« 上一頁繼續 »
splendor of ancient art, and from it had deducted the eternal laws of true beauty, the study of philology in Germany assumed a higher character.
Closely connected with this study of antiquity was the classic revival of German national literature. All the prominent men who brought about this revival loved and defended the ancients. In different ways did Gellert, Klopstock, and, above all, Lessing, who combined the most thorough knowledge of antiquity with the greatest mastership in the handling of the mother-tongue, work toward one and the same end. Nearly all these men had been scholars of gymnasia where Latin was studied to a great extent. The transla:. tions from the ancient classics, begun by J. H. Voss and continued by many others, brought the works of national authors into a more intimate connection with the ancient models. Thus classic antiquity and the German language, which hitherto had been somewhat despised, rose simultaneously to new honors. Also, men like J. G. Hamann, who were true lovers of the Gospel, loved and cultivated the study of the ancients. The German language was developed in the most felicitous manner, for the use of philosophy, by Chr. Wolf; for theology, by Mosheim; and for all the arts and sciences, by the Bremen Contributions, (Bremer Beiträge,) a well-known literary and critical journal published in Bremen since 1744 by a number of prominent writers. The combined influence of all this on education in the gymnasia was very great, and extended far beyond instruction in the mother-tongue and ancient literature.
This influence was first noticeable in the study of the Greek language and literature. The constantly-increasing acquaintance with the ancient Greeks brought quite a new life into German literature. Hitherto but little Greek had been read besides the New Testament, Cebes, Palæphatus, Xenophon's Memorabilia, Theophrast, and Plutarch's De Educatione Puerorum, while Homer and other characteristic representatives of ancient life had been almost entirely neglected, or only studied in the most superficial manner. Even Melanchthon, in his School-Regulations, left Greek to private study, and only Neander and Rhodomann obtained a few hours' public instruction for it, which soon, however, were obligatory only for theologians.
Among the modern humanists, two schools may be distinguished, the strict one, and the more moderate one, both agreeing in the importance of the study of the ancient classies, but ditiering in this, that the latter condemned all onesided study, and endeavored to draw a dividing line between mere dry learning and matters of general interest and general educational import.
of the humanists who evertised an important influence on secondary education, we mention the following: C. Cellarius, belonging also to a former per ,,1033-1727.) first schonmaster, then professor at a university, and founder of the Seminariurn Dextrme Elegantioris in Halle, a very fertile author of educational works and tert-boks. J. M. Gesner, (1691-1761,) rector of several ginnasia, mang the rest of the Thomas School, in Leipsic, (1730.) thepirer anca literatur, aligunder of the Prological Seminary
ili ,,1754.' unicre merate humanistic school, drew up *** Brantica s
,173 and as pedagogie and didacI
in his la Giuran w is h ed 1736,' and defended
himself against the reproach that he despised the study of grammar, because he wished to simplify the method of studying it. He banished the theological text-books and readers from the schools, replaced them by the classics, and in his Greek reader for the first time let the German youth have a taste of the spirit of antiquity. His influence was powerful throughout the whole of Germany. J. A. Ernesti, (1707-'81,) who labored not only as teacher of secondary schools, but also as professor at the University of Leipsic, was one of the greatest philologists of his age, and an educator of the first rank, whose numerous famous scholars worked in the same spirit in the different parts of Germany. C. G. Heyne, (1729-1812,) in 1763 became professor of classical studies at Göttingen. Full of enthusiasm, especially for the æsthetic side of antiquity, he organized the Pædagogium at Ilfeld, (1770,) made it a nursery for the dissemination of his principles, and a model for many other schools. The activity of these men and many others showed itself in the prevalence of a certain eclecticism; they introduced their students to the beauties of the ancient classics, without wearying them too much with grammatical studies or with the writing of Greek exercises and Latin verses; on the whole, Greek authors were studied more than Latin ones.
It was to be regretted that the method indicated by Gesner and Ernesti was not always followed up as it should have been ; one reason for this was that the universities, in many cases, did not offer a sufficient opportunity for acquiring the amount and kind of knowledge necessary for teachers of secondary schools; and another reason was that during the time of the French invasion much superficiality and frivolity spread through Germany, of course also affecting education. It is true that during this period men like Johann von Müller and von Leist were at the head of educational affairs in Western Germany, but even they were unable to stem the torrent; and when an attempt was made for reforming the system of education, it was but natural that, as in Hesse-Cassel, a school of artillery and engineering (1810) was thought of first.
