Texts:1980 Rousseau and American Educational Scholarship: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<blockquote>Unpublished: Written Fall 1980. The third section was published in Spanish, "El nacimiento de la historia de la educación: Los antecedents alemanes de la pedagogía historica." <i>Revista de Educación</i>. Fall 1985.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Unpublished: Written Fall 1980. The third section was published in Spanish, "El nacimiento de la historia de la educación: Los antecedents alemanes de la pedagogía historica." <i>Revista de Educación</i>. Fall 1985.</blockquote> | ||
</div> | </div><hr> | ||
<h3>I—A Vaccine for the Virus</h3> | <h3>I—A Vaccine for the Virus</h3> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<p>Throughout Morley's <i>Rousseau</i>, and other works like it, the intended effect was to discourage the close study of Rousseau's work.<sup>[[#A19| A19 ]]</sup> Morley's own criticisms of Rousseau's books were extremely casual and sententious. In writing about Rousseau's more substantial works, Morley contented himself with brief, slipshod exposition, followed with rotund disquisitions on the error of Rousseau's points, however misstated, all this, a prelude to his own explanation of what Rousseau should have thought, had Rousseau been capable of right thinking and right living. Rousseau could infect others, owing to the gift of a brilliant style, and therefore the vaccine against potential contagion needed to be developed. But Rousseau could not reason systematically and there was no cumulative body of thought, carefully wrought, for which he stood, for he lacked the disposition and training, the character or intellect, to achieve such a work, and therefore Rousseau need not be studied.<sup>[[#A20| A20 ]]</sup> Rousseau reduced to the involuntary and unconscious voice of certain progressive movements is precisely where the Rousseau of the schools of education has since remained.</p> | <p>Throughout Morley's <i>Rousseau</i>, and other works like it, the intended effect was to discourage the close study of Rousseau's work.<sup>[[#A19| A19 ]]</sup> Morley's own criticisms of Rousseau's books were extremely casual and sententious. In writing about Rousseau's more substantial works, Morley contented himself with brief, slipshod exposition, followed with rotund disquisitions on the error of Rousseau's points, however misstated, all this, a prelude to his own explanation of what Rousseau should have thought, had Rousseau been capable of right thinking and right living. Rousseau could infect others, owing to the gift of a brilliant style, and therefore the vaccine against potential contagion needed to be developed. But Rousseau could not reason systematically and there was no cumulative body of thought, carefully wrought, for which he stood, for he lacked the disposition and training, the character or intellect, to achieve such a work, and therefore Rousseau need not be studied.<sup>[[#A20| A20 ]]</sup> Rousseau reduced to the involuntary and unconscious voice of certain progressive movements is precisely where the Rousseau of the schools of education has since remained.</p> | ||
<p>During the latter half of the nineteenth century, Rousseau's educational thought received considerable attention. In 1858, Henry Barnard published a partial translation of the chapter on Rousseau from Karl von Raumer's <i>Geschichte der Pädagogik</i>. Barnard himself prefaced it with a brief survey of Rousseau's life, as survey full of misinformation and very hostile in tone "With these wretched early habits, which had strengthened his natural evil tendencies, ... he entered upon the vagrant and unhappy series of wanderings and adventures which might have been expected."<sup>[[#A21| A21 ]]</sup> Raumer, too, was no enthusiastic Rousseauist. <i>Émile</i> was a problem for nineteenth-century educators. One could not ignore it; but even more, one could not follow it. Raumer closed his exposition of <i>Émile</i> with a caution that would apply, not only to his, but also to most ensuing presentations. "The sketch which I have given of <i>Émile</i> will be made clearer by regarding it as a book at once instructive and corrupting.... Rousseau is corrupting, because he mingles truth and falsehood, good and evil, in the most cunning manner; so that good and bad are to be distinguished only by an exceedingly watchful and critical reader. I close with repeating my wish, that the proceeding sketch, and the subjoined remarks, may assist the reader in such a critical separation."<sup>[[#A22| A22 ]]</sup> All the early treatments of Rousseau in the history of educational thought propounded this caution, this attempt to separate the apparent good from the putative bad, this urge to domesticate <i>Émile</i>.</p> | <p>During the latter half of the nineteenth century, Rousseau's educational thought received considerable attention. In 1858, Henry Barnard published a partial translation of the chapter on Rousseau from Karl von Raumer's <i>Geschichte der Pädagogik</i>. Barnard himself prefaced it with a brief survey of Rousseau's life, as survey full of misinformation and very hostile in tone "With these wretched early habits, which had strengthened his natural evil tendencies, ... he entered upon the vagrant and unhappy series of wanderings and adventures which might have been expected."<sup>[[#A21| A21 ]]</sup> Raumer, too, was no enthusiastic Rousseauist. <i>Émile</i> was a problem for nineteenth-century educators. One could not ignore it; but even more, one could not follow it. Raumer closed his exposition of <i>Émile</i> with a caution that would apply, not only to his, but also to most ensuing presentations. "The sketch which I have given of <i>Émile</i> will be made clearer by regarding it as a book at once instructive and corrupting.... Rousseau is corrupting, because he mingles truth and falsehood, good and evil, in the most cunning manner; so that good and bad are to be distinguished only by an exceedingly watchful and critical reader. I close with repeating my wish, that the proceeding sketch, and the subjoined remarks, may assist the reader in such a critical separation."<sup>[[#A22| A22 ]]</sup> All the early treatments of Rousseau in the history of educational thought propounded this caution, this attempt to separate the apparent good from the putative bad, this urge to domesticate <i>Émile</i>.</p> | ||
| Line 41: | Line 37: | ||
<blockquote>[Book Four was thoroughly gutted by Payne. Not only was the "Profession of Faith" avoided in its entirety, so too was the build up to it, and the dialogue and exposition following it, see pages 228-236. In addition, the extended discussion of the boy's entry into the moral world through the early part of the Book was severely compressed, with much very important material left out. For instance, on page 196, close to six paragraphs dealing with the relation of sexuality to <i>amour -propre</i> were dropped. On page 210, eight paragraphs on moral education were cut, and on pages 204-5, 28 important paragraphs were compressed into three, including Rousseau's maxims about pity. On page 211, an important paragraph was found unworthy of inclusion—namely a discussion of the difficulty of developing a sound concept of justice in civil society, a discussion that set the level of aspiration that ought to be pursued in the second stage of education, that which comes on entry into the moral world. Toward the end of the Book, pp. 237-240, Rousseau's examination of how pedagogical authority, hitherto hidden as an apparent natural authority, must now emerge as a moral authority, was highly compressed, and the concluding discussion of moral choice in relation to a corrupting world of society and taste is subjected to severe cuts. Of the material in Book V, that dealing with Sophie's education is covered reasonably fully, but what then follows on their courtship and the concomitant problems of ethical action was almost entirely left out, and the translation ended with Emile about to set out on his travels, thus leaving out the place of political thought in education.</blockquote> | <blockquote>[Book Four was thoroughly gutted by Payne. Not only was the "Profession of Faith" avoided in its entirety, so too was the build up to it, and the dialogue and exposition following it, see pages 228-236. In addition, the extended discussion of the boy's entry into the moral world through the early part of the Book was severely compressed, with much very important material left out. For instance, on page 196, close to six paragraphs dealing with the relation of sexuality to <i>amour -propre</i> were dropped. On page 210, eight paragraphs on moral education were cut, and on pages 204-5, 28 important paragraphs were compressed into three, including Rousseau's maxims about pity. On page 211, an important paragraph was found unworthy of inclusion—namely a discussion of the difficulty of developing a sound concept of justice in civil society, a discussion that set the level of aspiration that ought to be pursued in the second stage of education, that which comes on entry into the moral world. Toward the end of the Book, pp. 237-240, Rousseau's examination of how pedagogical authority, hitherto hidden as an apparent natural authority, must now emerge as a moral authority, was highly compressed, and the concluding discussion of moral choice in relation to a corrupting world of society and taste is subjected to severe cuts. Of the material in Book V, that dealing with Sophie's education is covered reasonably fully, but what then follows on their courtship and the concomitant problems of ethical action was almost entirely left out, and the translation ended with Emile about to set out on his travels, thus leaving out the place of political thought in education.</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>How such omissions can cause serious misinterpretation was evident from William Torrey Harris's "Preface." There (p. xiii) Harris referred to a passage (page 5-6 of Payne's text) in which there was a major omission concerning what Rousseau thought real citizenship consisted in. As it stood in Payne's text, the passage could be made to illustrate a putative failure in Rousseau to recognize the human value of social institutions, a use to which Harris eagerly put the passage. Had the translation been complete, Harris would not have been able to so use the quotation without subjecting himself to criticism for completely distorting Rousseau's meaning by taking his words out of context. A translation such as Payne's greatly facilitated polemic against Rousseau by his critics by conveniently dropping the context of many important things.</blockquote> | ||
