Comenius and the Beginnings of Educational Reform. W. S. Monroe
notion, as summarized by Raumer, was that “man must put himself again in direct, close, and personal contact with nature, and no longer trust to the confused, uncertain, and arbitrary accounts and descriptions of her historians and would-be interpreters. From a clear and correct observation and perception of objects, their qualities, powers, etc., the investigator must proceed, step by step, till he arrives at laws, and to that degree of insight that will enable him to interpret the laws and to analyze the processes of nature. To this end Bacon proffers to us his new method—the method of induction. With the aid of this method we attain to an insight into the connection and natural relation of the laws of matter, and thus, according to him, we are enabled through this knowledge to make nature subservient to our will.”
This was, according to Comenius, the true key to the human intellect. But he laments that Bacon should have given us the key and failed to unlock the door to the treasure-house. But Bacon did more than formulate the laws of scientific induction for pedagogic purposes: he made possible the enrichment of the courses of study by the addition of a wide range of school studies. His thrusts at the Latin and Greek, as the sole exponents of culture, were telling in their effect and made possible the recognition of the vernacular themes in Comenius’ day. “The wisdom of the Greeks,” he says, “was rhetorical; it expended itself upon words, and it had little to do with the search after truth.” Speaking again of classical culture, he says: “These older generations fell short of many of our present knowledges; they know but a small part of the world, and but a brief period of history. We, on the contrary, are acquainted with a far greater extent of the world, besides having discovered a new hemisphere, and we look back and survey long periods of history.”
Bacon recognized great individual differences in the mental capacities of children, and he urged that these differences and special tastes be taken into account by the teachers. He says: “The natural bent of the individual minds should be so far encouraged that a student who shall learn all that is required of him may be allowed time in which to pursue a favorite study. And, furthermore, it is worth while to consider, and I think this point has not hitherto received the attention which its importance demands, that there are two distinct modes of training the mind to a free and appropriate use of its faculties. The one begins with the easiest, and so proceeds to the more difficult; the other, at the outset, presses the pupil with the more difficult tasks, and, after he has mastered these, turns him to pleasanter and easier ones: for it is one method to practise swimming with bladders, and another to practise dancing with heavy shoes. It is beyond all estimate how a judicious blending of these two methods will profit both the mental and the bodily powers. And so to select and assign topics of instruction as to adapt them to the individual capabilities of the pupils—this, too, requires a special experience and judgment. A close observation and an accurate knowledge of the different natures of the pupils are due from teachers to the parents of these pupils, that they may choose an occupation in life for their sons accordingly. And note further, that not only does every one make more rapid progress in those studies to which his nature inclines him, but, again, that a natural disinclination, in whatever direction, may be overcome by the help of special studies. For instance, if a boy has a light, inattentive, inconstant spirit, so that he is easily diverted, and his attention cannot be readily fixed, he will find advantage in the mathematics, in which a demonstration must be commenced anew whenever the thought wanders even for a moment.”
These citations will suggest parallels in the aims of the two great reformers. Both sought to introduce the student to nature at first hand. Both aimed to reorganize the sciences into one great body of coördinated knowledge. Both emphasized the value of the inductive method in the development of subjects of study. Bacon said: “A good method will solve all problems. A cripple on the right path will beat a racer on the wrong path.” Said Comenius: “The secret of education lies in method.” Again: “There is no difficulty in learning Latin: what we want is a good method.”
Ratke
Although but little more than twenty years the senior of Comenius, Ratke’s mental development was less tardy, so that when the Moravian was a young collegian at Herborn, Ratke was enjoying the full flush of popularity as an educational reformer. Born at Wilster in Holstein (Germany), in 1571, he trained in the gymnasium at Hamburg, and later studied philosophy at Rostock. Later he travelled in England and Holland; studied Hebrew and Arabic, and formulated the plan of education which made him famous as a reformer. He attached great value to his plan and expressed great unwillingness to divulge it without adequate remuneration. He made known his contemplated reforms at a diet of the German Empire, held at Frankfort on the 12th of May, 1612. They were threefold: (1) To teach Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, or any other language, to young or old in a very short time; (2) to establish schools in which the arts and sciences should be taught and extended; (3) to introduce a uniform speech throughout the empire, and, at the same time, uniform government and religion. He proposed to follow the order and course of nature, and teach first the mother-tongue, after this Hebrew and Greek, as being the tongues of the original text of the Bible, and, lastly, Latin.
Through the influence of the princes (and more especially by the encouragement of the Duchess Dorothea of Weimar), the plans of Ratke were submitted to a commission selected from the faculties of the universities at Jena and Giessen—Professors Grawer, Brendel, Walther, and Wolf representing Jena and Professors Helwig and Jung, Giessen. The report was favorable to Ratke. Professor Helwig, who was one of the best linguists of his day, was the spokesman for Giessen, and he accepted Ratke’s views with great enthusiasm. “By diligent reflection and long practice,” he says, “Ratke has discovered a valuable method by which good arts and languages can be taught and studied more easily, quickly, and correctly than has been usual in the schools. Ratke’s method is more practicable in the arts than in the sciences, since arts and sciences are by their nature consistent with themselves, while the languages, on the contrary, by long use have acquired many inaccuracies.”
Professor Helwig commends especially the methodology in Ratke’s plan, and urges that we must consider not only the knowledge to be imparted, but as well the method of imparting knowledge. He says: “Nature does much, it is true, but when art assists her, her work is much more certain and complete. Therefore it is necessary that there should be an especial art to which any one who desires to teach can adhere, so that he shall not teach by mere opinion and guess, nor by native instinct alone, but by the rules of his art; just as he who would speak correctly by the rules of grammar, and he who would sing correctly by the rules of music. This art of teaching, like the art of logic, applies to all languages, arts, and sciences. It discusses among other things how to distinguish among minds and gifts, so that the quicker may not be delayed, and that, on the contrary, those who are by nature not so quick may not remain behind; how and in what order to arrange the exercises; how to assist the understanding; how to strengthen the memory; how to sharpen the intellect without violence and after the true course of nature. This art of teaching, no less than other arts, has its fixed laws and rules, founded not only upon the nature and understanding of man, but upon the peculiarities of languages, arts, and sciences; and it admits of no ways of teaching which are not deduced from sure grounds and founded upon proof.” The Jena professors were no less favorable with regard to this new art of teaching.
The influence of this report on the fame of Ratke was far-reaching. The following year (1614) he was invited to Augsburg to reform the schools of that city. This invitation was the outgrowth of a study of his plan by David Höschel, the principal of St. Anne’s School, and two other teachers appointed by the city to accompany him to Frankfort and aid him in the investigation. They reported that Ratke had so far explained his method to them that they were satisfied and pleased with it; and the invitation to Ratke promptly followed. Beyond a few monographs by the Augsburg disciples, based on his method, and inspired doubtless by his sojourn there, we are altogether without evidence of the success or failure of the reforms at Augsburg.
Early in 1616, Prince Ludwig of Anhalt-Gotha yielded to the persuasions of his sister, the Duchess Dorothea of Weimar, and invited Ratke to Gotha to organize the schools there in accordance with his views. He engaged to organize and supervise the