Book IV.
That the Laws of Education Ought to Be in Relation to the Principles
of Government.
4.1. 1. Of the Laws of Education.
The laws of education are the first impressions we receive; and as
they prepare us for civil life, every private family ought to be
governed by the plan of that great household which comprehends them all.
If the people in general have a principle, their constituent parts,
that is, the several families, will have one also. The laws of education
will be therefore different in each species of government: in monarchies
they will have honour for their object; in republics, virtue; in
despotic governments, fear.
4.2. 2. Of Education in Monarchies.
In monarchies the principal branch of education is not taught in
colleges or academies. It commences, in some measure, at our setting out
in the world; for this is the school of what we call honour, that
universal preceptor which ought everywhere to be our guide.
Here it is that we constantly hear three rules or maxims, viz., that
we should have a certain nobleness in our virtues, a kind of frankness
in our morals, and a particular politeness in our behaviour.
The virtues we are here taught are less what we owe to others than
to ourselves; they are not so much what draws us towards society, as
what distinguishes us from our fellow-citizens. Here the actions of men
are judged, not as virtuous, but as shining; not as just, but as great;
not as reasonable, but as extraordinary. When honour here meets with
anything noble in our actions, it is either a judge that approves them,
or sophist by whom they are excused.
It allows of gallantry when united with the idea of sensible
affection, or with that of conquest; this is the reason why we never
meet with so strict a purity of morals in monarchies as in republican
governments.
It allows of cunning and craft, when joined with the notion of
greatness of soul or importance of affairs; as, for instance, in
politics, with finesses of which it is far from being offended.
It does not forbid adulation, save when separated from the idea of a
large fortune, and connected only with the sense of our mean condition.
With regard to morals, I have observed that the education of
monarchies ought to admit of a certain frankness and open carriage.
Truth, therefore, in conversation is here a necessary point. But is it
for the sake of truth? By no means. Truth is requisite only because a
person habituated to veracity has an air of boldness and freedom. And
indeed a man of this stamp seems to lay a stress only on the things
themselves, not on the manner in which they are received.
Hence it is that in proportion as this kind of frankness is
commended, that of the common people is despised, which has nothing but
truth and simplicity for its object.
In fine, the education of monarchies requires a certain politeness
of behaviour. Man, a sociable animal, is formed to please in society;
and a person that would break through the rules of decency, so as to
shock those he conversed with, would lose the public esteem, and become
incapable of doing any good.
But politeness, generally speaking, does not derive its origin from
so pure a source. It arises from a desire of distinguishing ourselves.
It is pride that renders us polite; we are flattered with being taken
notice of for behaviour that shows we are not of a mean condition, and
that we have not been bred with those who in all ages are considered the
scum of the people.
Politeness, in monarchies, is naturalised at court. One man
excessively great renders everybody else little. Hence that regard which
is paid to our fellow-subjects; hence that politeness, equally pleasing
to those by whom, as to those towards whom, it is practised, because it
gives people to understand that a person actually belongs, or at least
deserves to belong, to the court.
A courtly air consists in quitting a real for a borrowed greatness.
The latter pleases the courtier more than the former. It inspires him
with a certain disdainful modesty, which shows itself externally, but
whose pride insensibly diminishes in proportion to its distance from the
source of this greatness.
At court we find a delicacy of taste in everything — a delicacy
arising from the constant use of the superfluities of life, from the
variety, and especially the satiety, of pleasures, from the multiplicity
and even confusion of fancies, which, if they are but agreeable, are
sure of being well received.
These are the things which properly fall within the province of
education, in order to form what we call a man of honour, a man
possessed of all the qualities and virtues requisite in this kind of
government.
Here it is that honour interferes with everything, mixing even with
people's manner of thinking, and directing their very principles.
To this whimsical honour it is owing that the virtues are only just
what it pleases; it adds rules of its own invention to everything
prescribed to us; it extends or limits our duties according to its own
fancy, whether they proceed from religion, politics, or morality.
There is nothing so strongly inculcated in monarchies, by the laws,
by religion and honour, as submission to the prince's will; but this
very honour tells us that the prince never ought to command a
dishonourable action, because this would render us incapable of serving
him.
Crillon refused to assassinate the Duke of Guise, but offered to
fight him. After the massacre of St. Bartholomew, Charles IX, having
sent orders to the governors in the several provinces for the Huguenots
to be murdered, Viscount Dorte, who commanded at Bayonne, wrote thus to
the king:
[1]
"Sire, among the inhabitants of this town, and your
majesty's troops, I could not find so much as one executioner; they are
honest citizens and brave soldiers. We jointly, therefore, beseech your
majesty to command our arms and lives in things that are practicable."
This great and generous soul looked upon a base action as a thing
impossible.
