Intellectually the contrast is even stronger. While Froebel had a
university education, Pestalozzi was an eminently ignorant man; his
penmanship was almost illegible, he could not do simple sums in
multiplication, he could not sing, he could not draw, he wore out all
his handkerchiefs gathering pebbles and then never looked at them
afterward. Froebel was not only a reader but a scientific reader, always
seeking first to find out what others had discovered that he might
begin where they left off; Pestalozzi boasted that he had not read a
book in forty years. Naturally, therefore, Pestalozzi was always an
experimenter, profiting by his failures but always failing in his first
attempts, and hitting upon his most characteristic principles by
accident; while Froebel was a theorist, elaborating his ideas mentally
before putting them in practice, and never satisfied till he had
properly located them in his general scheme of philosophy.
And yet, curiously enough, it is Pestalozzi who was the author. His
"Leonard and Gertrude" was read by every cottage fireside, while
Froebel's writings were intelligible only to his disciples. Pestalozzi
had an exuberant imagination and delightful directness and simplicity of
expression; Froebel's style was labored and obscure, and his doctrines
may be better known through the "Child and Child Nature" of the Baroness
Marenholz von Buelow than through his own "Education of Man.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25