<p>In 1892, the International Education Series published a somewhat more ambitious abridgment and translation by William H. Payne. It merits some attention for it stood for two decades as the "standard" translation. Actually, it compressed <i>Émile</i> by about one half.<sup>[[#A25| A25 ]]</sup> In his "Preface," William Torrey Harris was stringently hostile to Rousseau. After dwelling on the fundamental errors in Rousseau's thought, he concluded that despite Rousseau, <i>Émile</i> gave a "great positive impulse" to education by making educators "recognize the sacredness of childhood," a contribution well brought out in the translation. Payne, in his "Introduction," summed up one of the main values that early historians of education saw in the whole field, not only in a domesticated Rousseau, namely, that it could inspire teachers. "If read with kindly feeling and without prejudice, it can not fail to inspire teachers with the noblest ambition, and to quicken their methods with living power.... There is no other book which I can so heartily commend to teachers as a perennial source of inspiration and kindly aid."<sup>[[#A26| A26 ]]</sup> But only after suitably sterilizing the text: Payne attained some of his abridgment by compressing Rousseau's examples, leaving out here, there, and everywhere, sentences and paragraphs, but the bulk of his abridgment came by certain systematic omissions. Payne's first substantial excision dropped Rousseau's first discussion of the moral psychology underlying the whole work, and Payne kept it up, dropping or compressing into insignificance the major passages in which Rousseau reflected on the relation of education to morality, civic virtue, the corruption of character, and politics.<sup>[[#A27| A27 ]]</sup> Readers could not plumb the depths of a Rousseau, so expurgated.</p> | <p>In 1892, the International Education Series published a somewhat more ambitious abridgment and translation by William H. Payne. It merits some attention for it stood for two decades as the "standard" translation. Actually, it compressed <i>Émile</i> by about one half.<sup>[[#A25| A25 ]]</sup> In his "Preface," William Torrey Harris was stringently hostile to Rousseau. After dwelling on the fundamental errors in Rousseau's thought, he concluded that despite Rousseau, <i>Émile</i> gave a "great positive impulse" to education by making educators "recognize the sacredness of childhood," a contribution well brought out in the translation. Payne, in his "Introduction," summed up one of the main values that early historians of education saw in the whole field, not only in a domesticated Rousseau, namely, that it could inspire teachers. "If read with kindly feeling and without prejudice, it can not fail to inspire teachers with the noblest ambition, and to quicken their methods with living power.... There is no other book which I can so heartily commend to teachers as a perennial source of inspiration and kindly aid."<sup>[[#A26| A26 ]]</sup> But only after suitably sterilizing the text: Payne attained some of his abridgment by compressing Rousseau's examples, leaving out here, there, and everywhere, sentences and paragraphs, but the bulk of his abridgment came by certain systematic omissions. Payne's first substantial excision dropped Rousseau's first discussion of the moral psychology underlying the whole work, and Payne kept it up, dropping or compressing into insignificance the major passages in which Rousseau reflected on the relation of education to morality, civic virtue, the corruption of character, and politics.<sup>[[#A27| A27 ]]</sup> Readers could not plumb the depths of a Rousseau, so expurgated.</p> | ||
| Line 119: | Line 115: | ||
<p>Cremin has already objected that Bailyn was too pat in suggesting that the traditional history of education was anachronistic, parochial, evangelical, and isolated because educationists, not historians, wrote it. Some historians showed the same faults when addressing educational topics, and some educationists very pointedly objected to these faults.<sup>[[#A86| A86 ]]</sup> But Cremin, too, did not really search out the causes of the problem. He merely pointed out that professional historians were as much responsible for the weaknesses of traditional educational history as were educationists and turned to the task at hand, revealed by Bailyn's achievement, of thoroughly revising the traditional interpretation of American educational history.<sup>[[#A87| A87 ]]</sup> That historians of education based in schools of education can write good history is patent. What remains unclear, and it is becoming a matter of some urgency to clarify, is the proper relationship of good educational history to the study of education.<sup>[[#A88| A88 ]]</sup> Scholars have performed only half of the critical task: we have become well aware of the shortcomings of traditional educational history as history. The question remains, however: what was the relation of traditional educational history to <i>education</i> and how did that relation affect the quality of work in the field both as history and as education?</p> | <p>Cremin has already objected that Bailyn was too pat in suggesting that the traditional history of education was anachronistic, parochial, evangelical, and isolated because educationists, not historians, wrote it. Some historians showed the same faults when addressing educational topics, and some educationists very pointedly objected to these faults.<sup>[[#A86| A86 ]]</sup> But Cremin, too, did not really search out the causes of the problem. He merely pointed out that professional historians were as much responsible for the weaknesses of traditional educational history as were educationists and turned to the task at hand, revealed by Bailyn's achievement, of thoroughly revising the traditional interpretation of American educational history.<sup>[[#A87| A87 ]]</sup> That historians of education based in schools of education can write good history is patent. What remains unclear, and it is becoming a matter of some urgency to clarify, is the proper relationship of good educational history to the study of education.<sup>[[#A88| A88 ]]</sup> Scholars have performed only half of the critical task: we have become well aware of the shortcomings of traditional educational history as history. The question remains, however: what was the relation of traditional educational history to <i>education</i> and how did that relation affect the quality of work in the field both as history and as education?</p> | ||
<p>One characteristic of <i>Education in the Forming of American Society</i> is itself extremely parochial—all the works cited in it are in English.<sup>[[#A89| A89 ]]</sup> Bailyn, so fascinated by the transit of civilization in the colonial period, showed no curiosity about it in the emergence of educational history in the United States. The history of education, however, was one of the many academic fields created in nineteenth-century Germany and imported into the United States and England.<sup>[[#A90| A90 ]]</sup> Bailyn's study of the early writing of educational history in the United States is like a study of the nineteenth century emergence of the American university that made no mention of the German university. If Bailyn had put the emergence of American educational historiography at all into context, if he had compared it with the development of German educational history, the need to probe more deeply the causes of deficiencies he found in American work would have been evident. German educational history, far from perfect, nevertheless did not prominently manifest the characteristic failings of the American. For the most part, anticipating significant exceptions, German educational history was the work of scholars primarily concerned, not with history, but with education; it was nevertheless, by and large, good history; and however good as history, whether written by historians or educators, it was almost always written with an educational purpose as its <i>raison d'être</i>.<sup>[[#A91| A91 ]]</sup> That early American educational historians were primarily educators who made their professional educational interests preeminent in their work did not itself cause the weaknesses in their work. The real causality was more complicated.</ | <p>One characteristic of <i>Education in the Forming of American Society</i> is itself extremely parochial—all the works cited in it are in English.<sup>[[#A89| A89 ]]</sup> Bailyn, so fascinated by the transit of civilization in the colonial period, showed no curiosity about it in the emergence of educational history in the United States. The history of education, however, was one of the many academic fields created in nineteenth-century Germany and imported into the United States and England.<sup>[[#A90| A90 ]]</sup> Bailyn's study of the early writing of educational history in the United States is like a study of the nineteenth century emergence of the American university that made no mention of the German university. If Bailyn had put the emergence of American educational historiography at all into context, if he had compared it with the development of German educational history, the need to probe more deeply the causes of deficiencies he found in American work would have been evident. German educational history, far from perfect, nevertheless did not prominently manifest the characteristic failings of the American. For the most part, anticipating significant exceptions, German educational history was the work of scholars primarily concerned, not with history, but with education; it was nevertheless, by and large, good history; and however good as history, whether written by historians or educators, it was almost always written with an educational purpose as its <i>raison d'être</i>.<sup>[[#A91| A91 ]]</sup> That early American educational historians were primarily educators who made their professional educational interests preeminent in their work did not itself cause the weaknesses in their work. The real causality was more complicated.</p> | ||
