[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.