« AnteriorContinuar »
cepts ; and hence those things which should constitute the amusement of young people, are made disgusting to them, as the study of an art. I cannot conceive any thing more ridiculous, than to see an old singing or dancing-master, approach a young, lively, giggling girl, with a frigid and formal air ; and assume, in teaching his frivolous science, a more pedantick and magisterial tone, than if he were teaching her the catechism. Is it that the art of singing, for instance, depends on the knowledge of written musick? Is it not possible to acquire a just command of voice, to learn to sing with taste, and even to accompany an instrument, without knowing a single note ? Is the same manner of singing adapted to all voices ? Doth the same method of teaching suit equally every genius? It is impossible to make me believe, that the same attitudes, the same steps, the same motions and gestures, or even the same dances, are equally proper for a little, lively, sharp-eyed brunette, and beauty with languishing eyes and flaxen hair. When I see a dancing-master give the same lesson, therefore, indiscriminately to both, I say to myself, this man follows the customs of his profession, but he understands nothing of his art. (Rousseau, Emilius, vol. 3, p. 205, ed. 1783, London.)
132. In the extract following, the Socratic Mode, often improperly called Method, is illustrated : “ Now a guide, when he has found a man out of the road leads him into the right way : he does not ridicule or abuse him and
then leave him. Do you also show the illiterate man the truth, and you will see that he follows. But so long as you do not show him the truth, do not ridicule him, but rather feel your own incapacity. How then did Socrates act?
He used to compel his adversary in disputation to bear testimony to him, and he wanted no other witness. Therefore he could say, 'I care not for other witnesses, but I am always satisfied with the evidence (testimony) of my adversary, and I do not ask the opinion of others, but only the opinion of him who is disputing with me. For he used to make the conclusions drawn from natural notions so plain that every man saw the contradiction (if it existed) and withdrew from it (thus): Does the envious man rejoice ? By no means, but he is rather pained. Well, do you think that envy is pain over evils ? and what envy is there of evils ? Therefore he made his adversary say that envy is pain over good things. Well then, would any man envy those who are nothing to him ? By no means. Thus having completed the notion and distinctly fixed it he would go away without saying to his adversary, Define to me envy ; and if the adversary had defined envy, he did not say, You have defined it badly, for the terms of the definition do not correspond to the thing definedThese are technical terms, and for this reason disagreeable and hardly intelligible to illiterate men, which terms we (philosophers) cannot lay aside. But that the illiterate man himself, who follows the appearances presented to him, should
be able to concede any thing or reject it, we can never by the use of these terms move him to do. Accordingly being conscious of our own inability, we do not attempt the thing; at least such of us as have any caution do not. But the greater part and the rash, when they enter into such disputation, confuse themselves and confuse others; and finally abusing their adversaries and abused by them, they walk away.
“Now this was the first and chief peculiarity of Socrates, never to be irritated in argument, never to utter any thing abusive, any thing insulting, but to bear with abusive persons and to put an end to the quarrel. If
you would know what great power he had in this way, read the Symposium of Xenophon, and you will see how many quarrels he put an end to. Hence with good reason in the poets also this power is most highly praised, Quickly with skill he settles great disputes.'
HESIOD, Theogony, v. 87. Well then ; the matter is not now very safe, and particularly at Rome ; for he who attempts to do it, must not do it in a corner, you may be sure, but must go to a man of consular rank, if it so happen, or to a rich man, and ask him, Can you tell me, Sir, to whose care you have entrusted your horses ?—By all means.—Well then ; can you tell me to whom you entrust your gold or silver things or your vestments I don't entrust even these to any one indifferently. Well ; your own body, have you
already considered about entrusting the caro of it to any person ?-Certainly.--To a man of experience, I suppose, and one acquainted with the aliptic, or with the healing art ?-Without doubt.
Are these the best things that you have, or do you also possess something else which is better than all these ? - What kind of a thing do you mean ?—That I mean which makes use of these things, and tests each of them, and deliberates.—Is it the soul that you mean ?-You think right, for it is the soul that I mean.-In truth I do think that the soul is a much better thing than all the others which I possess.-Can you then show us in what way you have taken care of the soul ? for it is not likely that you, who are so wise a man and have a reputation in the city, inconsiderately and carelessly allow the most valuable thing that you possess to be neglected and to perish.Certainly not.—But have you taken care of the soul yourself ; and have you learned from another to do this, or have you discovered the means yourself ?-Next, if you persist in troubling him, there is danger that he may raise his hands and give you blows. I was once myself also an admirer of this mode of instruction until I fell into these dangers." (Epictetus, Discourses, chap. xii.)
133. In the following extract the conceptions of Mode and Manner of Teaching are not distinguished from that of Methods of Teaching.
Another peccant humour' which at present infects the body of education is the employment of Mechanical Methods. These methods were perhaps not at first mechanical ; they have become so by degeneration in the hands of merely imitative persons. If a method is not thoroughly assimilated by the teacher so as to become a living part of his own mind, if it does not marry itself willingly to his own thought and his own habits, if it is adopted as a mere plan for saving himself trouble and for escaping from his usual amount of work, it has a tendency to degenerate into a kind of machine, into something that cannot call forth thought and mental activity from his pupils. The essential requisite of a method is that it shall be living and possess the adaptability of life, and that it shall not interfere with but promote the spontaneous interest which the pupil may be inclined to feel in his subject. But our ancient and standing enemy-routine—is at hand here also, and is always ready to turn the best method into a monotonous device, or a cranklike exercise of activities. Man is by nature a hunting animal, and the heuristic method in teaching is one of the most potent for developing the mental powers.
But in the degeneration which is natural to all human things, unless the breath that created them at first breathes through them again, among the destructive powers which produce this degeneration, there is none more potent than the habit of imitation. Question and answer—from the pupil as well as from the teacher--is one of the best ways of searching out truth that are given to human faculties.
But no sooner is this perceived than some one writes a