<p>In search of that causality, let us follow with some care the transit of civilization; let us observe how scholars imported the history of education into the English-speaking world. In doing that, three things should become evident. First, educators incorporated the history of education into the university curriculum in a most peculiar way: they defined its pedagogical function prior to the creation any body of scholarship in English in the field, with the result that for several generations they specially tailored the scholarship, if you will, to this pre-determined teaching function. Here was the source of anachronism. Second, the timing of the original transfer of the field from Germany to England and America was such that the transfer brought with it a very unproductive, trivial conception of the role of history in the study of education. Ironically, educational scholars institutionalized this trivial role in the United States and England precisely at the time in Germany and elsewhere that scholars were replacing it with a more significant function. Here was the source of evangelicalism. Third, the special field of the history of education was transported from Germany without importing as well the cultural source of the field itself, namely, the more general philosophic, literary, and academic proclivity to take education, self-cultivation, <i>Bildung</i>, as a matter of fundamental importance, one that should command the attention of all engaged in serious cultural work. Here was the source of parochialism. The upshot of these peculiarities of the early history of education was that the area never became a field of scholarship in the proper sense. Here was Bailyn's real achievement. But let us turn to the beginning.</p> | <p>In search of that causality, let us follow with some care the transit of civilization; let us observe how scholars imported the history of education into the English-speaking world. In doing that, three things should become evident. First, educators incorporated the history of education into the university curriculum in a most peculiar way: they defined its pedagogical function prior to the creation any body of scholarship in English in the field, with the result that for several generations they specially tailored the scholarship, if you will, to this pre-determined teaching function. Here was the source of anachronism. Second, the timing of the original transfer of the field from Germany to England and America was such that the transfer brought with it a very unproductive, trivial conception of the role of history in the study of education. Ironically, educational scholars institutionalized this trivial role in the United States and England precisely at the time in Germany and elsewhere that scholars were replacing it with a more significant function. Here was the source of evangelicalism. Third, the special field of the history of education was transported from Germany without importing as well the cultural source of the field itself, namely, the more general philosophic, literary, and academic proclivity to take education, self-cultivation, <i>Bildung</i>, as a matter of fundamental importance, one that should command the attention of all engaged in serious cultural work. Here was the source of parochialism. The upshot of these peculiarities of the early history of education was that the area never became a field of scholarship in the proper sense. Here was Bailyn's real achievement. But let us turn to the beginning.</p> | ||
| Line 230: | Line 226: | ||
<p>Willmann's <i>Didaktik</i> had little influence in England or the United States; it was not even the major source for <i>Geisteswissenschaftlich Pädagogik</i> in Germany, for Willmann was somewhat peripheral, a Catholic professor at the University of Prague, somewhat distanced from the center of German academic life. At the same time, however, Wilhelm Dilthey took certain initiatives along parallel lines.</p> | <p>Willmann's <i>Didaktik</i> had little influence in England or the United States; it was not even the major source for <i>Geisteswissenschaftlich Pädagogik</i> in Germany, for Willmann was somewhat peripheral, a Catholic professor at the University of Prague, somewhat distanced from the center of German academic life. At the same time, however, Wilhelm Dilthey took certain initiatives along parallel lines.</p> | ||
</div> | </div><div class="numsoff"> | ||
<h2>Annotations</h2> | <h2>Annotations</h2> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A1">A1</div><div class="annotext">Jean-Jacques Rousseau. <i>Emile, or Education</i>. Allan Bloom, trans. New York: Basic Books, 1979.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A2">A2</div><div class="annotext">I have in mind here the following: Roger D. Masters, <i>The Political Philosophy of Rousseau</i> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968); Lester G. Crocker, <i>Rousseau's Social Contract: An Interpretative Essay</i> (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968); Judith N. Shklar, Men and <i>Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory</i> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Anne M. Cohler, <i>Rousseau and Nationalism</i> (New York: Basic Books, 1970); Ronald Grimsley, "Introduction," to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social (Oxford: Clarendon, Press, 1972); David Cameron, <i>The Social Thought of Rousseau and Burke: A Comparative Study</i> (Toronto:, University of, Toronto Press, 1973); John C. Hall, <i>Rousseau: An Introduction to his Political Philosophy</i> (London: The Macmillan Press, <i>1973);</i> Merle L. Perkins, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the Individual and Society</i> (Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 1974); John Charvet, <i>The Social Problem in the Philosophy of Rousseau</i> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); Kennedy F. Roche, <i>Rousseau: Stoic and Romantic</i> (London: Methuen & Co., 1974); Andrew Levine, <i>The Politics of Autonomy : A Kantian Reading of Rousseau's Social Contract</i> (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1976); Stephen Ellenburg, <i>Rousseau's Political Philosophy: An Interpretation from Within</i> (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, <i>1976);</i> Madeleine B. Ellis, <i>Rousseau's Socratic Aemelian Myths: A Literary Collation of Emile and the Social Contract</i> (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1977); Ramon M. Lemos <i>Rousseau's Political Philosophy: An Exposition and Interpretation</i> (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1977); Julius Steinberg, <i>Locke, Rousseau, and the Idea of Consent: An Inquiry into the Liberal-Democratic Theory of Political Obligation</i> (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1978); and Richard Fralin, <i>Rousseau and Representation: A Study of the Development of His Concept of Political Institutions</i> (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978). In addition, the recent noteworthy translations of Rousseau have been by scholars concerned with his social and political thought. See along with Bloom's <i>Émile</i>, his other translation, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, <i>Politics and the Arts: Letter to M. D'Alembert on the Theatre</i> (Allan Bloom, trans., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960); Jean-Jacques Rousseau, <i>The First and Second Discourses</i> (Roger D. Masters, ed. and Judith R. Masters, trans. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964); Jean-Jacques Rousseau, <i>On the Social Contract with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy</i> (Roger D. Masters, ed. and Judith R. Masters, trans., New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978); and Ben Barber's translation of <i>Narcisse</i>.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A3">A3</div><div class="annotext">Mabel Lewis Sahakian and William S. Sahakian, <i>Rousseau as Educator</i> (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974). This is an unbelievably bad book. For a sample of its acumen, try page 105: Rousseau "anticipated the Puritan ethic in his statement that, rich or poor, everyone should work, for only a cheat does not work." On being asked to review this work, I decided not to on having read it with dismay, thinking that the less said about it the better--alas an error. It has found its way, however, into the bibliography of <i>Doctrines of the Great Educators</i> by Robert R. Rusk and James Scotland (5th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979). There in a nut shell is the weakness of the field, incompetent secondary studies and undiscriminating texts.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A4">A4</div><div class="annotext">See Terrence Edward Cook, "Rousseau: Educations and Politics" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, Department of Politics, 1971). This dissertation deals with its subject well and is far more informative about Rousseau's educational thought than William Boyd's long-dated, but never replaced, study, <i>The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i> (1911) (New York: Russell & Russell, 1963). According to <i>Dissertation Abstracts</i>, there have been relatively few dissertations on Rousseau classified in Education, and some of these are of the type of Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey and their Significance for Physical Education. Perhaps the strongest of those done in Education on Rousseau is by Fred D Kierstead, Jr., "Education for a Transitional Democracy: A Comparison of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Concept of the General Will to John Dewey's Concept of Collective Intelligence" (Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1974). Although Kierstead's dissertation is ambitious in the range of work mobilized in it, his treatment of Rousseau is largely dependent on a rather limited secondary literature, and as a result, however interesting it is, it breaks no new ground.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A5">A5</div><div class="annotext">Grace Goodyear Roosevelt. "Rousseau on War, Peace, and Education" (Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College, 1987).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A6">A6</div><div class="annotext">See Terrence Edward Cook. "Rousseau: Education and Politics" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, Department of Politics, 1971). This dissertation deals with its subject well and is far more informative about Rousseau's educational thought than William Boyd's long-dated, but never replaced, study, <i>The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i> (1911) (New York: Russell & Russell, 1963). According to <i>Dissertation Abstracts</i>, there have been relatively few dissertations on Rousseau classified in Education, and some of these are of the type of Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey and their Significance for Physical Education. Perhaps the strongest of those done in Education on Rousseau is by Fred D Kierstead, Jr., "Education for a Transitional Democracy: A Comparison of Jean Jacques Rousseau's Concept of the General Will to John Dewey's Concept of Collective Intelligence" (Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1974). Although Kierstead's dissertation is ambitious in the range of work mobilized in it, his treatment of Rousseau is largely dependent on a rather limited secondary literature, and as a result, however interesting it is, it breaks no new ground.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A7">A7</div><div class="annotext">V. D. Musset-Pathay had edited what was then the best edition of Rousseau's writings. His name did not appear on the title page of the first edition, <i>Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de J.-J. Rousseau</i>. (2 vols. Paris: J.-M. Eberhart, 1821).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A8">A8</div><div class="annotext">Marc Girardin (Saint-Marc Girardin), 1801-1873, was an influential critic and Professor at the Sorbonne. His essays on Rousseau appeared posthumously in book form, Saint-Marc Girardin, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Sa Vie et sea Ouvrages</i> (2 vols. Paris: Charpentier, 1875).