Inherent contradictions in the concept of the child in 19th century Hungarian pedagogic manuals
Béla Pukánszky
Attitudes related to children and childhood in a given historical period and culture are integrated into a complex theoretical construction, a concept of the child in the mentality of the society’s members. This complex image of child is not homogeneous but is divided into several components. We intend to reveal the components of this mental image through analyzing 19th century pedagogic literature.
In our study we examined the content of Hungarian educational manuals and pedagogic textbooks written for teachers and teacher trainees in elementary and secondary education in order to reconstruct the authors’ concepts of child and childhood.
Our investigations into the history of childhood are based on the history of ideas and mentality, since we concentrate on the changes in the attitudes to and the concept of the child. This theme also offers the potential for treating the history of childhood, in the broad sense of the term, alongside the synthesis of related sciences. Nevertheless, this could be the task of further research.
I. Concept of the child in manuals for elementary school teachers
From the popular and commonly used 19th century Hungarian educational textbooks and manuals we have examined the contents of twenty which, in our view, appropriately represent this type of pedagogic literature of the period. The vast majority of the works are textbooks written from a pragmatic point of view, and their smaller proportion is the representative standard works of contemporary pedagogy. The latter are also applied for educational and training purposes in teacher training.
Prior to the investigation covering twenty works, we analyzed the content of three books as pilot projects. Based on the results, we set up the following hypothesis:
1. A genre characteristic of pedagogic manuals and textbooks is that in their first chapters generally treat the universal features of humanity on an abstract philosophical plane. From these expositions we can draw conclusions about the image of the ideal child. This image comprises the motif of idealization, even myth creation. This is also normative: it expresses the long-term aim the author of the treatise on educating children set out. Such abstract images will be termed ’abstract concept of the child’.
2. In the chapters discussing practical educational methodology, particularly dealing with the practical aspects of reward and punishment, we can read a number of specific opinions, as educational tips concerning children. These can provide some immediate information on the author’s attitude to children in a particular pedagogic situation. The mental image based on the attitudes reconstructed will be termed ’specific concept of the child’. The specific concept of the child is of a descriptive nature: it also registers the ’faults of the children’, the features, as well as characteristics which exist on an empirical level and which are to be changed.
Through analyzing the twenty pedagogic manuals and textbooks we wish to justify this dual (abstract and specific) structure of the concept of the child. Additionally, we also want to answer the following questions:
1 What ideal of man does the given work convey?
2 Can we reconstruct any coherent concept of the child based on the philosophic discussion in the first chapters?
3 What immediate, pragmatic concept of the child does the author’s opinion reflect in terms of practical methodology, reward and punishment, especially corporal punishment? (The way of discussing the problem of corporal punishment is extremely revealing about the author’s attitudes.) Does the author forbid, allow, or consider it necessary by any chance to use corporal punishment in the practice of education?
4 On the basis of all these points, is there harmony or disharmony between the abstract and specific concept of the child?
5 Can any change or development be seen in terms of the ideal of man, concept of the child and attitude to children, according to the pedagogic textbooks written in the given period, in the ’long 19th century’?
Finally, we are also concerned with what caused the changes in the components in the concept of the child (provided there are any perceptible changes) and what they can be attributed to.
Mapping out the hypothesized changes, Reinhard Spree’s research on German infant care manuals in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century can serve as a useful starting point. The deductions based on the investigations are startling at first sight because they contradict the picture we have built up of the mentality and pedagogic attitudes of the period. According to Spree, the guides of pediatricians during the Age of the Enlightenment (e.g. Johann Friedrich Zükert) suggested truly gentle and emotional treatment, a ‘socialization style’ to the parents. They should be their children’s friends, and try remaining so throughout the process of their upbringing. The authors advised against treating children harshly and authoritatively, and they argued that love and trust was fundamental to child rearing. These manuals from the Age of Enlightenment outline a child image, which is acceptant, supporting, and considers the child as an unconditional value.
Whereas the authors of childcare and child rearing guides from the beginning of the 20th century (such as Adalbert Czerny and Carl Hochsinger), did not advise parents a warm, intimate and affectionate rearing, they instead popularized a rather purposefully organized upbringing, striving for cleanliness, demanding correctness, orderliness and discipline. They cautioned against the threatening danger of spoiling their children, prescribed relentless strictness (unerbittliche Strenge) so that parents could bring up unconditionally obedient and submissive children. These manuals published after the turn of the century describe childcare and rearing as a ‘well applied technology’, not as an activity based on human relationships in which the personal needs of a small child could play a role. (Spree 1986)
The results of this research raise a further question: Can a similar change in the image of child be observed in the contemporary Hungarian educational manuals and textbooks?
