« AnteriorContinuar »
industrial schools, specially, should present for their students a bill of fare of wholesome studies, and not too numerous at that; and even then with an option as between rival studies.
So much for a course of study.” Parallel with this, and at stated periods of the day, should the practical or Hand-course be carried on; Shopwork or field-work, or both, as may be selected; but under the same conditions and in the same way as the several studies, or Head-work. I make no distinction between an hour at the blackboard, in mathematics, and an hour at the bench, whether in vice-work or lathe-work. No difference between the hour in the field planting and pruning, in sowing and reaping, and the hour in the laboratory analyzing and determining the peculiar ingredients of the soil to be sown. These are parts of their lessons of instruction,—these add practical education to liberal education.
And herein does it seem to me, that the properly-endowed and liberallyequipped industrial school has the advantage over the common literary College.
The students of the former know, or have an opportunity to know, all in the theoretical or literary department, and the practical besides, or, to put it still stronger, the student of the Industrial School, not only knows how his instructor says a nail is made, but he knows how to make a nail himself.
That Industrial Education is fast gaining ground and importance can be shown from the programmes of this very Association.
At the first meeting at which I was present, at Detroit in 1874, only one paper on the subject was read, and that was simply about the “National Endowment for Scientific and Technical Training.'
The next meeting, in Minneapolis, in 1875, there was organized of this Association,
AN INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT.
At the present meeting the programme shows that there are in some form or other five distinct papers under this head. I do not know what induced Mr. Rickoff to present a paper upon
"A Readjustment of the Common-School Studies Necessary,” nor do I know what his reasons are, or his plans, but I know we must see to it that the Elementary Instruction, whether public or private, is largely fraught with the studies that lie at the basis of the Industrial Structure.
Colleges and higher institutions of learning can, and do, control the work below. The entrance examination, if held to and insisted on, benefits, not only the applicants for admission to these classes, but the whole substratum of schools, forcing their teachers and directors to keep abreast with the increasing requirements, by faithful study upon the part of pupils,-conscientious instruction upon the part of teachers, so that the thousands who do not enter college at all, are yet properly taught in all the studies laid down for the Entrance Examination. Our Industrial Schools should insist upon an Entrance Examination in kind, as well, if possible, as in quality, even more rigid than our Colleges and Universities. Then there would be no conflict between these institutions and the High Schools and Academies,-certainly none between them and the Colleges for literary and other professional training.
I do not believe in conflicts.
The conflict between Science and Religion, is simply a huge aberration resulting from the irregular reflections of the rays of light as they emanate severally from the theological or scientific side of the luminary. These conflicts, so called, serve as pretexts for discussion, and thus is kept up a perpetual war of words,-nothing else,-the earth moves on as in the beginning, -religion is religion,-science is science,-and the followers of each have space plenty, and time abundant to make good in their own judgments, their peculiar notions.
In educational matters we want diversity of opinion, and diversity of work. My lot has fallen on the side of Industrial Education, and I wish simply to magnify, to enlarge, to extend it; to supplement only, not to supplant liberal education, but to add to liberal education practical education. I wish to couple the education of the Hand with that of the Head, believing that they both will be greatly enlarged and benefited. I wish to put the same opportunities in the reach of the industrial classes, so that in their peculiar sphere, they may obtain an equivalent education with the literary and professional classes, in their spheres. Nor do I desire to do this by lessening the chances of the latter. I would not have one University less, nor one college, nor one academy less. I would only increase the number of industrial schools, enlarge the boundaries of the industrial classes, and induce them, if possible, to appreciate and embrace their opportunities.
In these discussions we are wont to catalogue and array the experiences, the successes, and the “transcendent” advantages of the schools of England and the Continent. Personally I do not appreciate these the less, nor do I mean to underrate their efforts, but as an American, I confess I feel prouder of my own country every day, and especially so, when I see the comparative results as exhibited at the various world-expositions, whether at home or abroad.