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A9">A9</div><div class="annotext">Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, 1804-1869, was a most influential critic. An early appreciation of Romanticism, he cooled towards it in the 1830's. His <i>Causeries du lundi</i> appeared weekly between 1849 and 1869. During the 1850's, the time in which he had most to say about Rousseau, Sainte-Beuve supported Louis Napoleon. The quotation comes from "Jean-Jacques Rousseau's <i>Confessions," Causeries du lundi</i>, 4 November 1850, as translated by Francis Steegmuller and Norbert Gutterman in <i>Sainte-Beuve: Selected Essays</i> (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1963, p. 207).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A10">A10 </div><div class="annotext">See Madame D'Epinay, <i>Mémoires et Correspondance</i> (3 vols. Paris: Brunet Librarie, 1818), particularly volume 2. For the textual history of this work, see the introduction by Georges Roth to <i>Histoire de Madame de Montbrillant: Les pseudo-Mémoires de Madame D'Epinay</i> (3 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1951) Vol. 1, pp. vii-xlii.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A11">A11</div><div class="annotext">In 1891, Henri Beaudouin published the last of this type of work in French, striving with vast detail to give a full and dispassionate presentation in <i>La vie et les oeuvres de Jean-Jacques Rousseau</i> (2 vols. Paris: Lamulle & Poisson). Beaudouin's research was not really sufficiently thorough nor was his presentation sufficiently artful for the work to have much impact, one way or another, on the estimate of Rousseau's character and thought. In the early twentieth century, more narrowly defined studies, particularly some of the great thematic studies of Rousseau's work, would be much more significant.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A12">A12</div><div class="annotext">James Boswell, <i>The Life of Samuel Johnson</i> (3 vols., London: Macmillan and Co., 1922), vol. 1, pp. 375-6. A good description of Rousseau's stay in England will be found in Jean Guéhenno, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau</i> (John and Doreen Weightman, trans., 2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), vol. 2, pp. 160-203. The stay and the resultant quarrel with Hume has been covered extensively in the <i>Annales de la Société Jean-Jacques Rousseau</i>. See Vol. 6, 1910, pp. 1-313 (Louis-J. Courtois; Vol. 17, 1926, pp. 13-51 (Albert Schinz and Frederick A. Pottle); Vol. 18, 1927-28, pp. 1-331 (Margaret Hill Peoples); and Vol. 32, 1950-1952, pp. 143-154 (L.-A. Boiteux).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A13">A13</div><div class="annotext">Edmund Burke, "Letter to a Member of the National Assembly," in Burke, <i>Reflections on the Revolution in</i> France (A.J. Grieve, ed., London: Everyman's Library, 1910, 1960), p. 263; cf. pp. 262-268. For the enduring influence of Burke's outburst on English views of Rousseau, see Sir Leslie Stephen, <i>History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century</i> (2 vols., New York: Harbinger Books, 1962), vol. 2, pp. 156-165, 183-191, where he very much takes Burkes part against Rousseau. Edmund Gosse contributed as useful survey, "Rousseau en Angleterre au XIXe siècle," to <i>Annales Rousseau</i>, Vol. 8, 1912, pp. 131-160. He is strongest on the early part of the nineteenth century and writes, p. 156, "Ainsi Rousseau, qui, en 1800, était considers en Angleterre meme par ses ennemis, comme le plus enchanteur des écrivains, était, en 1835, tombé dans 1'opinion publique au point d'être regardé comme méprisable, indigne d'être cité par les gens qui se respectaient et d'être lu autrement qu'en cachette."</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A14">A14</div><div class="annotext">John Morley, <i>Rousseau</i> (2nd. ed., 1878, London: Macmillan and Co., 1910).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A15">A5</div><div class="annotext">Ibid., vol. 2, p. 192; cf., p. 151. On Morley, the fullest recent study is by D.A. Hamer, John <i>Morley: Liberal Intellectual in Politics</i> (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Edward Alexander's book, <i>John Morley</i> (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972), gives a concise exposition of Morley's major works.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A16">A16</div><div class="annotext">Morley tried to show positive aspects in Rousseau's relation to Therese Levaseur (Vol. 1, pp. 95-131), and he dealt sympathetically with Rousseau during the years of persecution between 1762 and 1766. In these situations his man was down, and propping him up would be safe. Morley did not, however, make a serious effort to comprehend Rousseau's development during his early years, and, in retrospect, Morley was insufficiently critical of apparent evidence concerning Rousseau's relations to Diderot and Grimm. Overall, however, Morley succeeded in creating an appearance of sound evenhandedness in writing on Rousseau. To some in Morley's immediate audience, Rousseau was so beyond the pale that the act of writing a book on his life, an ambitious book crafted to be read, was itself a dangerous form of rehabilitation. Thus a reviewer in <i>The Saturday Review:</i> "for our own part, we cannot help thinking that the personal history of this unhappy creature belongs to the order of things which it is as well to leave underground, and to stir as little as possible" (Jan. 31, 1874, p. 152). The ground having been stirred, the reviewer proceeded to try to convince readers to put Rousseau back underground, concluding, "done into plain prose, Rousseau becomes not only an exceedingly contemptible, but really a very commonplace, humbug.... He was a lazy, selfish, dirty, lying, canting, ill-conditioned vagabond, who shirked honest work, accepted alms and snarled at the hands that fed him, and whined and raved against the world because he was himself such a nasty and ignoble creature" (p. 154). Against such a background, Morley's book could easily appear as a standard work of dispassionate scholarship. As late as 1912, Edmund Gosse could still praise it in the highest terms in "Rousseau en Angleterre au XIXe siècle," op. cit. (n. 11), p. 159. Gosse did note, however, that "ce qui est assez curieux, c'est que le livre de Morley, bien qu'il ait eu un trés grand succés de vente, n'ait guére réussi—ranimer en Grande-Bretagne l'intéret pour l'étude de Rousseau." A close reading of Morley's <i>Rousseau</i>, however, shows that such a revitalization was not Morley's intent.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A17">A17</div><div class="annotext">There are some interesting reflections on what it would mean to hold someone like Rousseau to be insane in a strict meaning of the word in a three-part review of Morley's <i>Rousseau</i> in <i>The Literary World</i>, April 11, 25, and May 2, 1873, esp. p. 265 (April 25).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A18">A8</div><div class="annotext">Morley, <i>Rousseau</i>, op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 192-5.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A19">A9</div><div class="annotext">Peter Gay, in his useful bibliographical essay, "Reading About Rousseau," <i>The Party of Humanity</i> (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), esp. pp. 217-8 on Morley, notes the ill effects on the understanding of Rousseau's thought of the nineteenth-century proclivity to partisanship, pro and con. See also the remark by Gosse quoted above in n. 14. After the first wave of translations in the 1760' and 1770's, there were virtually no translations of Rousseau into English until the end of the nineteenth-century, judging from Jean Sénelier's <i>Biblioqraphie générale des oeuvres de J.-J. Rousseau</i> (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950), a not entirely reliable source. The intention embodied in the late nineteenth-century translations of Emile will be discussed below.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A20">A20</div><div class="annotext">Morley, <i>Rousseau</i>, op. cit. (n. 12), Vol. 1, p. 88-9: "Rousseau was a man of singular genius, and he set an extraordinary mark on Europe, but this mark would have been very different if he had ever mastered any one system of thought, of if he had ever fully grasped what systematic thinking means.... In short, Rousseau has distinctions in abundance, but the distinction of knowing how to think, in the exact sense of that term, was hardly among them...." Ibid., p. 186: "Rousseau was always apt to think in a slipshod manner. He sensibly though illogically accepted wholesome practical maxims, as if they flowed from theoretical premises that were in truth utterly incompatible with them." Vol. 2, p. 137: "Let us here remark that it was exactly what strikes us as the desperate absurdity of the assumptions of the <i>Social Contract</i>, which constituted the power of that work, when it accidentally fell into the hands of men who surveyed a national system wrecked in all its parts. The <i>Social Contract</i> is worked out precisely in that fashion which, if it touches men at all, makes them into fanatics."</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A21">A21</div><div class="annotext"><i>The American Journal of Education</i>, Vol. 5, 1858, pp. 459. The introductory material (pp. 459-462) is unsigned and not distinguished in format from the translation from Raumer on Rousseau, pp. 463-485. It is clearly not from Raumer's much more extensive and accurate introductory material; see, Karl von Raumer, <i>Geschichte der Pädagogik vom wiederaufblühen klassischer Studien bis auf unsere Zeit</i> (5th ed., 3 vols., Gétersloh: Verlag von G. Bertelsmann, 1879), vol. 2, pp. 153-180. Richard Emmons Thursfield, in his excellent study, <i>Henry Barnard's American Journal of Education</i> (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1945), p. 145, n. 22, attributes it to Barnard. The exposition in these pages is extremely compressed and the tone is prophylactic, and there are quite a number of inaccuracies; for instance, Rousseau lived at the Hermitage "about ten years" and he composed the <i>Discourse on Inequality</i> while visiting Geneva; in Venice he lived "a shamelessly vicious life" and Madame de Warens found Rousseau employment as a tutor because she was "disgusted by his unfaithfulness" to her, and so on. If these pages were by Barnard, an eyebrow might be raised in doubt over his ability as an historian.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A22">A22</div><div class="annotext"><i>The American Journal of Education</i>, Vol. 5, 1858, pp. 485.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A23">A23</div><div class="annotext">Jean Jacques Rousseau, <i>Emile: or, Concerning Education</i> (Jules Steeg, ed., Eleanor Worthington, trans., New York: D.C. Heath & Co., 1883), pp. 6-7. The selections from <i>Émile</i> are presented under numerous subheadings, which broke up Rousseau's unfolding of his principles as he followed them through a process of hypothetical practice, and the moral theory on which his educational views were based is greatly de-emphasized.