that the principle of the rod is admissible, we must still condemn the wrong use which La Salle makes of it, for faults manifestly out of proportion to such a chastisement.

I very well know that the author of the Conduct requires that corrections shall be rare; but could he be obeyed, when he put into the hands of his teachers scarcely any other means of discipline?

But to comprehend to what extent La Salle forgot what is due to the dignity of the child, and considered him as a machine, without any regard to the delicacy of his feelings, with no respect for his person, we must read to the end the strange prescriptions of this manual of the rod. The precautions that La Salle exacts make still more evident the impropriety of such punishments:—

“When the teacher would punish a scholar with the rod, he will make the ordinary sign to summon the attention of the school; next he will indicate by means of the signal the decree which the pupil has violated, and then show him the place where correction is ordinarily administered; and he will at once go there, and will prepare to receive the punishment, standing in such a way as not to be seen indecently by any one. This practice of having the scholar prepare himself for receiving the correction, without any need on the part of the teacher of putting his hand upon him, shall be very exactly observed.

“While the scholar is preparing himself to receive the correction, the teacher shall be making an inward preparation to give it in a spirit of love, and in a clear view of God. Then he will go from his desk with dignity and gravity.

“And when he shall have reached the place where the scholar is” (it is stated, moreover, that this place should be in one of the most remote and most obscure parts of the school, where the nakedness of the victim cannot be seen), “he will speak a few words to him to prepare him to receive the correction with humility, submission, and a purpose of amendment; then he will strike three blows as is usual; to go beyond five blows, there would be needed a special order of the director.

“He shall be careful not to put his hand on the scholar. If the scholar is not ready, he shall return to his desk without saying a word; and when he returns, he shall give him the most severe punishment allowed without special permission, that is, five blows.

“When a teacher shall have thus been obliged to compel a scholar to receive correction, he shall attempt in some way a little time afterwards to make him see and acknowledge his fault, and shall make him come to himself, and give him a strong and sincere resolution never to allow himself again to fall into such a revolt.”

The moment is perhaps not well chosen to preach a sermon and to violate the rule which forbids the Brethren the use of the reprimand.

“After the scholar has been corrected, he will modestly kneel in the middle of the room before the teacher, with arms crossed, to thank him for having corrected him, and will then turn towards the crucifix to thank God for it, and to promise Him at the same time not again to commit the fault for which he had just been corrected. This he will do without speaking aloud; after which the teacher will give him the sign to go to his place.”

Is it possible to have a higher misconception of human nature, to trifle more ingeniously with the pride of the child, and with his most legitimate feelings, and to mingle, in the most repulsive manner, indiscreet and infamous practices with the exhibition of religious sentiments?

“It is absurd,” says Kant, “to require the children whom we punish to thank us, to kiss our hands, etc. This is to try to make servile creatures of them.”

To justify La Salle, some quotations from his works have been invoked.

“For the love of God, do not use blows of the hand. Be very careful never to give children a blow.”

But it is necessary to know the exact thought of the author of the Conduct, and this explains the following passage:—

“No corrections should be employed save those which are in use in the schools; and so scholars should never be struck with the hand or the foot.”

In other words, the teacher should never strike except with the authorized instruments, and according to the official regulations.

298. Mutual Espionage.—We may say without exaggeration that the Conduct recommends mutual espionage:—

“The inspector of schools shall be careful to appoint one of the most prudent scholars to observe those who make a noise while they assemble, and this scholar shall then report to the teacher what has occurred, without allowing the others to know of it.”

299. Rewards.—While La Salle devotes more than forty pages to corrections, the chapter on rewards comprises two small pages.

Rewards shall be given “from time to time.” They shall be of three kinds: rewards for piety, for ability, and for diligence. They shall consist of books, pictures, plaster casts, crucifix and virgin, chaplets, engraved texts, etc.

300. Conclusion.—We have said enough to give an exact idea of the Institute of the Christian Brethren in its primitive form. Its faults were certainly grave, and we cannot approve the general spirit of those establishments for education where pupils are forbidden “to joke while they are at meals”; to give anything whatsoever to one another; where children are to enter the school-room so deliberately and quietly that the noise of their footsteps is not heard; where teachers are forbidden “to be familiar” with the pupils, “to allow themselves to descend to anything common, as it would be to laugh ...” But whatever the distance which separates those gloomy schools from our modern ideal,—from the pleasant, active, animated school, such as we conceive it to-day,—there is none the less obligation to do justice to La Salle, to pardon him for the practices which were those of his time, and to admire him for the good qualities that were peculiarly his own. The criticism that is truly fruitful, is that which is especially directed to the good, without caviling at the bad.[168]

[301. Analytical Summary.—1. This study exhibits the zeal of the Catholic Church in the education of the children of the poor. The motive was not the spirit of domination, as in the case of the Jesuits, but a sincere desire to engage in a humane work.

2. A proof of the multiplication of schools, and so of the diffusion of the new educational spirit, is the wretched quality of those who were allowed to teach. There must be schools even if they are poor ones.

3. The need of competent teachers led to the establishment of the Teachers’ Seminary, the parent of the modern normal school. The two elements in this professional instruction seem to have been a knowledge of the subjects to be taught and of methods of organization and discipline.

4. The severe discipline and enforced silence of La Salle’s schools permit the inference that the school of the period was the scene of lawlessness and disorder. The reaction went to an extreme; but considering the times, this excess was a virtue.

5. The scarcity of teachers and the abundance of pupils led to the expedient of mutual and simultaneous instruction. While this method is absolutely bad, it was relatively good.

6. To the benevolent and inventive spirit of La Salle is due the organization of industrial schools.]