point of Bismarck's career, in comparison with which it matters comparatively little what we think of even such important episodes as his long warfare with Rome, or his founding of the Triple Alliance, or his dealing with the Socialists, or his treatment by the present Emperor. Next to the establishing of the Empire, however, the contest with Rome was the hardest fought and most significant of his political contests. That Bismarck strained law and justice in order to crush the Ultramontanes is undeniable; his retreat from the war against the Pope merely abandoned those positions which had never been tenable, leaving him victorious in his main object of forbidding ecclesiastical interference in education. Personally Prince Bismarck was a fascinating man, witty and epigrammatic in conversation, warm in his affections, openminded on most subjects, eager to recognize good qualities in others, extremely happy in his family relations. One instinctively compares Bismarck and Gladstone in seeking to make a just judgment of either. Both were great statesmen; both were guided in life by a consistent pursuit of one aim; both changed radically their policies in pursuing that aim, and were accused by smaller men of inconsistency because they did so; both served their country faithfully and well; and to each the country served owes an incalculable debt. But here the parallel ends. Gladstone was the representative of democracy, Bismarck of absolutism; Gladstone was loyal first of all to the people, Bismarck first of all to an Em peror; Gladstone won his victories through peaceful agitation, Bismarck his by warGladstone by constitutional methods, Bismarck by, at least in one instance, setting the constitution at defiance; Gladstone's aim was the enlargement of popular liberties and the establishment of popular rights, Bismarck's the unification of separate provinces in one great empire. Gladstone was a man of ripened culture and persuasive eloquence who understood the popular thought, felt the impulses of the popular heart, saw more clearly than his fellows the true ideals half-consciously perceived by the people, and in expressing to them their own best life promoted it and guided them. Bismarck was a man of iron will, who believed that the people should be governed, not govern, who dared defy them because he had no faith in them, who framed his own ideal of a united Germany and loyally and nobly set himself to its achievement, but who, when it was achieved, was quite as ready to use all the power of the Empire which he had created to repress the life of the people who composed it. In foreign policy Bismarck was greatest; in domestic policy, Gladstone. Bismarck made an empire; Gladstone educated a people. Bismarck, by attempting to repress Socialism, made Germany the most Socialistic empire on the continent; Gladstone, by perceiving the best in Socialism, diverted it from revolution into progress, and converted the Chartists, whom Bismarck would have made Socialists, the nation's peril, into Liberals, the nation's hope. In every age and clime Live the monarchs of the brain: And their names have passed away, -Clinton Scollard. OF CHRISTOPHER DOCK.* Second Paper. By ROBERT J. ALEY. F COURSE with the beginners he used | ment-reading class. Here he was required the A-B-C method. Nothing else was to read a chapter, meditate upon its thought, then read other chapters or parts of chapters containing the same thought, then help sing a hymn treating of the theme, and then finally complete the task by committing to memory certain verses. known. It seems, however, that he mixed far more brains with it than was commonly done. He constantly tried by various devices to prevent the children learning the A, B, C's by rote. "When the child has recited, I ask it whether it can not show to me the letter with its finger. If I find that the child doesn't know, or is backward, I ask another in the same way or as many as there are. Whichever finger shows the letter first I take in my hand and hold it until I have made for that child a mark with chalk. Then I ask again for the other letters, and so on. The child who during the day has received the most marks has shown the most letters, and to this one I owe something; sometimes a flower painted upon paper, or a bird. But if there are several alike it is decided by lot. This gives the least discontent. This plan takes away from the backward something of their backwardness, which is a great hindrance to learning, and also increases their wish to go to school and their love for it." As soon as the letters were learned the children were put to spelling. Here Dock realized that the important thing was to gain the power to pronounce. He says: "The child gives me its book. I spell and it must pronounce. If it can not do it quickly another in the same way gives the pronunciation. In this way it learns to distinguish how it must be governed in pronunciation by the spelling and not by its own notions.” The day of text-books had not yet come. For reading the Bible was the one book. As soon as the teacher felt that the child's spelling and pronunciation would warrant it, the child became a member of the Testa *The first section of Professor Aley's article appeared in our August number.-ED. The average modern schoolboy would certainly rebel against Dock's noon hour practice. "Since the children bring their dinners with them there is an hour's intermission after dinner, but as they generally misuse this intermission if they are left alone, it is required that one or two of them, while I write, read out of the Old Testament a useful history, or out of Moses and the Prophets, or Solomon or Ecclesiastes, until school calls." What teacher has not had trouble with pupils leaving the room? Dock's treatment of this trouble is both original and unique. "But the cry for permission to go out might continue the whole day, and it be asked without occasion so that two cr three could be out at a time to play. To guard against this, upon a nail driven into the post of the door hangs a wooden strip. Whoever has occasion to go out looks for the strip to see whether it hangs at the door. If the strip is there, the pass is there also, he may go without