II. The examination
In order to examine the contemporary image of the child, we have chosen twenty of the two types of works dealing with the subject. The following works are included in our study:
1 “A’ gyermekeknek jó nevelésekről való rövid oktatás mellyet a’ szüléknek és a gyermek’ tanítók’ ‘s nevelőknek kedvekért öszve Perlaki Dávid a Komáromi Evang. Ekkl. Tanítója ‘s megyebéli fő Esperestje. A szegényebb Osk. Tanitoknak, ingyen. Komáromban, Wéber Simon Péter betűivel. 1791.” Perlaki’s pioneering work is the first Hungarian language manual for those vocationally engaged in education.
2 “Gyermek-Nevelésre Vezető Út-Mutatás, a’ S. Pataki Helvetia Confessiot tartó Collégiumban Tanító Ifjúság Számára. (Tóth Pápai Mihály) Kassán, Elinger János Cs. és Királyi privil. Könyv-nyomtatónál. 1797.” The reason for examining this textbook, which primarily contains methodological issues, is the introductory references to philosophical and anthropological features of man, and the author discusses the variations of reward and punishment at great length.
3 August Hermann Niemeyer: “Grundsatze der Erziehung und des Unterrichts für Eltern, Hauslehrer und Schulmanner”, 1976. German pedagogy made a profound impact on the development of Hungarian elementary teacher training of the period both in theory and practice even from the 18th century. This impact applies to the handbooks used in the practice of contemporary teacher training. The author of one of these standard works used as a theoretic starting point was A. H. Niemeyer (1754-1828). As a professor of theology at Halle University, he wrote a two-volume work systematizing and summarizing pedagogy, which was soon considered one of the most popular pedagogic handbooks throughout Central Europe. The third edition of the book, which appeared in a number of editions until the end of the 19th century, was completed with a third volume by the author. János Ángyán translated a shortened version, and he also adapted it “for Hungarian affairs”. The book appeared in Pest in 1822 with the title of “Nevelés és tanítás tudomány a’ szülék, a’ házi és oskolai tanitók számára”. (Curiously, it fails to keep its promise to discuss didactic questions.)
4 “A nevelés tudománya. Írta Szilasy János, szombathelyi egyházi megyebeli áldozó pap,az egyházi tudományok’ doctora, és Szombathelyen a’ keresztény erkölcs’, a lelki pásztorság ‘s nevelés tudományának tanítója. Budán, A’ Királyi Magyar Fő Oskolák’ Betűjivel, 1827.” The influence of Niemeyer and his followers is evident in a number of contemporary Hungarian pedagogic works, e.g. the two-volume summary of works by János Szilasy, which is regarded as the first Hungarian systematic pedagogic summary (Mészáros 1977). Szilasy’s work was used as a handbook on the various settings of teacher training: universities, seminaries, courses of norm schools for elementary teachers’ training and the new two-year teacher training institutions (Pukánszky 1998).
5 “Neveléstan, mellyet Szilasy János’ szombathelyi e. m. áldozópap’, egyházi tud. doctora’ ‘s a’ t. hasonló nevű munkájából szerkeszte Márkl József. Pesten, Trattner – Károlyi Betűivel, 1843.” A remarkable example of an interesting contemporary genre: an adaptation of János Szilasy’s work.
6. Beke Kristóf: “Kézikönyv a’ falusi oskolamesterek’ számára. Budánn, A’ Királyi Magyar Universitas’ betűivel, 1828.” Beke Kristóf: “Neveléstudomány a mesterképző intézetek számára. Budán, a m. kir. Egyetemi Nyomda betűivel, 1844.” The author, a parson, wrote several handbooks for the students and teachers of elementary school teacher training (“master training”) colleges.
7 “Didaktika és methodika avvagy a’ tanításnak közönséges tudománnya és a’ tanítás módgyának tudománnya. Írta Lesnyánszky András, Nagy-Váradonn, Tichy János’ Könyvnyomtatóintézetében. 1832.” The Lesnyánszky’s textbook (according to another orthography Lestyánszky) is a translation and adaptation of the Viennese university professor Joseph Weinkopf‘s didactic handbook.
8 “Vezérkönyv az elemi nevelés- és tanításra. Vallási különbség nélkül minden tanítók’ ‘s tanulók’ számára készült ‘s a’ Magyar Tudós Társaság által másod rendű Marczibányi Lajos-jutalommal koszorúzott pályamunka. Írta Warga János, prof., ‘s a’ Magyar Tudós Társaság’ levelező tagja. Budán, a’ Magyar Királyi Egyetem’ betűivel, a Magyar Tudós Társaság’ költségén. 1837-38.”
9 “Népneveléstan. Írta Majer István esztergomi áldozópap és mesterképző intézeti tanár, táblabíró. Budán, a Magyar Királyi Egyetem betűivel, 1944.” The author organized the archiepiscopal “master training” institution in Esztergom. His work on public elementary education was later published in Slovakian.