There is nothing that honour more strongly recommends to the
nobility than to serve their prince in a military capacity. And, indeed,
this is their favourite profession, because its dangers, its success,
and even its miscarriages are the road to grandeur. Yet this very law of
its own making honour chooses to explain: and in case of any affront, it
requires or permits us to retire.
It insists also that we should be at liberty either to seek or to
reject employments, a liberty which it prefers even to an ample fortune.
Honour therefore has its supreme laws, to which education is obliged
to conform.
[2]
The chief of these are that we are permitted to set a
value upon our fortune, but are absolutely forbidden to set any upon our
lives.
The second is that, when we are raised to a post or preferment, we
should never do or permit anything which may seem to imply that we look
upon ourselves as inferior to the rank we hold.
The third is that those things which honour forbids are more
rigorously forbidden, when the laws do not concur in the prohibition;
and those it commands are more strongly insisted upon, when they happen
not to be commanded by law.
Footnotes
[1]
See D'Aubigny's "History."
[2]
We mention here what actually is, and not what ought to be;
honour is a prejudice, which religion sometimes endeavours to remove,
and at other times to regulate.
4.3. 3. Of Education in a Despotic Government.
As education in monarchies tends to raise and ennoble the mind, in
despotic governments its only aim is to debase it. Here it must
necessarily be servile; even in power such an education will be an
advantage, because every tyrant is at the same time a slave.
Excessive obedience supposes ignorance in the person that obeys: the
same it supposes in him that commands, for he has no occasion to
deliberate, to doubt, to reason; he has only to will.
In despotic states, each house is a separate government. As
education, therefore, consists chieflv in social converse, it must be
here very much limited; all it does is to strike the heart with fear,
and to imprint on the understanding a very simple notion of a few
principles of religion. Learning here proves dangerous, emulation fatal;
and as to virtue, Aristotle
[3]
cannot think that there is any one virtue belonging to slaves; if so, education
in despotic countries is confined within a very narrow compass.
Here, therefore, education is in some measure needless: to give
something, one must take away everything, and begin with making a bad
subject in order to make a good slave.
For why should education take pains in forming a good citizen, only
to make him share in the public misery? If he loves his country, he will
strive to relax the springs of government; if he miscarries he will be
undone; if he succeeds, he must expose himself, the prince, and his
country to ruin.
Footnotes
4.4. 4. Difference between the Effects of Ancient and Modern Education.
Most of the ancients lived under governments that had virtue for
their principle; and when this was in full vigour they performed actions
unusual in our times, and at which our narrow minds are astonished.
Another advantage their education possessed over ours was that it
never could be effaced by contrary impressions. Epaminondas, the last
year of his life, said, heard, beheld, and performed the very same
things as at the age in which he received the first principles of his
education.
In our days we receive three different or contrary educations,
namely, of our parents, of our masters, and of the world. What we learn
in the latter effaces all the ideas of the former. This, in some
measure, arises from the contrast we experience between our religious
and worldly engagements, a thing unknown to the ancients.
4.5. 5. Of Education in a Republican Government.
It is in a republican government that the whole power of education
is required. The fear of despotic governments naturally arises of itself
amidst threats and punishments; the honour of monarchies is favoured by
the passions, and favours them in its turn; but virtue is a
self-renunciation, which is ever arduous and painful.
This virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our
country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to
private interest, it is the source of all private virtues; for they are
nothing more than this very preference itself.
This love is peculiar to democracies. In these alone the government
is entrusted to private citizens. Now a government is like everything
else: to preserve it we must love it.
Has it ever been known that kings were not fond of monarchy, or that
despotic princes hated arbitrary power?
Everything therefore depends on establishing this love in a
republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of
education: but the surest way of instilling it into children is for
parents to set them an example.
People have it generally in their power to communicate their ideas
to their children; but they are still better able to transfuse their
passions.
If it happens otherwise, it is because the impressions made at home
are effaced by those they have received abroad.
It is not the young people that degenerate; they are not spoiled
till those of maturer age are already sunk into corruption.
4.6. 6. Of some Institutions among the Greeks.
The ancient Greeks, convinced of the necessity that people who live
under a popular government should be trained up to virtue, made very
singular institutions in order to inspire it. Upon seeing in the life of
Lycurgus the laws that legislator gave to the Lacedmonians, I imagine I
am reading the history of the Sevarambes. The laws of Crete were the
model of those of Sparta; and those of Plato reformed them.
Let us reflect here a little on the extensive genius with which
those legislators must have been endowed, to perceive that by striking
at received customs, and by confounding all manner of virtues, they
should display their wisdom to the universe. Lycurgus, by blending theft
with the spirit of justice, the hardest servitude with excess of
liberty, the most rigid sentiments with the greatest moderation, gave
stability to his city. He seemed to deprive her of all resources, such
as arts, commerce, money, and walls; ambition prevailed among the
citizens without hopes of improving their fortune; they had natural
sentiments without the tie of a son, husband, or father; and chastity
was stripped even of modesty and shame. This was the road that led
Sparta to grandeur and glory; and so infallible were these institutions,
that it signified nothing to gain a victory over that republic without
subverting her polity.