I trust I do not lack veneration for the past, or a liberal appreciation for the contemporary work of other countries, but I must be pardoned for my strong faith in our American institutions, literary, political, and religious, and through these, for seeing our manifest destiny as a nation, I would not if I could "unsphere Plato,” rob Neptune of his Trident, or break the magic spell of Jove's thunderbolts-I only wish in this age, and in this era, and in this my country, in our great system of education a division of the labor,—but with equal endowments and equivalent advantages in all departments, suited to all spheres and conditions of society.
So far, I have said little, if anything, about the education of the Heart, or the moral man. It is needless to discuss this formally-it is so interwoven with, and inseparably related to, all education that it must be a constituent part of it. In the geometry of being the education of the heart should claim the dignity and importance of a theorem, but to my mind it is a corollary, following directly from both the education of the head, and the education of the hand. But to show that “the course of instruction' does not lack these branches, and these subjects which cultivate the heart—the emotions, the sentiment of Religion—the necessity of a GREAT First CausE, let us revert to the course.
Take the subject of Chemistry only: “The study of chemical science reveals to the mind a beauty and harmony in the material world to which the uninstructed eye is blind. It shows us all the kingdoms of nature contributing to the growth of the tiniest plant, and feeding the nascent germs, by the inter-revolution of their separate spheres. It shows us how, through fire, or analogous decay, all forms of life are returned again to the kingdoms of nature from which they were derived.”
Demonstrates to the scientific agriculturalist that
“ That which is sown is not quickened except it die. That seed and plant, blade
flower and fruit, leaf and bark, that sun and moon, earth and sea, brute and man, are from the same hand of Omnipotence.”
And here let me ask is the poet could declare
“ The undevout astronomer is mad,”
what shall be said of the husbandman, who “daily witnesses, under the influence of God's chemistry, myriads and myriads of vital cells ferment with elemental life; germ and stalk, and leaf and flower, and silk and tassel, and grain and fruit grow up from common earth: 'the bow of promise' fulfilled, the 'gracious covenant' redeemed, 'that while the earth remaineth summer and winter, and heat and cold, and day and night, and seedtime and harvest, shall not fail.?”
“Does he witness, by a nobler alchemy than that of Paracelsus, the transmutations of the 'bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or some other grain ’-to-day a senseless plant-to-morrow human bone and muscle, vein and artery, sinew and nerve, and beating pulse and toiling brainis he the witness of these daily manifestations-himself the subject of these miraculous changes-his own body the very crucible in which these wonderful transformations are continuously going on, and yet does he-can he doubt-can we doubt ?—that—'as we have borne the image of the EARTHLY, we shall also bear the image of the HEAVENLY.'
But these are beautiful glittering generalities—they are panoramicthey address themselvs to the eye and the ear.
Fellow-teachers, what of the heart? Of what manner of spirit are ye? Upon this subject we can occupy no doubtful ground to-day. I desire no uncertain sound.”
Prattling childhood found me at my mother's knee; playful boyhood around the altar of my father's humble fireside; strong manhood, student-life, teacher-life, citizen-life, have all found me upon the side of Christianity. Brethren, “we be the sons of one father, aye, brothers, the sons of the same household, “the elder brothers’ of our generation. Our words, our examples, our influences, silent as they may be, are set before a host of scrutinizing witnesses, who will note every act and word, and for which to them and our God we must give an account-when parent and child, teacher and pupil, must be gathered at the feet and in the presence of the Great Master, who knoweth the Head and the Hand only through the Heart.”
The taking of membership in the Association was urged by the President, the Hon. J. P. WICKERSHAM, the Hon. John Eaton, and the Rev. G: P. HAYS. W: T. SEAL announced that members of the Association are admitted free of charge to the Permanent Exhibition at the Centennial grounds.
After a short recess JAMES M. GARNETT, LL. D., President of St. John's College, Annapolis, Md., read the following paper on
THE HISTORICAL METHOD IN THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH.