asking, and he takes the strip with him and goes out. If another has occasion to go he need not ask, but placing himself by the door, as soon as the one comes in who has the strip, he takes it from him and goes out." His method of teaching the figures and ciphering would hardly satisfy the presentday disciple of Grube and Speer. Yet, we may say in defense of it, his pupils actually learned both. "I write upon the NoteBoard which hangs where all can see it, these figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 far enough apart that other figures may be placed before and after each one of them. Then I place a 0 before the 1 and explain to them that though the 0 stands before the 1 still the number is not increased. Then I rub the 0 before the 1 out, and place it after the 1, which makes 10, if two naughts 100, if three, 1000 and so on. In like manner I show them with all the figures. When this is done, to the first figure 1 another 1 is added which makes 11, but if a 0 is placed between them it makes 101, but if after them 110; and in like manner I go through all the figures with them." Three or four years ago a woman in the eastern part of Indiana attracted quite a good deal of attention by introducing into her school the study of geography by letter writing. She had her pupils write letters to various parts of the world, and through the answer many reliable geography lessons were learned. She did good work and aroused a remarkable interest in her school. The educational journals all over the country heralded it as a wonderful new thing in education. Most new things in education are not new. And this is a case in point. Old Christopher Dock, more than one hundred and fifty years ago, when he went to the school in Salford always took letters with him from the Skippack scholars, and when he returned to Skippack he brought with him replies from the Salford scholars. These letters were not limited to geography. "The contents of the letters were a short rhyme, or a selection from the Bible, to which was added something concerning their school exercises, what they had for a motto during the week, and where it was written and the like." The letter also contained a question which the other should answer with a quotation from the Holy Scriptures. Dock makes this very sound comment: "I do not doubt but that two schoolmasters, whether they lived in the same place or not, if they had such regard for each other and were willing to in culcate affection in the young, and were inspired in this work by a heartfelt love of God and the common good of youth, could inspire love in this way." His treatment of the larger questions of school government show a good grasp of the real problem, and deeper thinking on the ques tion than we are accustomed to expect from that time. Dock believed that whatever else the school might do its first and prime duty is to turn out honest, truthful, decent men and women. He opens the discussion of the subject with an abstruse theological treatment of the fall of man, original sin, and man's utter helplessness unless he be touched by the Holy Spirit. Although theoretically he believes this, yet practically he believes that discipline humanely administered by the thoughtful teacher will do much to aid the Holy Spirit in touching and transforming the individual. Of course he goes to God for direction in the administering of punishment, and therefore if any good is done, to God belongs the praise. "The slap with the hand, the hazel switch, and birch rod are all means to prevent the breaking forth of evil, but they are no means to change the depraved heart. His treatment of the vice of swearing is characteristic, and so I shall quote quite fully what he has to say on that subject: "Those children who are guilty of it are first asked whether they understand what they say; and it often appears as clear as day that they do not understand the meaning. I then ask them whether they formed the words themselves or heard others use them. Many children say that he or she said so. . I then explain to them that they consider well, and speak no more such words, and that it is against God's word and will. . . If these children promise that they will use such words no more, they go free for the first time. .. If they do so again they are placed alone for a long time upon the punishment bench, and as a sign that they are in punishment they wear a yoke around the neck. If they will then promise that they will be more careful in the future they go free with a few blows from the hand. If they come again upon the punishment bench for cursing, the punishment is increased and they are not let free without bail, and the more guilty they are the more bail they must give. The bail have this to consider, that they remind them of their promise, and warn them with all earnestness to be careful and keep themselves from punishment." We see here in the idea of the offender giving bail, the germ of that modern widely-accepted theory of school government, which would make each pupil feel that he is part of the school and that he is individually responsible for its good name. In order to break up the habit of lying and untruthfulness he would first explain to the offender very minutely the enormity of the offense. He would show that unless he turned from these things he could not hope for the friendship of men nor the love of God, and that very soon he would become a near relative of him who is the father of lies. In fact, he would hold the offender far enough out over the edge of the bottomless pit to allow him to smell the sulphur. If, after this warning, the transgression occurs again, the offender is brought up and his punishment is divided into two partsthe lie itself, and the breaking of his former promise. For the first no bail will be taken, and he must suffer severe punishment. For the second, his punishment may be greatly lessened through bail. Less than a year ago I heard a distinguished body of modern educators discussing this very distinction in school punishments, which old Christopher Dock saw clearly a century and a half ago. He followed the custom then in vogue, and kept a loud school. The children studied out loud. To prevent