Literature.—Davidson, Rousseau; Graham, Rousseau; Morley, Life of Rousseau; Rousseau, Émile; Munroe, Educational Ideal; Vogel, Geschichte der PÄdagogik; Quick, Educational Reformers; Weir, The Key to Rousseau's Émile (article in Educational Review, Vol. XVI, p. 61); CompayrÉ, History of Pedagogy.

ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)

Jean Jacques Rousseau was born in Geneva, Switzerland. His father was a watchmaker, and upon him devolved the education of the boy, as the mother died in childbirth. Rousseau's father was a man of dissipated habits, careless of responsibility, and of very violent temper. He interested himself in his son far enough to teach him to read, and supplied him with the worthless novels which he himself was fond of reading. This unwise course doubtless had much to do in shaping the character of the boy. Probably it was the evil effects of this early literature that led Rousseau later in life to oppose teaching young children to read. Quick says, "Rousseau professed a hatred of books, which he said kept the student so long engaged upon the thoughts of other people as to have no time to make a store of his own."

Abandoned by his father at the age of ten, he was taken into the family of his uncle, who apprenticed him, first to a notary, and afterward to an engraver. At the age of sixteen he ran away, and began a life of vagabondage. While yet a young man, he became involved in intrigues, which, according to his own account in his "Confessions," were no credit to him. Madame de Warens, a young widow with whom he lived for some years, sent him to school at St. Lazare, where he studied the classics and music; but he soon lapsed again into vagabondage. He picked up a little music, and attempted to give lessons in it, but with small success. He also took a position as private tutor, but he had no talent for teaching. Later in life he married ThÉrÈse le Vasseur, a woman from the common ranks of life. She bore him five children, all of whom he committed to foundling hospitals without means of identification. He did this because he was not willing that his own comfort or plans should be disturbed by the presence of children. Rousseau had reason to regret this heartless and unnatural course when, in later years, he sought in vain to find some trace of his children. CompayrÉ says, "If he loved to observe children, he observed, alas, only the children of others. There is nothing sadder than that page of the 'Confessions,' in which he relates how he often placed himself at the window to observe the dismission of a school, in order to listen to the conversations of children as a furtive and unseen observer!"[122]

In 1749 Rousseau successfully competed for a prize offered by the Academy of Dijon on the subject, "Has the restoration of the sciences contributed to purify or to corrupt manners?" Rousseau entered this contest quite accidentally. He saw the notice of the contest in a newspaper, and decided at once to compete. Of this event he says, "If ever anything resembled a sudden inspiration, it was the movement which began in me as I read this. All at once I felt myself dazzled by a thousand sparkling lights; crowds of vivid ideas thronged into my mind with a force and confusion which threw me into unspeakable agitation; I felt my head whirling in a giddiness like that of intoxication. A violent palpitation oppressed me; unable to walk for difficulty of breathing, I sank under one of the trees of the avenue, and passed half an hour there in such a condition of excitement that when I rose I saw that the front of my waistcoat was all wet with tears, though I was wholly unconscious of shedding them. Ah, if I could have written the quarter of what I saw and felt under that tree, with what clearness should I have brought out all the contradictions of our social system; with what simplicity should I have demonstrated that man is good naturally, and that by institution only is he made bad."

This essay made him famous, and its publication was the beginning of a remarkable literary career. His principal literary works are his "Confessions," in which he declares that he conceals nothing concerning himself; the "Social Contract," an anti-monarchic work, which many believe incited the French Revolution; "HÉloÏse," a novel over-strained in sentiment and immoral in its teachings, but "full of pathos and knowledge of the human heart"; and "Émile," his greatest work, which contains his educational theories. The "Émile"[123] was an epoch-making book, which excited great interest throughout Europe. It is said that the philosopher Emanuel Kant became so absorbed in reading it that he forgot to take his daily walk.

Pedagogy.—(a) Rousseau's first principle is, "Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Author of nature; everything degenerates in the hands of man." It follows, then, that education has only to prevent the entrance of evil, and let nature continue the work begun. It is to be a negative, as well as a natural, process. The fallacy of this principle is very forcibly shown by Vogel[124] as follows: "The very first sentence of 'Émile,' that man by nature is good, is a fundamental error; for by nature, that is, from birth, man is neither good nor bad, but morally indifferent. Only when the individual possesses mature self-consciousness does he have a correct idea of good and evil. If man by nature is good, it is inexplicable how evil can originate within him. External things may, indeed, furnish motives to evil, but are never in themselves evil; the evil arises rather from the conduct of the individual toward outside objects. If, then, evil does not come from without, and is not by nature already within the heart, it is impossible that there shall be such a thing as evil."

(b) The first education is physical and it begins at birth. As the physical wants of the child are natural they should be satisfied, but the clothing should be of such character as not to interfere with the perfect freedom of the body. Great care must be taken to distinguish between the real wants of the child and its passing whims. To gratify the latter because of the crying of the child will tend to form bad habits. In this connection may be taught the first moral lessons. It thus becomes important that the speech, gestures, and expressions of the young child shall be carefully studied. This is the first suggestion of the necessity for child study. The idea was later developed by Pestalozzi and Froebel, and is one of the most important features of recent pedagogical activity.

(c) The child's second period begins with his ability to speak and continues till the twelfth year. No attempt must be made to educate the child for his future, but he must be allowed to get the full enjoyment of childhood by freedom to play as he will. Let him run, jump, and test his strength, thereby acquiring judgment of the material forces about him, and learning how to take care of himself. Leave him free to do what he will, let him have what he wishes, but, as far as possible, he should be led to depend upon himself to satisfy his wants. Give him perfect freedom, for freedom is the fundamental law of education. If he disobeys, do not punish him,—disobedience works its own punishment; therefore, do not command him. The training of the senses is the important work of this period; therefore, there should be as little moral training as possible, and absolutely no religious training. The only moral idea for the child to learn is that of ownership. He is to be prevented from vice in a negative manner, that is, by never being allowed to meet it. "The only habit that a child should be allowed to form is to contract no habit."

