The History of Pedagogy

by Gabriel Compayré

Let us recall, however, the excellent reasons which he gives in support of his thesis on the equality of education. It is necessary that women should be instructed: 1. in order that they may be able to bring up their children, of whom they are the natural instructors; 2. in order that they may be the worthy companions, the equals of their husbands, that they may feel an interest in their pursuits, share in their preoccupations, and, finally, participate in their life, such being the condition of conjugal happiness; 3. in order, further, by an analogous reason, that they may not quench, by their ignorance, that inspiration of heart and mind which previous studies have developed in their husbands, but that they may nourish this flame by conversation and reading in common; 4. finally, because this is just,—because the two sexes have an equal right to instruction.

441. Reservations to be made.—All is not equally worthy of commendation in the work of Condorcet. Some faults and some omissions mar this fine piece of political pedagogy. The faults are, first, the exaggerated idea of liberty and of equality. From Condorcet’s ardors for liberty there issues, in his plan for education, a grave error,—the idea of making of the teaching body a sort of State within the State, an independent authority, a fourth power, released from all exterior authority, governing itself and administering its own affairs, the State intervening only as treasurer to pay for the services which it neither regulates nor supervises. The liberal Daunou, while explaining the system of our author, has criticised it on this point.[207] “Condorcet,” he said, “the enemy of corporations, has sanctioned one in his scheme of national instruction; he established, as it were, an academic church. This is because Condorcet, the enemy of kings, would add in the balance of public powers one counterbalance more to that royal power whose monstrous existence, in a free constitution, is sufficiently attested by the alarms and fears of all the friends of liberty.”

The passion for equality led Condorcet into another chimera,—that of the absolute gratuity of instruction of all grades.

Finally, in his dreams of infinite perfectibility, Condorcet allows himself to be carried so far away as to imagine for man, and to expect from instruction, results that are utterly unattainable. Instruction, according to him, ought to be so complete “as to cause the disappearance of every inequality which induces dependence.”

442. Prejudices of the Mathematician.—From another point of view, Condorcet was led astray by his predilection for the sciences. He so far forgot that he was a member of the French Academy as to obey only his tendencies, a little too exclusive, as a mathematician and a member of the Academy of Sciences. By a reaction, natural enough, against those long centuries in which an abuse was made of literary culture, Condorcet is too prompt to underrate the influence of letters in education, and to invest the sciences with the place of honor. The reasons which he invokes to justify his preference are not all conclusive.

443. Omissions.—The idea of obligatory instruction is still wanting in the scheme we are examining. We shall be surprised, perhaps, that Condorcet, who has so clearly proclaimed the necessity of universal instruction, did not think to impose obligatory attendance, which is the only means of establishing it. This is because the early revolutionists, in the ardor of their enthusiasm, did not suspect the opposition to the accomplishment of their plans that was to come from the indifference of the greater number, and from the prejudices of those who, as Condorcet has eloquently said, “thought they were obeying God while betraying their country.” It seemed to them that when centres of light had been made to glow over the whole surface of the country, citizens would hasten after them, impelled by a natural appetite, spontaneously thirsting for enlightenment. They were deceived. These hopes, a little artless, were destined to be disproved by facts; and it was to triumph over the neglect of some, and the resistance of others, that the Convention, supplying one of the rare defects in Condorcet’s plan, decreed, on several occasions, instruction “imperative and forced,” as was then said.

On still another point, Condorcet remained inferior to his successors; in his report there was no mention made of the organization of normal schools. In this grave and fundamental question of the education of the teaching body, Condorcet contented himself with a provisional expedient, which consisted in entrusting to the professors of the grade immediately higher the care of preparing teachers for the grade lower.

444. Final Conclusion.—But even with these reservations, the work of Condorcet deserves scarcely anything but praise. We have commended its new and exalted conceptions. Its beautiful and exact arrangement and its masterly style also deserve praise. Condorcet’s periods are symmetrical in their fullness, and the expression is precise and vigorous. Doubtless there is some monotony and some frigidity in that style so concise and strong. But at intervals there are outbursts of passion. The man whom his contemporaries compared to “an enraged lamb,” or to a “volcano covered with snow,” is painted to the life in his writings. His Rapport is like a beautiful and finished statue of marble, cold to the touch, but upon which the hand might feel beating in places a vein warm with life.

[445. Analytical Summary.—1. The more important lessons to be derived from this study are the following: the necessity of making instruction universal and of having it administered by the State; the need of making instruction obligatory, and, in certain grades, gratuitous; the value of intellectual culture as a moral safeguard.