Since the middle of the eighteenth century, the spirit of true science had successfully combated both theological scholasticism and the theory of mere practical usefulness; and Humanism,* during the last part of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth, reached its greatest scientific development. The chief representatives of this period are Friedrich August Wolf and August Böckh, in Berlin and Gottfried Hermann, in Leipsic, and their most eminent scholars, Karl Reissig, in Halle, and Karl Ottfried Müller in Göttingen. By the side of these we must mention a number of men, some of whom are still active, and most of whom have made secondary education their specialty, such as G. Bernhardy, F. Creuzer, L. Dissen, L. Döderlein, K. F. Hermann, C. A. Lobeck, K. F. Nägelsbach, G. W. Nitzsch, F. Ritschl, G. F. Schömann, F. Thiersch, F. G. Welcker, and many others who, by word and writing, have untiringly worked for the cause of secondary education. The study of the ancients, through the endeavors of these men, entered its most
* Humanism as used in this article means the culture produced by the study of ancient (classical) life, literature, and art.-ED.
flourishing and glorious period, and the ideal object of mental gymnastics, viz, a universal humane education, was aimed at. It cannot be denied that this ideal flight met with various hinderances, and in the character of the times the drawbacks of the system became evident. What had made Wolf's science of antiquity so great and significant was especially its close connection with the modern national literature of Germany, and their mutual influence; but Wolf did not entirely keep up this connection, but in the beginning of this century gradually relinquished it, and in a like measure did modern German literature sever its connection with the ancients. This is very clearly shown by the growing appreciation of the German language and literature in the gymnasia, in opposition to the study of ancient languages; the looser the connection between these two studies became, the more did a onesided Latinism grow up and produce a neglect of the German language and literature. The great masters of philological science, however, had fortunately strengthened the study of Greek antiquity so much, and brought out the very close relation of the German to the Greek mind so clearly and unmistakably, that the complete loss of these rich treasures was not to be feared.
The immortal master of this new development of Humanism was undoubtedly Friedrich August Wolf, mentioned above. He was born in 1759, at Hainrode, near Nordhausen, in the present Prussian province of Saxony; in 1777 entered the University of Göttingen; 1779 became teacher in the Gymnasium of Ilfeld; 1782, rector of the Gymnasium at Osterode; and in 1783 professor of philology in the University of Halle, and at the same time principal of the Pedagogical Institute in the same city. In 1807, he was called to Berlin, and became a member of the bureau of public instruction, under the ministry of the interior. He died in Marseilles in 1824, during a ourney which he had undertaken for the sake of his health. During his stay in Halle he had, by his lectures and by a series of works, the most important of which are the Homeric Prolegomena, theoretically and practically prepared the way for a strictly methodical manner of study. He knew how to awaken the conscious self-activity of teachers; he created the science of archæology by his classical works on the subject, and introduced his numerous scholars into the then-almost-unknown world of Homer, the Greek tragic dramatists, and Plato. The other two great humanists, G. Hermann and A. Böckh, were active in developing the formal and matter-of-fact side of archæology. Gottfried Hermann (born in Leipzig in 1772; died 1848, as professor at the University of Leipsic) gained great influence by the Greek society founded by him in 1805, which was especially active in promoting a truly methodical treatment of the language in the gymnasium-course of instruction.
The undue importance conceded to classical studies as an educational element was corrected by August Böckh, (born in Karlsruhe, 1784; died, as professor, in Berlin, 1867,) who, as an eloquent teacher of archæology, and as a clearheaded searcher for truth, has gained immortal fame by his works on ancient public and social life. Through his teaching, the ancients began to be viewed in a more truthful light, though perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically. The grea value of the study of classic antiquity for the mental and moral education
of youth was recognized, but that onesidedness by which the study of the ancients placed history and mathematics too much in the back-ground was abandoned, and the incompatibility of unlimited admiration of mere human ideals with the true spirit of Gospel truth and Gospel morality was clearly shown. Henceforth the study of the classics no longer formed the exclusive basis of secondary education, but a true Christian education, and the study of history, mathematics, and natural sciences, became educational elements of equal importance. To regulate the relations between these, and bring about a course of study truly harmonious in all respects, is the problem which the present generation has to solve.