He is to have a preceptor devoted entirely to him, not to instruct or control him, but to lead him to discover and experience for himself. In regard to his intellectual instruction, Rousseau says of Émile at twelve years of age, "that he has not learned to distinguish his right hand from his left." Books are entirely proscribed, and, indeed, they are useless to him as he cannot read; the only intellectual knowledge the child receives is that which comes from things through his own experience.

This is a brief outline of the erratic, impossible, and inconsistent training that Rousseau provides for Émile during this period when the foundation of character in the child must be laid. GrÉard says, "Rousseau goes beyond progressive education to recommend an education in fragments, so to speak, which isolates the faculties in order to develop them one after another, which establishes an absolute line of demarkation between the different ages, and which ends in distinguishing three stages of progress in the soul. Rousseau's error on this point is in forgetting that the education of the child ought to prepare for the education of the young man."

(d) The third period extends from the twelfth to the fifteenth year. It is the period of intellectual development. With no habits of thought or study, being little else than a robust animal, in three years Émile is to obtain all needed intellectual training. True, Rousseau excludes everything that is not useful, and places limitations even on that. For example, he naturally lays great stress upon the physical sciences which are to be taught in connection with things themselves,—out of doors, by travel, and in actual life; but he allows no history, or grammar, or ancient languages. No books are permitted save "Robinson Crusoe," which Rousseau finds entirely suitable for Émile. A trade is to be learned during this period.

While in general we condemn Rousseau's scheme of education, there is much in his methods that is most excellent. On this point CompayrÉ comments as follows: "At least in the general method which he commends, Rousseau makes amends for the errors in his plan of study: 'Do not treat the child to discourses which he cannot understand. No descriptions, no eloquence, no figures of speech. Be content to present to him appropriate objects. Let us transform our sensations into ideas. But let us not jump at once from sensible to intellectual objects. Let us always proceed slowly from one sensible notion to another. In general, let us never substitute the sign for the thing, except when it is impossible for us to show the thing.'"[125]

(e) The fourth period of education begins at fifteen, the period of adolescence. At this time, "Émile will know nothing of history, nothing of humanity, nothing of art and literature, nothing of God; but he will know a manual trade." Rousseau himself says, "Émile has but little knowledge, but that which he has is really his own; he knows nothing by halves." He has a mind which, "if not instructed, is at least capable of being instructed." The remaining work to be done in the education of Émile consists in training the sentiments of affection, the moral and the religious sentiments. The feeling of love for his fellow-beings is now to be cultivated. The error of this is shown by CompayrÉ, who says, "For fifteen years Rousseau leaves the heart of Émile unoccupied.... Rousseau made the mistake of thinking that a child can be taught to love as he is taught to read and write, and that lessons could be given to Émile in feeling just as lessons are given to him in geometry."

In morals Rousseau taught that the first duty of every one is to take care of himself; we must love ourselves first of all, and find our greatest interest in those things that best serve us. We must seek that which is useful to us and avoid what harms us, instead of loving our enemies and doing good to those that hate us, as taught by Christ. We must love those who love us, while we must avoid and hate those who hate us.

As to religion, Émile does not yet know at fifteen that he has a soul, and Rousseau thinks that perhaps the eighteenth year is still too early for him to learn that fact; for, if he tries to learn it before the proper time, he runs the risk of never really knowing that he possesses an immortal soul. But as religion furnishes a check upon the passions, it should be taught to the boy when eighteen years of age. He is not to be instructed in the doctrines of any particular sect, but should be allowed to select that religious belief which most strongly appeals to his reason. Modern investigation has proven the utter fallacy of Rousseau's teachings in this respect. Indeed, it seems to be established that the most orthodox period of the child's life occurs before the fifteenth year, the time when Rousseau would begin his religious training. Conformable to this truth, many sects confirm children and receive them into the church at or before the fifteenth year.[126]

(f) Having brought Émile to the period of life at which he is to marry, Rousseau proceeds to create in Sophie the ideal wife. It is not the education of women as such that Rousseau discusses, but their education with reference to man. He says, "The whole education of women should be relative to men; to please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves honored and loved by them, to educate the young, to care for the older, to advise them, to console them, to make life agreeable and sweet to them,—these are the duties of women in every age." Consequently the sole instruction woman needs is in household duties, in care of children, in ways to add to the happiness of her husband. Her own happiness or development does not enter into Rousseau's scheme. This is the weakest part of his educational theory. The world is gradually awakening to the fact that woman's intellectual capacity is not inferior to that of man, and the prejudices of ages are slowly disappearing.

Rousseau's pedagogical theories made a profound impression throughout Europe, and though often inconsistent, extravagant, and visionary, they set the world to thinking of the child and his psychological development. A new direction was thus given to educational theory and practice, and upon this basis Pestalozzi, Froebel, and other modern educators have built. Rousseau must, therefore, be reckoned among the greatest pedagogical writers of modern times. Karl Schmidt pronounces the "Émile" "a Platonic republic of education,—nevertheless, Rousseau's work is a great universal achievement, the importance of which Goethe recognizes when he calls the book the nature-gospel of education."[127]

FOOTNOTES:

[126] See address of Professor Earl Barnes, Proceedings of the National Educational Association for 1893, p. 765. Also article by Dr. G. Stanley Hall in Pedagogical Seminary, Vol. I, p. 196. Note also the religious development of Laura Bridgman.