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A24">A24</div><div class="annotext">See R.L. Archer, ed., <i>Rousseau on Education</i> (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912), and William Boyd, ed., <i>Emile for Today</i> (London: William Heinemann, 1956; reprinted as William Boyd, trans. and ed., The <i>EMILE of Jean Jacques Rousseau: Selections</i> (New York: Teachers College Press, 1962). Both Archer's and Boyd's versions are a considerable improvement of Steeg's. They nevertheless still accentuate particulars of practice over the informing principles. There is a basic dilemma for anyone trying to abridge Emile: to preserve Rousseau's discussion of his ideas while cutting the book radically in length, one would need to turn it into an abstract set of reflections leaving out almost all Rousseau's exemplifying strategies of working with Emile. <i>Émile</i> may seem digressive, but it is a work from which it is hard to drop anything without serious loss to the whole.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A25">A25</div><div class="annotext">William H. Payne, trans., <i>Rousseau's EMILE or Treatise on Education</i> (1892) (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1911). See p. xxxviii for the degree of abridgment. Ellwood P. Cubberley, <i>Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education</i> (2nd ed., New York: The Macmillan Co., 1904), p. 230 called this the standard translation, although he preferred Steeg's for teaching purposes.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A26">A26</div><div class="annotext">For Harris, see Ibid, pp. vii-xvi, esp. p. xv. For Payne, p. xxxvii.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A27">A27</div><div class="annotext">Payne did not clearly mark in the text where he made omissions; these can be traced fairly easily, however, by making a paragraph by paragraph comparison with Bloom's text, op. cit., n. 1. Payne's first major omission comes on page 12 of his <i>Émile</i>, where ten paragraphs in which Rousseau explained the moral psychology basic to his view that mothers, not nurses, should nurse their children. On page 28, Payne left out several paragraphs concerning infant language, including an important line that shows that Rousseau was in fact thinking, very early in the educational process, about education for sound social involvement "from these tears that we might think so little worthy of attention is born man's first relation to all that surrounds him; here is formed the first link in that long chain of which the social order is formed." (Bloom, trans., <i>Émile</i>, op. cit., n. 1, p. 65. On page 33, Payne omitted a paragraph in which <i>amour-propre</i> was first introduced, and what follows, which begins "this principle once known...," is unintelligible since the principle referred to is in the omitted paragraph. On page 46, nineteen paragraphs were omitted in which Rousseau started to explain his conception of happiness, one of the most important concepts in the work. On page 58, Payne omitted another paragraph dealing with <i>amour-propre</i> and amour de soi. On page 63, fourteen paragraphs were dropped in which Rousseau discussed the formation of the passions and introduced Emile to the idea of property. On pages 65-7, there are numerous omissions, together some fifteen paragraphs, all of which greatly weakens Rousseau's discussion of moral education. The general effect of the omissions in pages 46-67 were to strip from <i>Émile</i> Rousseau's moral philosophy, to trivialize the principle of negative education into a mere precept against prematurely stocking the child's mind with knowledge that he could neither use nor comprehend. From Payne's Emile, one cannot reflect on the relation of education to happiness or to virtue, and one cannot understand what Rousseau had to say about the dangers of a corrupting education. On page 88, two paragraphs were excised again dealing with the corruption of character. There then follows a long stretch in which most of the omissions compress examples relating to the development of Emile's intellectual capacities. On page 150, the conclusion to the long example of the magician and the duck was dropped, a typical omission—the excised reprimand of the tutor by the magician was very important to Rousseau's development of his ideas about how Emile should be prepared to enter the moral world and such omissions made it easier to uphold the cliché the Rousseau was an anti-social individualist.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A28">A28</div><div class="annotext">Robert Herbert Quick, <i>Essays on Educational Reformers</i> (1868) (2nd ed., New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1890, 1917), pp. 239-272. Quick, pp. 272-4, in keeping with the prevailing opinion, was careful to warn that Rousseau was confused about morality.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A9">A29</div><div class="annotext">Thomas Davidson, <i>Rousseau and Education According</i> to Nature ("The Great Educators," New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1898, 1902).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A30">A30</div><div class="annotext">Gabriel Compayré, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Education From Nature</i> ("Pioneers in Education," R.P. Jago, trans., New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1907). Despite the similarity of titles chosen for their books by Davidson and Compayré, the two works were almost diametrically opposed in underlying conception; Davidson's was a sustained effort to show what was wrong with Rousseau, Compayré's study was written "less to criticize Rousseau than to bring to light the treasures of abiding truth which he has, as it were, buried in a book described truly by him as 'the most useful and considerable' of his writings." (p. 4).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A31">A31</div><div class="annotext">The best of the text-books from this era, and the best of the text-book discussions of Rousseau, was Paul Monroe, <i>A Text-Book in the History of Education</i> (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1905, 1920), pp. 547-577. Monroe recommended Payne's translation of Emile, and relied heavily on Morley and Davidson, see, bibliography, p. 584. The gist of Monroe's presentation was that Rousseau was none too consistent and that his doctrine of negative education would harmfully weaken moral education, but that Rousseau was of great importance because he made people attend to education as a process of development, to the possibility of simplifying education, and to put a positive valuation on the child.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A32">A32</div><div class="annotext">Davidson, <i>Rousseau and Education According to</i> Nature, op. cit., n. 27, p. 73.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A33">A33</div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 3.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A34">A34</div><div class="annotext">Ibid., pp. 119-120.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A35">A35</div><div class="annotext">For the first <i>Discours</i>, see Morley,, <i>Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. , vol. 1, pp. 132-154. Morley, of course, was not enthusiastic about the piece, but he did give a reasonably full exposition of it, and noting its obvious faults, stressed certain positive things in it. Morley's discussion of <i>La nouvelle</i> Heloise is in vol. 2, pp. 20-55. It is interesting that Morley separated his discussion of this work from the chapters devoted to the <i>Social Contract</i> and Emile, which are quite different in tone, even though the three works were published within a year or so of each other, and work on them overlapped. Between <i>La nouvelle Heloise</i> and the other two great works Morley gave an account of the persecution Rousseau underwent in the years following publication of Emile. In this section, Morley spoke highly of the ''Lettre—Monseigneur de Beaumont" (pp. 83ff) and the <i>Letters from the Mountain</i> (pp. 103ff): the former was "a masterpiece of dignity and uprightness" and the latter "a long but extremely vigorous and adroit rejoinder." We see Morley here taking considerable liberty with the chronology of his subject, a liberty that made sense only rhetorically in setting <i>Rousseau</i> up for a climatic critique of Rousseau's major work and the denouement of Rousseau's decline into paranoia.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A36">A36 </div><div class="annotext">See Morley, <i>Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. , vol. 1, pp. 154-186, esp. pp. 171-180. That Rousseau had explicitly created a thought experiment in the second <i>Discourse</i>, could only have been overlooked intentionally by Morley, in order to set up his strictures, pp. 171-2, against purported weaknesses in Rousseau's method. Had Morley included what Rousseau said about the <i>Discourse</i> being <i>hypothetical</i> history, Morley would have been forced to discuss Rousseau's method far more carefully, and what followed, pp. 172-180, would have been patently gratuitous.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A37">A37 </div><div class="annotext">Morley, <i>Rousseau</i>, vol. 2, pp. 119-154 for the first movement, pp. 154-183 for the second, and pp. 183-196 for the third, and p. 183 for the quotation.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A38">A38</div><div class="annotext">Davidson, <i>Rousseau and Education According to</i> Nature, op. cit., n. , p. 177.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A39">A39</div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 147. It is interesting that Davidson did not criticize Pestalozzi for similar illogicality and immorality, even though Pestalozzi argued it much more explicitly, contending that social mores and insensitive legislation were the real cause of a great deal of infanticide; see Thomas Davidson, A <i>History of Education</i> (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900), pp. 229-232. Neither Rousseau nor Pestalozzi were seeking to substitute mere social engineering for ethical action; they simply sought to define human situations so that the ethical grounds for action could be put to the right people in the right way. They would both hold that in many situations, Davidson's type of moralizing, while ethically valuable, was directed smugly by those favored by unjust, destructive, immoral conditions against those who paid the price—physician, heal thyself! For Pestalozzi's views on this, see his <i>Über Gesezgebung und Kindermord</i> (1783) in <i>Sämtliche Werke</i> (Vol. 9, Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1930, pp. 1-181.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A40">A40 </div><div class="annotext">Davidson, <i>Rousseau and Education According to</i> Nature, op. cit., n. , p. 138.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A41">A41 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 168.