CHAPTER XIV. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM WITHIN. Not even the slightest connected account of the inner life of the Dutch American school has come down to us. If only some schoolboy had written his experiences to his grandfather back in the Netherlands, or if some master had in a long gossipy letter to a Holland friend related the trials of school keeping in the new country, we might be able to present to the reader a more satisfactory account of the school as master and pupil saw it. In the absence of even one picture made on the spot, nothing is left but to piece out an account from scattered hints, here a little and there a little, binding the whole together with our general knowledge of Holland custom. The school hours in Dutch America were almost universally from 8 to 11 in the forenoon and from 1 to 4 in the afternoon. The annual calendar, however, is not so simple. Apparently, the school was kept through the year, that is, both in summer and in winter. The specific statements are not so conclusive as might be wished; but in the light of the Holland custom we have no difficulty in accepting the statement as made. The pupils were free "on festival days— and according to custom on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons.' This again was the rule in the Holland schools. The "festival days" probably varied in different places, but quite likely most of the children of New Netherland enjoyed St. Nicholas day (December 6), Christmas, New Year, Twelfthnight, Easter, Pinkster (Whitsuntide), and Kermis. The Dutch custom both in Holland and America was to hold school six days in the week, although by 1773 Flatbush had come to the present American practice of "five days in each week. 113 The schoolhouse presents a most striking contrast to those known now to most of America. Almost invariably school was held in the 1 The only exceptions found were in New York church schools, where in 1726 the first morning hour was nine in summer and nine-thirty in winter (Eccl. Rec., p. 2338); and in 1733, where the winter morning hours were from eight-thirty to eleven-thirty (Ibid., p. 2626). See minutes of the orphan masters, ii, 115; Flatbush town records, 105: 207, 107: 60; Pratt, op. cit., p. 67; Strong, op. cit., p. 110; Flatbush consistory minutes, pp. 39, 49. 2 If only there were sufficient pupils at New Lotts (1681) and Flatbush in 1681 and 1682. These are interesting cases in that the year was divided into two parts; one more formal in charge of the master, the other less formal in charge of his wife (see pp. 173, 187.). On the calendar in general, see N. Y. Col. Doc., i, 155; Flatbush town records; 105: 207, 107: 60; Flatbush town consistory minutes, pp. 40, 49, 61; Eccl. Rec., pp. 2338, 2626, 4261. a Eccl. Rec., p. 2626. 4 Griffis, The Story of New Netherland, p. 150. For the Synod of Dort church days, see Eccl. Rec., p. 4224. Flatbush town records, 107: 60 (sec. 4). master's residence. The size of the schoolhouse appears to us ridiculous even for the few pupils then to be accommodated. We saw that the burgomasters at New Amsterdam petitioned in 1662 for a school lot 30 by 15 feet, and that the town of New Haerlem in 1680 built "the townshouse for the voorlezer" 22 feet long and 20 feet wide. The largest schoolhouse noted was the one proposed at Beverwyck, 34 by 19 feet. When we recall that these measurements included possibly one or more living rooms in addition to the schoolroom we can only wonder. As to the internal arrangement of the schoolroom and its furnishings we can say but little from American data. We may suppose that, following the Holland custom, the room contained the master's chair and desk and a number of benches probably without backs. The pupils were seated in such a way that the oldest were nearest the master, and the girls were farthest off, sometimes in a corner. Tables, presumably for writing, were also provided; certainly at Flatbush, if not generally. We have just said that the girls were probably separated from the boys. The question has been raised as to whether girls did in fact attend these schools. The answer seems clear. The Holland custom was most certainly for girls to attend school. The strong presumption would then be that the same custom prevailed in New Netherland, and only positive evidence to the contrary could make us doubt it. Curiously enough there has appeared no explicit statement prior to 1733 that girls did attend the Dutch schools of America. At that date it was required in the New York school that "the school children, both boys and girls," should recite on Saturday forenoon the appropriate "Lord's Day." An equally explicit reference and even more significant, coming as it does from a more purely Dutch center, is the testimony of Hamilton in his Itinerarium (1744) that in the school in Albany there were "about 200 scholars, boys and girls." But if there be no earlier explicit statement, evidence on the question is not lacking. The marriage contracts and wills, in particular, contain much pertinent material. It was the Dutch law that before a widow or widower, the parent of minor children, should remarry, guardians-other than the contracting parties should be appointed for the children, and the affiant parties should appear before official orphan masters and make formal agreement regarding the care of the child or children and of the property to them due. Quite a number of such marriage contracts are on 1 The only certain exception noted to the contrary was at New Haerlem. See p. 161. 