[207] See the Rapport of Daunou presented to the National Convention, 27 Vendémiaire, year IV.
[CHAPTER XVII.]
THE CONVENTION.—LEPELLETIER SAINT-FARGEAU, LAKANAL, DAUNOU.
THE CONVENTION; SUCCESSIVE MEASURES; THE BILL OF LANTHENAS; THE BILL OF ROMME; THE NATIONAL HOLIDAYS; ELEMENTARY BOOKS; DECREE OF MAY 30, 1793; LAKANAL (1762-1845); DAUNOU (1761-1840); THE BILL OF LAKANAL, SIEYÈS, AND DAUNOU; LEPELLETIER SAINT-FARGEAU (1760-1793); HIS SCHEME OF EDUCATION (JULY 13, 1793); LEPELLETIER AND CONDORCET; COMPULSORY EDUCATION IN BOARDING-SCHOOLS; THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE REPUBLIC; SCHOOL OCCUPATIONS; ABSOLUTE GRATUITY; THE RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY; SAINT-JUST; THE ROMME LAW; THE BOUQUIER LAW; THE LAKANAL LAW; EDUCATIONAL METHODS; ELEMENTARY BOOKS; GEOGRAPHY; LETTERS AND SCIENCES; THE FOUNDATION OF NORMAL SCHOOLS; THE NORMAL SCHOOL OF PARIS; CENTRAL SCHOOLS; THEIR DEFECTS; POSITIVE AND PRACTICAL SPIRIT; GREAT FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONVENTION; THE LAW OF OCTOBER 27, 1795; INSUFFICIENCY OF DAUNOU’S SCHEME; ANALYTICAL SUMMARY.
446. The Convention.—The Constituent Assembly and the Legislative Assembly had done nothing more than to prepare reports and projected decrees, without either discussing them or bringing them to a vote. The Convention went so far as to vote, but it did not have the time to execute the resolutions, contradictory and incoherent, which it was forced to adopt, one after another, by the fluctuation of political currents.
447. Successive Measures.—Nothing definite in the way of execution issued from the enthusiastic passion which the Convention exhibited for the organization of primary instruction. First there was a triumph of modern ideas in the bill of Lanthenas, the first article of which was adopted December 12, 1792; and they appeared again in the bill of Sieyès, Daunou, and Lakanal, presented June 26, 1793, and defeated after an exciting discussion. But the influence of the Girondists was succeeded by the domination of the Montagnards[208] whose dictatorial and violent spirit is indicated: 1. in the bill of Lepelletier, adopted through the support of Robespierre, August 13, 1793; 2. in the bill projected and presented by Romme in behalf of the commission of public instruction, October 20, 1793, and passed on the following day; 3. and lastly in the bill of Bouquier, which, presented December 19, 1793, became the decree of December 26. The reaction which followed resulted in the legislative acts by which the Convention finished its educational work. The bill of Sieyès, Daunou, and Lakanal was reconsidered, and November 17, 1793, it was substituted for the bill of Bouquier. Finally, when the constitution of 1794 was substituted for the constitution of 1793, a new law of public instruction was passed on the report of Daunou, October 27, 1795, and it is this law which presided over the organization of schools under the Directory.
In this confusion, this chaos of bills and counter-bills, it is difficult to establish any clew that is wholly trustworthy. We shall restrict ourselves to noting the points that seem essential.[209]
Impatient to finish its business, the committee on public instruction, which the Convention had appointed October 2, 1792, decided to put aside, for the present, the other branches of public instruction, and proposed for immediate action only the organization of primary schools, by taking, as a point of departure, the bill which Condorcet had presented to the Legislative Assembly. The report of Lanthenas and a proposed decree were within a few weeks the results of these deliberations; but in all its parts this result is scarcely more than the reproduction of Condorcet’s work, and presents nothing original. Let us note, however, the idea of associating the pupil with his teacher in the work of instruction:—