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A42">A42 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 91.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A43">A43 </div><div class="annotext">See Gustave Lanson, <i>Histoire de la Littérature</i> Française (New edition edited by Paul Tuffrau, Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1951, esp. pp. 773-803; Eugene Ritter, <i>La famille et la jeunesse de J.-J. Rousseau</i> (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1896); Frederika Macdonald, <i>Jean Jacques Rousseau: A New Criticism</i> (2 vols., London: Chapman and Hall, 1906). These three authors were among the life members of the Société Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which began publishing it <i>Annales</i> in 1905, annual volumes which included substantial articles and sometimes whole books, as well as a great deal of bibliographical material. Of course, the willingness to read Rousseau with care in an attempt to come to terms with his thought did not take hold suddenly and universally. Jules Lemaitre's <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau</i> (Paris: Colman-Lévy, 1907) was very much in the <i>ad hominem</i> tradition.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A44">A44 </div><div class="annotext">See William Boyd, <i>The Minor Educational Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i> (1910) (New York: Teachers College Press, 1962); Jean Jacques Rousseau, <i>Émile</i> (Barbara Foxley, trans., 1911) (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1961); William Boyd, <i>The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 4; and R.L. Archer, ed., <i>Rousseau on Education</i>, op. cit., n. 22.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A45">A45 </div><div class="annotext">William Boyd, <i>The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 4, p. v.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A6">A46 </div><div class="annotext">Sir Henry Maine, <i>Ancient Law</i>, p. 76, quoted in Boyd, op. cit, n. 4, p. 349-350, n. 1.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A47">A47 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., pp. 1-7. Compare to this the ability of Ritter, fifteen years earlier, in <i>La famille et la jeunesse de J.-J. Rousseau,</i>, op. cit., n. 41, to bring these familial influences much more fully to the surface. Michel Launay's first chapter, "L'éducation politique d'un enfant du peuple: le fils de l'horloger (1712-1728)," in his marvelous study, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau, écrivain politique (1712-1762)</i>, (Grenoble: A.C.E.R., 1971), pp. 13-65, sets a standard of careful elucidation of influences that shows how much will be lost by lazy scholars who pass easily over Rousseau's first years.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A48">A48 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 14.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A49">A49 </div><div class="annotext">See Ibid., pp. 29-38. Compare these pages by Boyd with the much richer examination of chapter by Pierre Maurice Masson, "L'autodidacte et son 'Magasin d'idées'," in his <i>La Religion de J.J. Rousseau</i> (3 vols., Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1916), vol. 1, pp. 83-129.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A50">A50 </div><div class="annotext">J.W.v. Goethe, <i>Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship</i> (1795) (Thomas Carlyle, trans., New York: Collier Books, 1962) p. 492.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A51">A51 </div><div class="annotext">William Boyd, <i>The Educational Theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 4, p. 120.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A52">A52 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 66.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A53">A53 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 69.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A54">A54 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 122.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A55">A55 </div><div class="annotext">See Ibid., pp. 126, 129, 136, 144-6, 149-150, 154, 156, and so on.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A56">A56 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 189.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A57">A57 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. vii. On pp. 300-301, Boyd quoted Caird on the importance of Rousseau in setting off the democratic movement in Europe, Rousseau's principal positive contribution in the view of both, and on p. 335, Boyd quoted Caird to support his basic criticism of Rousseau, that he did not adequately recognize that spirit is distinctively human and because of it human life can not be treated solely naturally. "Man belongs to the natural world.... But even then [in childhood] he is more that natural. He is spiritual, and therefore not a simple product of growth but the outcome of a free activity which curbs and checks the natural impulses in the interests of a higher life." (p. 335) What is Book Four of Emile all about if not the process by which, through free activity, one enters the moral realm? In referring to Caird, Boyd was citing the essay "Rousseau" in Caird's <i>Essays on Literature</i> (1892) (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1968), pp. 103-136, hardly the foundation of Caird's reputation.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A58">A58 </div><div class="annotext">Stanley E. Ballinger, "The Natural Man: Rousseau," in Paul Nash, Andreas M. Kazamias, and Henry J. Perkinson, eds., <i>The Educated Man: Studies in the History of Educational Thought</i> (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 234.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A59">A59 </div><div class="annotext">So far as I have been able to trace, Boyd's book <i>keep working on this</i> was not widely reviewed. There was a perfunctory notice of it in <i>Annales</i>, 8(1912), p. 326. Lewis Flint Anderson gave it a positive review in The <i>Journal of Educational Psychology</i>, Vol. 111, No. 9, November 1912, pp. 531-3.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A60">A60 </div><div class="annotext">Macdonald extensively reviews the development of critical opinion on Rousseau's character in the first two parts of her study, <i>Jean Jacques Rousseau: A New Criticism</i>, op. cit., n. 41, Vol. 1, pp. 1-119. Georges Roth, in his introduction to <i>Histoire de Madame de Montbrillant: Les pseudo-Mémoires de Madame D'Epinay</i>, op. cit., n. 8, Vol. 1, pp. xxxiv-1, gives a somewhat more dispassionate, but telling, review of the matter. In an appendix to <i>The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i> (1915) (2 vols., New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), Vol. 2, pp. 537-559, gives a very good summary of Macdonald's argument, calling attention to the significance of it for interpretations of Rousseau. Gaspard Vallette, one of the leading figures in the Société Jean-Jacques Rousseau, wrote an extensive review of Macdonald's work in <i>Annales</i>, III (1907), pp. 256-267. The issue, at bottom, concerned Rousseau's break with the Diderot-Grimm-d'Epinay circle in 1757 and Rousseau's persecution complex that ever-after plagued him. It is an. extremely tangled matter with respect to which the basic choice is to hold that Rousseau was an impossible character to maintain personal relations with, a very unstable ingratiate who took to accusing others of bad faith and the intent to defame in order to maintain the appearance of his own probity, at least to himself, or that, at a minimum, Frédéric-Melchoir Grimm, manipulated others, especially d'Epinay and Diderot, into perceiving Rousseau as something of a malevolent genius whose influence should be impeded and whose tranquility deserved to be upset. Immediate posterity seemed to hold for Rousseau; his Confessions were much more moving that Diderot's shrill accusations published soon after Rousseau's death. Grimm's collected <i>Correspondance littéraire</i>, published in 1812, and then six years later, the forged <i>Memoires</i> of Madame d'Epinay, tipped the scales, however, and opinion began to swing toward favoring the hypothesis that Rousseau was indeed fully at fault. Scrutiny of the manuscript of the <i>Memoires</i> was successfully avoided by their publishers, and by mid-century, Sainte-Beuve came out fully on the side of Grimm and d'Epinay: "when we read Mme. d'Epinay's <i>Memoires</i> on the one hand, and the <i>Confessions</i> on the other, it is clear that the letters quoted in these works, which might help clarify the question, are differently reproduced in the two books; they were altered by one of the parties: someone lied. I do not think that it was Mme. d'Epinay. As for Grimm, his character emerges in a favorable light because of his very indifference" (Sainte-Beuve, "Grimm," as translated by Francis Steegmuller and Norbert Gutterman in <i>Sainte-Beuve: Selected Essays</i>, op. cit., n. 7, p. 174). Once the critical assumption became established that Rousseau's <i>Confessions</i> not only sometimes erred on matters of recollected fact, inevitable under the circumstances of composition, but were basically untrustworthy, having been composed subtly to alter the historical record and that d'Epinay's <i>Memoires</i> were trustworthy, it seemed to follow then that Grimm's accusations, and Diderot's accusations, and the accusations by many others, were also trustworthy. In such a situation, the <i>Confessions</i>, themselves, became very damaging to Rousseau, for they added, through revelations such as the deposit of his infants in a foundling home, to the evidence against Rousseau without contributing to a comprehension of him on the part of critics who were entirely convinced that comprehending him was impossible. See Arthur M. Wilson's excellent work <i>Diderot</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), esp. pp. 254-9, 291-306, 608-11, and 691-2, for a careful presentation of the problem from Diderot's point of view, taking full account of presently available evidence.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A61">A61 </div><div class="annotext">For such assessments see the work of Roth, Vaughan, and Vallette cited in the previous note.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A62">A62 </div><div class="annotext">Boyd, <i>The Educational Thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>., op. cit., n. , pp. 52-3, and n. 1, p. 53 for the citation of Macdonald.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A63">A63 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., pp. 69-70, 108-117, 191 n. 1. In addition, Boyd, p. 68, n. 2, drew on Grimm's <i>Correspondance littéraire</i> for testimony concerning Rousseau's character with no hint that there may have been a strong bias to this testimony.