3 See p. 119. 4 See p. 192. Eccl. Rec., p. 2626. Loc. cit., p. 78. 7 See Minutes of the Orphan Masters, passim. record, and in them we find definite references to the education of girls. In 1632 a contract was drawn promising with regard to Resel [Rachel] and Jan "both minor children," "to keep them at school, to teach them a trade." A boy and a girl are here to be treated alike. The same is true of the contract drawn by D: Everardus Bogardus and Annitje Jans. The children are Sarah, aged 16; Tryntje, aged 13; Lytje, aged 11; Jan, aged 9; and Annitje, aged 5. The affiants here promise "to keep them at school and let them learn reading, writing, and a good trade." In another contract of the same year, the children are both girls, Catrina and Johanna, and the promise is to "let them learn to read and write and have them taught a trade.” The reader will note that even in this case, where only girls are concerned, a trade is none the less to be taught. So of Aelje Claes (1643), "to clothe her, to send her to school, to let her learn reading and writing and a good trade." Sometimes accomplishments more evidently feminine are mentioned; thus, in 1663, "instruct her in God's word, let her go to school, have her taught to sew.' " Thus, according to the marriage contracts, girls were expected to go to school and to learn to read and write. We may add that in no marriage contract examined has there been found any discrimination against girls and in favor of boys, either in the fact or the extent of schooling. So far as this evidence is concerned the sexes are on an equal footing. Quite similar testimony appears in the wills of the period, though here the evidence is not quite so satisfactory as the foregoing, because of the later dates and the consequent uncertainty as to whether we have the pure Dutch tradition. However, since the English custom discriminated against girls,' we need not on the score of possible English influence discount to any great extent the force of the argument. In the will of Christopher Hoogland, of New York (1676), it was said of four boys and one girl, "they are to be caused to learn to read and write, and a trade by which they may live." Similarly in 1680 Cornelius van Bursam, of New York, gave instructions to his wife: "She is to maintain my daughter Anna decently, and cause her 1 N. Y. Col. MSS., i., 6. 2 Names ending in je are feminine. 3 N. Y. Col. MSS., ii, 20. ♦ Ibid., p. 22. • Ibid., p. 64. • Minutes of the Orphan Masters, i, 231. Other similar references that refer to the education of girls are: N. Y. Col. Mss., iii, 159; Minutes of the Orphan Masters, i, 25, 28; ibid., ii, 20, 24; Early Records of Albany, 327, 346, 391; Flatbush town records, 105: 68, 180, 184, 185. Contrary to statements sometimes made, not all such marriage contracts contained specific educational clauses, e. g., Early Records of Albany, pp. 47-48, 49-50, 311; Flatbush town records, 105: 85; N. Y. Col. MSS., 1, 231, and others. None of these here noted are later than 1670. 7 For instance, Thomas Foster, of Jamaica, says in his will of 1663: "My children are to be taught to read English well, and my son to write when they doe come of age." N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1892: 19. For other instances of discrimination, see ibid., 1900: 174, 301, 309. 8 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Pub., 1892: 142-3. being taught reading and writing and a trade, by which she may live." John Hendrickse van Bommell, of New York, included in his will of 1689: "My daughter Lyntie is to be maintained and put to school and learning until she is twenty years of age or is married." wills seem to show the same attitude toward the education of girls that was found in the marriage contracts. These While we should have been glad to find in the records of the Dutch days some explicit reference to the school attendance of girls, still the existence of the Holland custom (dating in the case of Utrecht at latest from 1583), the desirability, if not the necessity, that the girls have their religious training in the school, the ample corroboration afforded by marriage contracts and wills, and the explicit reference to girls and boys in the New York school of 1733-all these seem to put it beyond a reasonable doubt that in the ordinary Dutch parochial school girls as well as boys attended. at least until they learned to read.3 Of the schoolmasters not much can be said. It would be desirable to know the extent of their learning, but little evidence is available. While no indication has been found that any of the parochial masters were university trained, there is no reference which would certainly disparage their learning. The few specimens of handwriting seen by the writer would indicate, on the whole, formed intellectual habits rather than the contrary. Jan Tibout presents the only exception.