them from talking instead of studying monitors were appointed A pupil found talking, or disorderly, was brought out and given the choice of going to the punishment bench with a yoke on his neck, or receiving a sharp blow on the hand. He usually chose the latter. In discoursing upon punishment in gen eral, Dock says that in this country he cannot be as rigid as if he were in Germany, for here the school rests upon the consent of the common people. "Still," he says, "I readily confess, if I were established in that high position (a school in Germany), it would be, in fact, upon the condition that if power were given by God, or the high authorities, to use severity, it would only be given for improvement, and not for injury. Experience in keeping school shows that a child, which is timid, if it is punished severely, either with words or with the rod, is thereby more injured than benefited. If such a child is to be improved it must be by other means. In the same way a child that is dumb is more injured by blows than improved. A child which at home is treated with blows and is accustomed to them will not, at school, be made right by blows, but still worse. If such children are to be made better it must be in some other way. Obstinate children who have no hesitation in doing wrong, must be punished sharply with the rod, and at the same time be addressed with earnest exhortation from the Word of God, to see whether the heart can be reached. But the diffident and dumb in learning must be aroused by other means, so that as much as possible it may be done willingly and they may be inspired with a love of learning." This view was in marked contrast with the prevailing notion of the time. Flogging for every thing was the rule. As expressed in Crabbe's Schoolmaster— "Students, like horses on the road, Must be well lashed before they take the load; Dock was greatly interested in the general etiquette and good manners of his pupils. He gave attention to these matters in his school, as every true teacher should. A teacher's power in this direction is very great, and he can transform the manners of a neighborhood if he but wills to so do. In 1764 Saur published in his magazine Dock's "Hundred Necessary Rules of Conduct for Children." I will quote a number of these, as they give a clear insight into the manners and customs of the time: (1) Dear child, accustom yourself to awaken at the right time in the morning without being called, and as soon as you are awake get out of bed without delay. (7) When you wash your face and hands do not scatter the water about in the room. (8) To wash out the mouth every morning with water, and to rub off the teeth with the fingers, tends to preserve the teeth. [The tooth-brush was not yet invented.] (9) When you comb your hair do not go out into the middle of the room, but to one side in a corner. (19) Should you wake in the night, think of God and His omnipresence, and entertain no idle thoughts. (24) At the table sit very straight and still, do not wabble with your stool, and do not lay your arms on the table. Put your knife and fork upon the right and your bread on the left side. (28) Do not eat more meat and butter than bread, do not bite the bread off with the teeth, cut regular pieces with the knife, but do not cut them off before the mouth. (35) Picking the teeth with the knife or fork does not look well and is injurious to the gums. (49) Do not stick the remaining bread in your pocket but let it lie on the table. (50) After leaving the table, before you do anything else, give thanks to your Creator who has fed and satisfied you. (51) Dear child, when you come into school, incline reverently, sit down quietly in your place, and think of the presence of God. (55) Should you be punished for bad behavior, do not, either by words or gestures, show yourself impatient or obstinate, but receive it for your improvement. (62) Abstain from all coarse, indecent habits or gestures in school, such as to stretch with the hands or the whole body from laziness; to eat fruit or other things in school; to lay your hand or arm upon your neighbor's shoulder, or under your head, or to lean your head forwards upon the table; to put your feet upon the bench or to let them dangle or scrape; or to cross your legs over one another, or to stretch them apart, or to spread them too wide in sitting or standing; to scratch your head; to play or pick with the fingers; to twist and turn the head forwards, backwards, and sideways; to sit and sleep; to creep under the table or bench; to turn your back to your teacher; to change your clothes in school, and to show yourself restless in school. (69) To eat upon the street is unbecoming. (72) In winter do not go upon the ice or throw snowballs at others, or ride upon sleds with disorderly boys. (73) In summer do not bathe in the water or go too near it. Take no pleasure in mischevious or indecent games. (82) Do not stare about the church at other people, and keep your eyes under good discipline and control. (93) Do not distort your face in the presence of people with frowns or sour looks; be not sulky if you are asked anything, let the question be finished without your interrupting, and do not answer with nodding or shaking the head, but with distinct and modest words. (97) Never go about nasty and dirty. Cut your nails at the right time and keep your clothes, shoes and stockings neat and clean. (100) Let what you see of good and decent in other Christian people serve as an example for yourself. "If there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." These rules of conduct need no comment. They certainly give us a most interesting picture of the time. In them Dock sets forth the best that was then known. In conclusion, we may say that no early American schoolteacher exerted so great an influence as Christopher Dock. He impressed himself upon the whole Schuylkill region. His enthusiasm and his love of children make him in many ways "a veritable Pestalozzi." To the man who so early in our history taught so well, saw so clearly the problem of education, and who through his writings became the father of American pedagogy, let us give the praise that such service demands. INDIANA UNIVERSITY. |