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A64">A64 </div><div class="annotext">See William Boyd, <i>The Minor Educational Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 42, pp. 102-4.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A65">A65 </div><div class="annotext">Peter Gay, "Reading about Rousseau," <i>The Party of Humanity: Essays in the French Enlightenment</i> (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), pp. 211-238, esp. pp. 222-223.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A66">A66 </div><div class="annotext">See V.D. Musset-Pathay, <i>Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de J.-J. Rousseau</i>, op cit., n. 5; Gustave Lanson, <i>Histoire de la Littérature Française</i>, op. cit., n. 41; Ernst Cassirer, <i>The Question of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i> (Peter Gay, trans., Bloomington: Midland Books, 1954, 1963); C.E. Vaughan, <i>The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 58; Pierre Maurice Masson, <i>La Religion de J.J. Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 47; Albert Schinz, <i>La Pensée de Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Essai d'interprétation nouvelle</i> (2 vols., Northampton: Smith College, 1929); Robert Derathé, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la science politique de son temps</i> (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1950); Martin Rang, <i>Rousseaus Lehre vom Menschen</i> (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959; Victor Goldschmidt, <i>Anthropologie et Politique: Les Principes du Système de Rousseau</i> (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1974); and Michel Launay, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau, écrivain politique (1712-1762)</i>, op. cit., n. 46.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A67">A67 </div><div class="annotext">William Boyd, trans. and ed., <i>The EMILE of Jean Jacques Rousseau: Selections</i>, op. cit., n. 22, p. 197.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A68">A68 </div><div class="annotext">To my mind, the best discussion of Rousseau in the general texts is that in <i>Doctrines of the Great Educators</i> by Robert R. Rusk (now as revised for the 5th edition by James Scotland, New York: St. Martin's Press, 19799, pp. 100-135. It does not rely heavily on Boyd and draws from a wide range of sources, although those sources do not indicate any systematic command of the scholarship on Rousseau. Also see Robert Ulich's <i>History of Educational Thought</i> (Revised edition, New York: American Book Company, 1968), pp. 211-224. Good, but docile to Boyd's influence is Stanley E. Ballinger's "The Natural Man: Rousseau," in Nash, Kazamias, and Perkinson, eds., <i>The Educated Man: Studies in the History of Educational Thought</i>, op. cit., n. 56, pp. 224-246.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A69">A69 </div><div class="annotext">There are five studies from France and Germany that are important works on Rousseau's educational thought that are almost never cited by American and English writers on the subject: as a background work, Georges Snyders, <i>La Pédagogie en France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles</i> (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965); two French works on Rousseau's educational theory—André Ravier, <i>L'éducation de l'homme nouveau</i> (2 vols., Lyon: Boasc Frères M. & L. Riou, 1941) and Jean Chateau, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Sa Philosophie de l'éducation</i> (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1962); and two substantial studies of Rousseau by German educational historians—Hermann Röhrs, <i>Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Vision und Wirklichkeit</i> (1956) (2nd ed., Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1966) and Martin Rang, <i>Rousseaus Lehre vom Menschen</i>, op. cit., n. 64. Ulich listed Chateau's work in his bibliography in <i>History of Educational Thought</i>, op. cit., n. 66, p. 426, but outside of that none of these appear anywhere that I have been able to locate.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A70">A70 </div><div class="annotext">See the works cited in n. 2, above, especially those by Masters, Shklar, Perkins, Ellenburg, and Ellis, as well as Cook's dissertation cited in n. 4. Most of these, of course, are too recent to appear anywhere but in the new edition of <i>Doctrines of the Great Educators</i>, op. cit., n. 66.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A71">A71 </div><div class="annotext">See, C. E. Vaughan, <i>The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau</i>, op. cit., n. 58.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A72">A72 </div><div class="annotext">See Volume III of the Pléiade edition of Rousseau's <i>Oeuvres complètes</i>, <i>Du contrat social -- écrits politiques</i> (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1964). This edition is the standard scholarly edition, and its notes of immense use. One should also be aware, however, of Rousseau's <i>Oeuvres complètes</i> published in the Collection l'Intégrale (3 vols., Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1967, 1971). This edition usefully complements the Pléiade; it does not have extensive critical and interpretative notes to the texts, but it does present numerous texts and excerpts to which Rousseau was often responding, for instance, many of the polemics against the first <i>Discourse</i> and the text of Monseigneur de Beaumont's condemnation of Emile.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A73">A73 </div><div class="annotext">Jean-Jacques Rousseau, <i>Oeuvres completes</i> (4 vols., Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1959, 1964, 1964, and 196 ).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A74">A74 </div><div class="annotext">The first real effort along this line was James L. Axtell, ed., <i>The Educational Writings of John Locke: A Critical Edition</i> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A75">A75 </div><div class="annotext">That historians continually rewrite history is part of the lore of historiography. That the practice results from sound reasons is best explained by the great historicist historiographers. See especially R. G. Collingwood, <i>The Idea of History</i> (1946) (New York: Galaxy Books, 1956) and Wilhelm Dilthey, <i>Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesselschaft and der Geschichte</i> (1883) <i>(Gesammelte Schriften</i>, Vol. 1, Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1962).</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A76">A76 </div><div class="annotext">Bernard Bailyn, <i>Education in the Forming of American Society: Needs and Opportunities for Study</i> (1960) (New York: Vintage Books, n.d.), pp. 3-15.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A77">A77 </div><div class="annotext">Lawrence A. Cremin, <i>American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783</i> (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), passim., particularly, Book I, Part 1. For a thorough review of recent literature in the field, see Geraldine Joncich Clifford, "Education: Its History and Historiography," in Lee S. Shulman, ed., <i>Review of Research in Education,</i>, Vol. 4, <i>1976 </i>(Ithaca, IL: F. E. Peacock, 1977) pp. 210-267. In <i>The Wonderful World of Ellwood Patterson Cubberley: An Essay on the Historiography of American Education</i> (New York: Teachers College Press, 1965), Lawrence A. Cremin called attention to "the need for a radical revision in our understanding of Western educational history, one that would bring education back into the mainstream of more general developments. Thus, in place of Cubberley's emphasis on the 'pedagogical' greats of the nineteenth century—an emphasis he, in turn, borrowed from Barnard and Barnard's translations of Von Raumer—one might inquire into the broader educational influence of such men as Marx, Darwin, Hegel, Comte, Nietzsche, Ruskin, Fichte, Goethe, Arnold, and Mill." (n. 66, p. 70) In order to do this, we need to recognize that the undertaking is more radical than simply revising the field as it exists in English. Even as it pertains to "the pedagogical greats," scholarship in English has been sporadic and out of touch with far better work being done in German, French, Italian, and Spanish. To mount the inquiry Cremin calls for a field needs to be created, and for that to happen, a set of generating questions need to be put and means for the pursuit of them defined.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A78">A78 </div><div class="annotext">There is no sustained discussion of the historiography of educational thought in English. At first glance, William K. Medlin's <i>The History of Educational Ideas in the West</i> (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964), appears to be one, but it turns out to be more of a survey of the subject. Sir John Adams devoted a chapter to "The Historical Aspect of Educational Theory" in <i>The Evolution of Educational Theory</i> (London: Macmillan and Co., 1912), pp. 72-103, but this chapter, and the whole book, was more concerned with the philosophy of history than it was with historiography and its effects in defining the field have been modest. Of the general studies of the history of educational thought, most jump into a survey of the subject after, at most, brief prefaces that do little to illuminate the field. E. B. Castle's <i>Educating the Good Man: Moral Education in Christian</i> Times (1958) (New York: Collier Books, 1962) is an historiographically interesting work, but Castle said nothing more about its relation to the field than to indicate its kinship to <i>The Growth of Freedom in Education: A Critical Interpretation of some Historical</i> Views by W. J. McCallister, 2 vols., (1931) (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1971). Of fairly general works, the two last mentioned, along with Christopher Dawson's <i>The Crisis of Western Education</i> (1961) (Garden City: Doubleday Image Books, 1965), are the most significant attempts in English to pursue significant questions through the history of educational thought, but they do not give shape to a field of scholarship. A related area, of considerable significance to the history of educational thought, has taken on clear, scholarly form in English, namely the history of the classical tradition, and a sense of the difference between a field in definition and one out of it can be attained by comparing the above works and general texts in the history of educational thought with <i>The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries</i> by R. R. Bolgar (1954) (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964) and <i>The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influences on Western Literature</i> (1949) (New York: Galaxy Books, 1957). For the advanced state of the historiography of educational thought in German, see Klaus Schaller and Karl-H. Schafer, eds., <i>Bildungsmodelle and Geschichtlichkeit: Ein Reportorium zur Geschichte der Pädagogik</i> (Hamburg: Leibniz-Verlag, 1967), esp. 128-169.