[4]
By these laws Crete and Laconia were governed. Sparta was the last
that fell a prey to the Macedonians, and Crete to the Romans.
[5]
The Samnites had the same institutions, which furnished those very
Romans with the subject of four-and-twenty triumphs.
[6]
A character so extraordinary in the institutions of Greece has shown
itself lately in the dregs and corruptions of modern times.
[7]
A very honest legislator has formed a people to whom probity seems as natural
as bravery to the Spartans. Mr. Penn is a real Lycurgus: and though the
former made peace his principal aim, as the latter did war, yet they
resemble one another in the singular way of living to which they reduced
their people, in the ascendant they had over free men, in the prejudices
they overcame, and in the passions which they subdued.
Another example we have from Paraguay. This has been the subject of
an invidious charge against a society that considers the pleasure of
commanding as the only happiness in life: but it will be ever a glorious
undertaking to render a government subservient to human happiness.
[8]
It is glorious indeed for this society to have been the first in
pointing out to those countries the idea of religion joined with that of
humanity. By repairing the devastations of the Spaniards, she has begun
to heal one of the most dangerous wounds that the human species ever
received.
An exquisite sensibility to whatever she distinguishes by the name
of honour, joined to her zeal for a religion which is far more humbling
in respect to those who receive than to those who preach its doctrines,
has set her upon vast undertakings, which she has accomplished with
success. She has drawn wild people from their woods, secured them a
maintenance, and clothed their nakedness; and had she only by this step
improved the industry of mankind, it would have been sufficient to
eternise her fame.
They who shall attempt hereafter to introduce like institutions must
establish the community of goods as prescribed in Plato's republic; that
high respect he required for the gods; that separation from strangers,
for the preservation of morals; and an extensive commerce carried on by
the community, and not by private citizens: they must give our arts
without our luxury, and our wants without our desires.
They must proscribe money, the effects of which are to swell
people's fortunes beyond the bounds prescribed by nature; to learn to
preserve for no purpose what has been idly hoarded up; to multiply
without end our desires; and to supply the sterility of nature, from
whom we have received very scanty means of inflaming our passions, and
of corrupting each other.
"The Epidamnians,
[9]
perceiving their morals depraved by conversing with barbarians, chose a
magistrate for making all contracts and sales in the name and behalf of
the city." Commerce then does not corrupt the constitution, and the
constitution does not deprive society of the advantages of commerce.
Footnotes
[4]
Philopœmen obliged the Lacedæmonians to change their manner of
educating their children, being convinced that if he did not take this
measure they would always be noted for their magnanimity. — Plutarch,
Life of Philopœmen. See Livy, Book xxxviii.
[5]
She defended her laws and liberty for the space of three years.
See the 98th, 99th, and 100th book of Livy, in Florus's epitome. She
made a braver resistance than the greatest kings.
[6]
Florus, lib. i., cap. 16.
[7]
In fæce Romuli — Cicero, Letters to Atticus, ii. 1.
[8]
The Indians of Paraguay do not depend on any particular lord;
they pay only a fifth of the taxes, and are allowed the use of firearms
to defend themselves.
[9]
Plutarch in his "Questions" Concerning the Greek Affairs, xxix.
4.7. 7. In what Cases these singular Institutions may be of Service.
Institutions of this kind may be proper in republics, because they
have virtue for their principle; but to excite men to honour in
monarchies, or to inspire fear in despotic governments, less trouble is
necessary.
Besides, they can take place but in a small state,
[10]
in which there is a possibility of general education, and of training up the body
of the people like a single family.
The laws of Minos, of Lycurgus, and of Plato suppose a particular
attention and care, which the citizens ought to have over one another's
conduct. But an attention of this kind cannot be expected in the
confusion and multitude of affairs in which a large nation is entangled.
In institutions of this kind, money, as we have above observed, must
be banished. But in great societies, the multiplicity, variety,
embarrassment, and importance of affairs, as well as the facility of
purchasing, and the slowness of exchange, require a common measure. In
order to support or extend our power, we must be possessed of the means
to which, by the unanimous consent of mankind, this power is annexed.
Footnotes
[10]
Such as were formerly the cities of Greece.
4.8. 8. Explanation of a Paradox of the Ancients in respect to Manners.