In examining the methods of teaching languages now pursued in our most progressive schools and colleges, the student of language is struck with a change in the methods of instruction as compared with those used even fifty years ago, or perhaps much more recently. It was then customary to learn by heart the inflexions of the classical languages, and the rules of grammar, and to apply these rules in reading, until the student was familiar with the syntactical construction of the language, when his attention was devoted chiefly, if not exclusively, to acquiring facility in translation and a knowledge of the subject-matter of the author. There was no instruction of moment in composition, and little, if any, in etymology, in the tracing back of words to roots, and in the origin of forms and constructions. Some of our older scholars are wedded to the older method and regret the change, saying that, whereas now there is greater knowledge of the structure of the language, and of its relations to cognate languages, there is less facility in reading it, and less knowledge of the classical authors as literature; there is too much grammar and too little translation. But I do not see why the one should exclude the other. It is certainly a disadvantage if our teaching of grammar and etymology should hinder the acquirement of a full vocabulary, and should obscure the literary merits of the classical writers. The two methods should be combined; the former will help the latter, if much reading is insisted on, and instruction in technical grammar is not allowed too great a preponderance.
But, we are led to inquire, what has caused this change? What has led to this more thorough study of etymology, and of the origin and relations of forms and constructions ? It must be attributed to the revelation to the western world of a knowledge of Sanskrit by the English scholars in India a century ago, its eager reception by the Germans, and the consequent building up of the science of comparative philology within the Indo-European, or Aryan family of languages. The great German masters of this science have builded better than they knew, for little did they foresee all the consequences which would follow from their labors. Their term for the science, vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (likening speechknowledge), expresses the idea better than our English term, for it is essentially a knowledge of speeches which consists in likening word to word, form to form, in order to determine their common origin, and how they have come to be what they are. No such comparison is possible except by means of the oldest forms of words in any language, or group of languages. This may be seen from the use made of the Gothic language, in the Teutonic group, for purposes of comparison with Latin, Greek, and other members of the Indo-European family. Hence arose the necessity for tracing each language back to its oldest form, and the thorough study of its oldest period; and hence the historical method of study is the child of the comparative method. The present century first saw the birth of the comparative method of study. It was ushered in with the publication by Bopp in 1816 of his comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German systems of conjugation, which was soon followed (1833–52) by his great Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European languages, and the study continued in the labors of Port, SCHLEICHER, and a host of others, so that we can now boast of a dictionary (Fick's) of the root-forms of the Indo-European parent-speech, ascertained by the strictest scientific process of induction.* This method was not, however, limited to the whole family of languages, but was applied to its several members, and first to the Teutonic group by Grimm in that xtījua és dei, his Teutonic Grammar (1819-37), popularized of late years in the excellent little work of HEYNE, (1862, 2d edition, 1870), so that any one may now study for himself without an instructor the comparative grainmar of the six principal Teutonic dialects. Grimm's work furnished a model for the application of this method to the Romance languages in the work of DIEZ (1836–44), and here we were at an advantage in having the parent-speech ready to hand, and in being able to trace more easily the historical development of the several languages. As a result of the application of the comparative method to these two great groups of languages, attention was directed to the historical study of both German and French, and the periods of Old and Middle High German, of dialectic Latin and Old French, were assiduously studied, so that it is now possible to learn both of those languages historically.
It was inevitable, from the position of Anglo-Saxon as one of the principal Teutonic dialects, and its inclusion in the work of Grimm, thus furnishing a basis for its scientific study, that the historical method must sooner or later be applied to English. As was naturally to be expected, this was undertaken by the Germans, and we are indebted to FIEDLER and SACHS (1849) for the first historical grammar of English. This was followed by the works of MAETZNER (1860–65), and Koch (1863-69), which last includes the most thorough treatment of the language from the historical point of view that has yet been made, but it still awaits translation into English. It was an advantage for the historical study of English that, about the same time with the publication of Grimm's Teutonic Grammar, a revival of Anglo-Saxon studies had begun in England under the leadership of KEMBLE and THORPE. The first impulse to the study of Anglo-Saxon since its extinction as a spoken language was given by Archbishop PARKER in the early part of the reign of Queen ELIZABETH. Its study was prosecuted by scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and may be said to have culminated with the publication of HickEs's “Thesaurus of the
* In “The Academy” (London), of June 14 and 21 may be found a short translation in the Indo-European primitive speech (Ursprache).