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A79">A79 </div><div class="annotext">In discussing the available literature in the field, I will mix together works done by British and American scholars, for most significant work has been available to anyone interested in it on both sides of the Atlantic. In discussing the institutionalization of the field, the definition of its uses, I will be primarily concerned with American patterns, although through the early stages of the process, approximately to World War I, the differences between the English and American patterns seem to me rather insignificant. It is my basic conviction that neither in America nor Great Britain is the history of educational thought a healthy field of scholarship and that the critique here mounted, although primarily directed at the situation in the United States, is basically valid for that in England as well. My impression, however, is that British scholars have contributed more solid work in the history of educational thought than have American, I suspect because British educationists fairly early became less isolated from high-level scholarship than did American educationists. I hold, however, that the field of educational history has not developed on either side of the Atlantic as it might for one basic reason, a failure to pursue a sufficiently demanding purpose for the field.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A80">A80 </div><div class="annotext">These emphases overlap within the early texts in the field. E. L. Kemp's <i>History of Education</i> (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1901) reflects a primary concern with the history of educational institutions, as does Frank Pierrepont Graves' more extended <i>History of Education</i>, 3 vols., (New York: Macmillan Co., 1909, 1910, 1913). Of works primarily concerned with the history of ideas about educational aims and practices, Grabriel Compayré's <i>History of Pedagogy</i>, W. H. Payne, trans., (Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1886), long held the field. So too, Robert Herbert Quick's <i>Essays on Educational Reformers</i> (1868, 2nd ed., 1890) (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1917) created the type concerned primarily with educational biographies. Joseph Payne's <i>Lectures on the History of Education</i> (London: Longmans, Greene, and Co., 1892) were primarily concerned with the history of didactic method. Ellwood P. Cubberley, in his <i>Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education</i> (New York: Macmillan Co., 1902), emphasized national school systems, particularly in the second half of the work. F. V. N. Painter, in <i>A History of Education</i> (1886) (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1908), made the rise of Protestantism an essential development in his account. Levi Seeley's <i>History of Education</i> (New York: American Book Company, 1899) and Thomas Davidson's <i>History of Education</i> (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900) both depicted the history of education as the story of mankind's conscious evolution, although Seeley's account was much more cluttered than was Davidson's. Of the pre-twentieth-century syntheses, the most balanced in its coverage was <i>The History of Modern Education</i> by Samuel G. Williams (1892) (Syracuse: C. W. Bardeen, 1886). Early in the twentieth century, Paul Monroe's <i>Text-Book in the History of</i> Education (New York: Macmillan Co., 1905) became the dominant text, at least in the United States.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A81">A81 </div><div class="annotext">Bailyn, <i>Education in the Forming of American Society</i> (1960), pp. 5-8, contrasted Davidson's <i>History of Education</i> and Eggleston's <i>Transit of Civilization</i>, remarking that the latter "was laid aside as an oddity, for it was irrelevant to the interests of the group then firmly shaping the historical study of American education," while the former was greeted with enthusiasm. Harry Hutton and Philip Kalisch have pointed out that Bailyn's comparison has at best rhetorical value, for Davidson's book, except in the eyes of Paul Monroe, was a dud; see "Davidson's Influence on Educational Historiography," <i>History of Education Quarterly</i>, VI, 4 (Winter 1966), pp. 79-87. The point here is simply that the early historians of education, who may have, as a sidelight to their work, firmly shaped the historical study of American education, really had an historical concern quite different from Bailyn's. To point this out is not to defend the quality of their achievements, but to define accurately their undertaking. Their main concern, for better or for worse, was not with the history of American education, but with the history of Western education, which was the staple course, the year-long introductory history of education, that they were all seeking to make the vehicle for enthusing educators with a sense of the dignity of their profession. The extent to which this course was taught can be gauged from Arthur 0. Norton, "The Scope and Aims of the History of Education," <i>Educational Review</i>, Vol. 27, May 1904, pp. 443-455, and Henry Suzzallo, "The Professional Use of the History of Education," <i>Proceedings of the Society of College Teachers of Education</i>, 1908, pp. 29-67.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A82">A82 </div><div class="annotext">See Jesse B. Sears and Adin D. Henderson, <i>Cubberley of Stanford</i> (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957), p. 119: 79,623 copies of <i>Public Education</i> through <i>1934;</i> 66,121 for <i>The History of Education</i> through 1939. It is unclear whether the latter figure includes sales for the <i>Brief History of Education</i> published in 1922. During these years, <i>The History of Education</i> had considerable competition, not only from Monroe's <i>Text-Book</i>, but also from William Boyd's <i>History of Western Education</i>, published in 1921, and Edward H. Reisner's <i>Historical Foundations of Modern Education</i>, published in 1931.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A83">A83 </div><div class="annotext">Bernard Bailyn, <i>Education in the Forming of American Society</i>, (1960), pp. 3-15, 53-58.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A84">A84 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., p. 9.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A85">A85 </div><div class="annotext">Bernard Bailyn, "Education as a Discipline, Some Historical Notes," in John Walton and James L. Kuethe, eds., <i>The Discipline of Education</i> (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), p. 131.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A86">A86 </div><div class="annotext">Lawrence A. Cremin, <i>The Wonderful World of Ellwood Patterson Cubberley</i> (New York: Teachers College Press, 1965), pp. 43-6.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A87">A87 </div><div class="annotext">Ibid., pp. 46-52.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A88">A88 </div><div class="annotext">Recent educational historians have failed to address the question of the relationship of the history of education to education effectively, with potentially serious results. As the argument of this study unfolds it will become increasingly clear that history, and the related disciplines in which real human activities are studied in real human settings, to wit, anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, social psychology, philosophy, are the best means for developing knowledge, purpose, and skill with respect to educational work. To anticipate the argument: from the very start, historians of education accepted a trivial conception of the relation of their endeavor to the study of education and to the education of educators. In the recent revitalization of the history of education, that trivial conception has been perpetuated, perhaps even trivialized further, and not only the historians, but all the practitioners of the human sciences, are laboring, and are being belabored, without an adequate conception of the significance of their work for the work of education. As a result, the questions they put in their research and teaching are less demanding, of themselves and others, than they could be, and the influence of their work, on themselves and others, is far less than it should be.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A89">A89 </div><div class="annotext">William W. Brickman complains of this parochialism in "Revisionism and the Study of the History of Education," <i>History of Education Quarterly</i>, 4(1964), p. 220.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A90">A90 </div><div class="annotext">Brickman, Ibid., pp. 211-4, rather disjointedly points out various classical, renaissance, and early modern trials at the history of education. These works, however interesting, are not what is important here. As a field of scholarship, the history of education started to develop in late-eighteenth-century Germany and took substantial form early in the nineteenth century. A scholarly field is not static, for its driving questions and leading sources can change as practitioners of it mutually develop and criticize their work, but a scholarly field is coherent and trans-personal, for at any time there must be at least partial consensus within a group of practitioners over what questions are relevant, what procedures are acceptable, and what purposes are significant. The field is, in a sense, the transpersonal, coherent cultivation, discussion, and development of the questions, procedures, and purposes in force at any time. The first two chapters of Carl Diehl's excellent study, <i>Americans and German Scholarship 1770-1870</i> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978 , pp. 7-48, give a good sense of how German philology came to cohere into a field of scholarship. Stephen Toulmin's <i>Human Understanding</i> is a very important discussion, in a much broader context, of the concept of a field in relation to the very possibility of knowledge.</div><hr> | ||
< | <div class="anno" ID="A91">A91 </div><div class="annotext">These generalizations anticipate results that will be documented in the ensuing chapters. Suffice it for now to note here that Werner Jaeger wrote <i>Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture</i>, 3 vols., (Gilbert Highet, trans., Vol. 1, 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1945, 1943, 1944) with definite educational purposes in mind, stated clearly in the introduction to Vol. 1, pp. xiii-xxix, and that these were the same purposes he had voiced speaking directly to the educational issues of the time in "Humanismus and Jugenbildung" (1921) in Jaeger, <i>Humanistische Reden and Vortrage</i> (2nd ed., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1960), pp. 41-67.</div><hr> | ||
<h2>Bibliogra[phy</h2> | <h2>Bibliogra[phy</h2> | ||