That judicious writer, Polybius, informs us that music was necessary
to soften the manners of the Arcadians, who lived in a cold, gloomy
country; that the inhabitants of Cynete, who slighted music, were the
cruellest of all the Greeks, and that no other town was so immersed in
luxury and debauchery. Plato
[11]
is not afraid to affirm that there is no possibility of making a change
in music without altering the frame of government. Aristotle, who seems
to have written his Politics only in order to contradict Plato, agrees
with him, notwithstanding, in regard to the power and influence of music
over the manners of the people.
[12]
This was also the opinion of Theophrastus, of Plutarch
[13]
and of all the ancients — an opinion grounded on mature reflection; being one of
the principles of their polity.
[14]
Thus it was they enacted laws, and thus they required that cities should
be governed.
This I fancy must be explained in the following manner. It is
observable that in the cities of Greece, especially those whose
.principal object was war, all lucrative arts and professions were
considered unworthy of a freeman. "Most arts," says Xenophon,
[15]
"corrupt and enervate the bodies of those that exercise them; they
oblige them to sit in the shade, or near the fire. They can find no
leisure, either for their friends or for the republic." It was only by
the corruption of some democracies that artisans became freemen. This we
learn from Aristotle,
[16]
who maintains that a well-regulated republic will never give them the right
and freedom of the city.
[17]
Agriculture was likewise a servile profession, and generally
practised by the inhabitants of conquered countries, such as the Helotes
among the Lacedmonians, the Periecians among the Cretans, the Penestes
among the Thessalians, and other conquered
[18]
people in other republics.
In fine, every kind of low commerce
[19]
was infamous among the Greeks; as it obliged a citizen to serve and wait on
a slave, on a lodger, or a stranger. This was a notion that clashed with
the spirit of Greek liberty; hence Plato
[20]
in his Laws orders a citizen to be punished if he attempts to concern himself
with trade.
Thus in the Greek republics the magistrates were extremely
embarrassed. They would not have the citizens apply themselves to
trade, to agriculture, or to the arts, and yet they would not have them
idle.
[21]
They found, therefore, employment for them in gymnic and
military exercises; and none else were allowed by their institution.
[22]
Hence the Greeks must be considered as a society of wrestlers and
boxers. Now, these exercises having a natural tendency to render people
hardy and fierce, there was a necessity for tempering them with others
that might soften their manners.
[23]
For this purpose, music, which influences the mind by means of the corporeal
organs, was extremely proper. It is a kind of medium between manly exercises,
which harden the body, and speculative sciences, which are apt to render us unsociable
and sour. It cannot be said that music inspired virtue, for this would
be inconceivable: but it prevented the effects of a savage institution,
and enabled the soul to have such a share in the education as it could
never have had without the assistance of harmony.
Let us suppose among ourselves a society of men so passionately fond
of hunting as to make it their sole employment; they would doubtless
contract thereby a kind of rusticity and fierceness. But if they happen
to imbibe a taste for music, we should quickly perceive a sensible
difference in their customs and manners. In short, the exercises used by
the Greeks could raise but one kind of passions, viz., fierceness,
indignation, and cruelty. But music excites all these; and is likewise
able to inspire the soul with a sense of pity, lenity, tenderness, and
love. Our moral writers, who declaim so vehemently against the stage,
sufficiently demonstrate the power of music over the mind.
If the society above mentioned were to have no other music than that
of drums, and the sound of the trumpet, would it not be more difficult
to accomplish this end than by the more melting tones of softer harmony?
The ancients were therefore in the right when, under particular
circumstances, they preferred one mode to another in regard to manners.
But some will ask, why should music be pitched upon as preferable to
any other entertainment? It is because of all sensible pleasures there
is none that less corrupts the soul. We blush to read in Plutarch
[24]
that the Thebans, in order to soften the manners of their youth,
authorised by law a passion which ought to be proscribed by all nations.
Footnotes
[13]
"Life of Pelopidas."
[14]
Plato, in his seventh book of Laws, says that the prfectures of
music and gymnic exercises are the most important employments in the
city; and, in his "Republic," iii, Damon will tell you, says he, what
sounds are capable of corrupting the mind with base sentiments, or of
inspiring the contrary virtues.
[17]
Diophantes, says Aristotle, Politics, ii. 7, made a law formerly
at Athens, that artisans should be slaves to the republic.
[18]
Plato, likewise, and Aristotle require slaves to till the land,
Laws, viii. Politics, vii. 10. True it is that agriculture was not
everywhere exercised by slaves: on the contrary, Aristotle observes the
best republics were those in which the citizens themselves tilled the
land: but this was brought about by the corruption of the ancient
governments, which had become democratic: for in earlier times the
cities of Greece were subject to an aristocratic government.
[21]
Aristotle, Politics, vii-viii.
[23]
Aristotle observes that the children of the Lacedæmonians, who
began these exercises at a very tender age, contracted thence too great
a ferocity and rudeness of behaviour. — Ibid., viii. 4.
[24]
"Life of Pelopidas."