THE INCREASE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR. The character of the secondary schools was materially "changed during the first half of the nineteenth century, not only by the more intense development of philology, but also by the constant extension and greater depth in the treatment of all sciences. In former times, the aim to be reached and the way to reach it had, in spite of all differences of methods, been simple and clear. The Bible and the ancient languages had been the essential conditions, without which no scientific study, least of all the study of theology, could be carried on, and from the secondary schools young men went to the universities to study the sciences. All the preparatory studies seemed only to be aids for reaching this aim. The more religious instruction during a time of dogmatic stagnation and complete isolation of theology from the other sciences lost their interest, and the more the study of the ancient languages had been attacked and limited, all the more could the other sciences raise their claim as being important educational elements. It seemed, in such circumstances, doubly important that, in the secondary schools, a suitable preparation should be given, especially for philosophical and natural sciences, as, without such preparation, the lectures at the university could scarcely be understood, or, at least, not be of sufficient benefit to the student. But the neglect of such preparatory studies was almost incredible. Philosophy, which formerly had been studied to an undue extent, was very much neglected, and natural history, physics, mathematics, history, and geography were taught in the most unsatisfactory manner, barely giving a cursory review of these sciences. But these were the very sciences which had gained in extent and depth, so much so that no man aiming at a higher education could do without a thorough knowledge of them, and certainly no one could get the full benefit of university-lectures on these sciences without having, in the secondary schools, been thoroughly prepared for them.
The question was, how these preparatory studies could be introduced in the gymnasium's course, how their relation to the classical studies could best be regulated, and what should be the limit of these studies so as not to infringe on the university-or polytechnic course. The solution of this difficult problem has not yet been fully reached, and all the recent movements and discussions on the field of secondary instruction have been more or less connected with it. The greatest mistakes have been made in mathematics and history. In
the study of mathematics, the more difficult problems were to be reached; but the first and most essential aim of mathematical instruction, viz, to make the educating power of this science the common property of all students, was neglected. The results were, therefore, neither in due proportion to the excellence of the teachers, nor to the amount of time and labor spent; and even prominent teachers of mathematics returned to the idea that a peculiar talent was necessary for this study.
In history, the study of general history, with its vast extent and enormous amount of material, was considered essential, and the student was overwhelmed with an almost ungovernable mass of historical matter. Even at the present time, but few teachers of history will be found who, completely mastering their subject, can exercise self-denial and limit themselves in their selections so as to present to the youthful mind only that which is essential and will be of lasting benefit.
Finally, the preparatory philosophical studies (philosophische Propädeutik) were studied in the most varied and arbitrary manner, even after Trendelenburg had pointed out the right manner for this study. It must, however, be acknowledged that this study can be beneficial only if it is in the hands of a skillful and enthusiastic teacher.
To restore the proper harmony between the various branches of study seemed almost impossible. If in a gymnasium all the studies were properly represented by learned and energetic teachers, the overcrowding and overworking of the students could scarcely be avoided. The ancient languages, particularly Greek, were consequently again limited too much; other subjects of instruction, even religion, were completely crowded out in some gymnasia, and the students were overburdened with work to such a degree as to seriously injure their elasticity of mind. The loud complaints on this point, which were raised on all sides, though all more or less exaggerated, did not appear entirely unjustified. They certainly produced a strong impression on the authorities and on educators, and have led to a calm and conscientious discussion and revision of the whole matter.
The relations of modern public and social life, as well as human nature itself, demanded an outward palpable separation of the two so widely differing branches of education, the ancient and the modern, and this demand was intensified by the constant increase in the subjects of instruction. This was the cause of the large increase in the number of real-schools, which formerly had only existed sporadically since 1830. The conflict between the advocates of the real-school and those of the gymnasium has often waxed hot. While some German states, especially Prussia and the former kingdom of Hanover, allowed the establishment of numerous real-schools, other states discouraged them, and at any rate, offered no government-aid for their erection. In many cases, the establishment of parallel classes on the system of bifurcation, the lower classes being in common and the higher ones having a real-school-course and a gymnasium-course, seemed to solve the problem.
The conviction of many prominent educators that the strict separation of the two branches of education would be of baneful influence, has led to the