His closing years were passed at Bruges with his wife’s family; at Breda with the Duchess of Nassau, a Spanish lady who had formerly been his pupil; and at Paris, where he gave some courses of lectures. He had struggled against a weak constitution all his life, and after his return from England other diseases developed. He died on May 6, 1540, in his forty-eighth year, and was buried in the Church of St. Donat at Bruges.
His most considerable contribution to the philosophy of education appeared after his return from England. It was entitled De disciplinis; was published in three parts, in 1531; and was dedicated to the King of Portugal. As Dr. Lange remarks, this work alone entitles Vives to large consideration as an educational reformer.
Vives justifies, in the introduction, the position he assumes in regard to Aristotle; while he regards the Greek as a great philosopher, he declares that the world has gained in experience since Aristotle wrote, and he sees no reason why his teachings should not be set aside if found to be incorrect. He has no doubt but that later generations will find theories better adapted to their ends than those he himself advocates, but he greets as a friend the one who shall point out his errors.
In the first part he treats of the decline of the sciences. The causes of this decline he considers twofold: (1) Moral; and here he notes an unwillingness to search for truth for truth’s sake. Pride is the root of this evil. A student in the University of Paris had remarked to him, “Sooner than not distinguish myself by founding some new doctrine, I would defend one of whose falsity I was convinced.” This moral weakness he thought altogether inconsistent with the advancement of the sciences. (2) Historical and material, including as causes the migration of nations by which existing orders of civilization have been annihilated; the obscurity of ancient manuscripts, requiring more time to decipher their meaning than it would take to discover from nature their meaning; the ever increasing use of commentaries in the study of originals, in which the diverse opinions of the commentators lead farther from the original sense; the practice of scholastic disputation which is taught the pupils before they know what they are disputing about; and the practice of regarding teaching as a trade rather than a profession, thus causing many bright minds to select other vocations, and to bring to the work incompetent and coarse minds.
The second part treats of the decline of grammar, and the third part of the art of teaching, in which he gives some most sane directions. Schools should be located in the most healthy part of the community. They should not be too near commercial centres; at the same time, they should not be too distant from the centre of population. As to teachers, they should have good academic training; they should be skilled in the art of imparting knowledge; and their morals should be such as would furnish examples to their pupils. Covetousness and ambition, above all things, should be unknown to them. Teachers who have ambition and reputation in their minds are thereby unfitted for the work of teaching. On this account, the state should fix the salaries, and the compensation should be the wage of honest men. There should be a school in every community. Before pupils should be assigned tasks, teachers should ascertain their mental capacities and characteristics. They should also be privately tested four times a year; and when children are found who possess no taste for study they should be dismissed from the school. Corporal punishment should seldom be applied, and never to such a degree as to humiliate the pupils. Children should be given plenty of play time; and hearty, romping games are especially recommended. In the matter of method, Vives heartily commends the inductive,—from particulars to generals,—and he urges such a grouping of studies that each new subject studied may naturally grow out of the preceding lesson. While he strongly advises the study of the natural sciences, he is less enthusiastic here than Bacon, fearing, as he admits, that a contemplation of nature may prove dangerous to those not deeply grounded in faith.
But Vives was essentially a realist in his doctrines of education; and when his views are compared with those of Comenius, community of ideas is at once apparent. Both would begin education in the home and make the mother the first teacher. Both realized the need of better organization and classification of the schools. Both urged reforms in the matter of language teaching. Both considered education a matter of state concern, and urged pedagogical training for teachers. Both presented the claims of science and urged the coördination and correlation of the different subjects of study. Both emphasized the value of play and the need of physical training. Both advocated education for all classes of both sexes, and both exaggerated the need and importance of the religious training of the child.
Bacon
“Though there were many before Bacon, and especially artists and craftsmen,” says Raumer, “who lived in communion with nature, and who, in manifold ways, transfigured and idealized her, and unveiled her glory; and, though their sense for nature was so highly cultivated that they attained to a practical understanding of her ways, yet this understanding was at best merely instinctive: for it led them to no scientific deductions and yielded them no thoughtful and legitimate dominion over her.”