* We have noted from time to time what additional duties some of the masters carried along with their school duties. Almost universally the parish schoolmaster was also voorlezer and voorsanger. The only instances to the contrary were one at Albany and two at Flatbush," and these were not all certain. Somewhat more often was there a voorlezer who was not the schoolmaster. Several instances were noted at Albany and at Flatbush and possibly one at Schenectady." The instances of later New York where the voorlezer, or catechist, was not also schoolmaster are hardly to be mentioned; since at that time there were in New York several churches and but one Dutch schoolmaster. In the small villages the schoolmaster was regularly not only voorlezer and voorsanger, but he was also sexton and frequently either court messenger or clerk of the town court. We may suppose that he also drew legal papers. This is so inherently probable as hardly to need proof, but there is corroborative evidence in the records. 1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Pub., 1892, p. 120–1. 2 Ibid., 1893: 417-8. Other Dutch wills that bear on the question of the education of girls are found in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Pub., 1892: 161, 297-8, 342, 451; 1893: 275-6, 279, 294; 1900: 191, 259, 313; 1902: 122; Flatbush town records, 100: 90.▾ * See p. 229 for discussion of the illiteracy of women. • See p. 172. See pp. 120f 179, 181, 183. See pp. 120, 179, 211. The curriculum of the school has already been given in part; and we may here bring together the scattered statements. What might be called the official Dutch program for the colonies was that promulgated by the classis in 1636 in the instruction "for schoolmasters going to the East or West Indies": He is to instruct the youth-in reading, writing, cyphering, and arithmetic, with all zeal and diligence; he is also to implant the fundamental principles of the true Christian religion and salvation, by means of catechizing; he is to teach them the customary forms of prayers, and also accustom them to pray; he is to give heed to their manners and bring these as far as possible to modesty and propriety.1 This curriculum we may divide into three parts, the three R's, the religious training (the catechism and forms of prayers), and manners. The last, so far as appears, was to be taught incidentally; and nothing further about it is found in the American records. How far this curriculum was actually carried out needs to be considered; for school orders and school practice have not always agreed. Out of 30 (distinctly Dutch) marriage contracts studied, 20 specify the education to be given, and each of these stipulates reading and writing. In no case does reading or writing appear separately, and in no case does arithmetic or any other school study appear. (We may add that 11 of the 30 specify a trade; and in the case of 2 girls, sewing was mentioned). Out of 17 Dutch wills (prior to 1725) which refer to education, 9 specify reading and writing, again neither study appearing separately. One of these (1683) says arithmetic, and 10 say a trade. It would appear from this that, on the whole, reading and writing were counted necessary, but that arithmetic was not in the public consciousness as a required, or even a desirable study. To the same effect we may quote the Great Remonstrance that the children should be instructed "not only in reading and writing, but also in the knowledge and fear of the Lord." Again, the petition for a Latin school (1658) says of the youth that they are very numerous and "many of them can read and write." Similar statements appear in 8 of the 11 curricula of the Dutch villages (outside of New York City). In each we find reading and writing (with spelling in several instances). In two instances only, Albany in 1721 and Flatbush of 1773, does arithmetic appear. In the latter instance, the records say, “arithmetic, so far as it is possible for him, in case such is desired of him"3 but this is so near to the Revolution as to constitute the exception which proves the rule. In the account of the South River school in 1657, as it is given in the Ecclesiastical Records, the translator seems to think ciphering was implied, but a sufficient reason for this opinion does not appear.1 1 Eccl. Rec., p. 98. 2 Rec. of N. A., iii, 15–6. Flatbush town records, 107: 60. 4 Eccl. Rec., p. 402. |