10 “Tanítás-mód várasi, ‘s falusi elemi iskola-tanítók és mesterképző intézetek használatára. Írta Rendek József, Esztergom főmegyebeli áldozó pap, ‘s az esztergomi érseki mesterképző intézet tanítója és táblabíró. Pesten, Emich Gusztáv sajátja, 1846.”
11 “Alapnézetek a’ nevelés, és leendő nevelő, s tanítóról különös tekintettel a’ tan’ történeti viszontagságra, és literatúrájára. Írta Beély Fidél, Pannonhegyi Szent Benedeki Pap, a’ Magy. Tud. és Frauendorfi Kertmívelő Társaság Tagja, a Bakonybéli Apátságban a’ Nevelés Szép, ‘s Oklevéltan Tanára, és Tek. Veszprém Vármegye Táblabírája. Pozsonyban, Nyomatott Schmid Ferencz és Busch J. J. Betűivel, 1848.” Fidél Beély lectured on education for would-be teachers in the secondary grammar school of St Benedictine Abbey, Bakony. The manuscript of his work was completed as early as in 1842, however, censorship did not permit its publication. Curiously, the work included the first Hungarian language summary of the history of education and the history of schools. At the end of his work the author enclosed a detailed recommendatory bibliography, in which he enumerated the pedagogic books written in Hungarian. (Fehér 1997, p. 239.)
12 “Általános neveléstan. Dr. Peregriny Elek, a Magyar Akadémia lev. s a Pesti. Kir. Egyetem Bölcsész Karának bekebelezett tagja. egy finevelő intézet igazgatója által. Pesten, nyomatott Trattner Károlynál, 1864.” The author of this handbook was a Privatdocent of pedagogy at the university of Pest from 1860. He dedicated his book to his students and the sophisticated reading public that took an interest in education. Peregriny introduces not only his own concept of pedagogy, but while discussing each main theme he also offers a survey of the different standpoints of the contemporary – primarily German – authors.
13 “Tanítók könyve. Rendszeres kalauz a nevelés és tanítás vezetésére, az elemi iskola tantárgyainak kezelésére, s a tanítóknak az irodalom terén való haladására. Írta Bárány Ignác, a peti kir. kath. férfitanító-képezde tanára. Pest, Lauffer Vilmos tulajdona, 1866.”
14 “Nevelés- és tanítástan egyházi s világi tanemberek és tanügybarátok, néptanodai tanítók és tanítójelöltek használatára legújabb kútfők alapján kidolgozta Mennyei József, tanítóképző-tanár s a kalocsai tanítóképezde s elemi minta-főtanoda igazgatója. A m. kir. egyetem által pályadíjazott s a m. k. Közoktatási MInisterium által papjelölteknek s néptanítóknak segédkönyvül ajánlott munka. Harmadik javított s bővített kiadás, Budapest, 1875. Kiadja az Eggenberger féle Könyvkereskedés.” (The first edition of the three-volume textbook was published in Kalocsa in 1866-67.) The title page reveals a new phenomenon indicating progress after the Act of Public Elementary Education by Eötvös: The Ministry of Religion and Public Education recommended certain textbooks as manuals to elementary school teacher trainers and seminaries, supposing they suited the criteria.
15 “Neveléstudomány. Műveltebb közönség számára. Írta Garamszeghy Lubrich Ágost m. k. egyetemi tanár. Harmadik kiadás, Budapest, 1878. Nyomatott a “Hunyadi Mátyás” Intézetben.” (The first edition of the four-volume book came out in Bratislava in 1868.) The author of the monumental summary was the professor of pedagogy at the Budapest University between 1870 and 1900, whose Pedagogy represented one of the polemical Hungarian tendencies against Herbart’s pedagogy.
16 “A neveléstudomány kézikönyve. Írta Felméri Lajos. Második javított kiadás. Budapest, Eggenberger-féle Könyvkereskedés, Kolozsvár, Szerző saját kiadása. 1890. Ajtai K. Albert Könyvnyomdája.” (The first edition of the book also appeared in 1890) The pedagogic work of the professor of Kolozsvár represents a new paradigm in the range of 19th century Hungarian pedagogic books. This author is characterized by keeping a distance from Herbartian pedagogy, while the influence of French and English authors can obviously be perceived in his way of thinking. The manual of Pedagogy synthesizes the freshest contemporary knowledge of education, and, notwithstanding, a delightful reading written in a colourful style.
17 “Nevelés és oktatástan. Írták dr. Kiss Áron és dr. Öreg János. Negyedik Ujonnan átdolgozott kiadás. Budapest, Dobrowsky és Franke kiadása, 1895.” (The first edition of the textbook was published in 1876.)
18 “Népiskolai neveléstan. Tanítók és tanítóképezdék számára. Írta dr. Emericzy Géza tanítóképezdei igazgató. Budapest, 1882. Dobrowsky és Franke tulajdona.” The textbook written from a practical point of view thoroughly discusses the organizational issues of school life, and depicts the repertoire of techniques of maintaining order and discipline.