Leon Battista Alberti, one of the most intelligent and original architects of the 15th century, also dedicated a treatise, Della famiglia (1435–44; “On the Family”), to methods of education. Alberti felt that the natural place for education was the home and not scholastic institutions. The language in which he wrote was Italian, education being in his view so important in social life that he felt that discussion of it should not be limited to scholars. He stressed the importance of the father in the educational process.

Baldassare Castiglione expressed the transition of humanism from the city to the Renaissance court. He himself was in the service of some of the most splendid princes, the Gonzagas at Mantua and the Montefeltros at Urbino. Just as in the 15th century the humanists had been concerned with the education of the city burgher, so in the 16th century they turned their attention to the education of the prince and of those who surrounded him. Il cortegiano (“The Courtier”) was published in 1528, and within a few years it had been translated into Latin and all the major European languages. The courtier was to be the faithful collaborator of the prince. He had to be beautiful, strong, and agile; he had to know how to fight, play, dance, and make love. But this was not all, since great importance was also attached to the study of the classics and the practice of poetry and oratory; the courtier had to be able to write in rhyme and in prose and have perfect command of the vernacular, which was becoming important in political affairs; but above all he had to have skill at arms.

The courtier described by Castiglione, though in the service of necessarily devious princes, had to know how to keep his dignity and his virtue. Castiglione’s moral standards, reflecting the spiritual climate at Urbino, completely disappeared, however, in Giovanni della Casa’s work, Galateo (1551–54), in which considerations of etiquette were placed above all others; the values of humanism no longer existed, and all that was left was ceremonial.

Dutch humanism

In the Netherlands the ground for educational reform had already been prepared in the 14th century by the Brethren of the Common Life, a group founded by Gerhard Groote to bring together laymen and religious men. Although their work was not originally in the field of education, education started when they set up hostels for students and exercised some moral direction over these students. This work was extended, and the Brethren eventually set up schools, first at Deventer and then in other cities. Some of the most important humanists of the Netherlands and Germany attended their schools—including, among others, Erasmus.

The school at Deventer came to have great prestige under Alexander Hegius, rector from 1465 to 1498 and author of a polemic treatise, De utilitate Graeci (“On the Usefulness of Greek”)—underlining the importance of studying Greek—and of De scientia (“On Knowledge”) and De moribus (“On Manners”). Hegius had great talent as an organizer and succeeded not only in attracting some of the best scholars of the time but also in giving the school an efficient structure that became a model for many schools in the north.

Desiderius Erasmus was a great scholar and educator, and his influence was felt all over Europe. His strong personality earned him the respect and sympathy of humanists who saw in him, as in few others, the symbol of their ideals and values. Unfortunately, his proposals for reform and greater tolerance were not always accepted in the tortured Europe of the 16th century.

Erasmus was a prolific writer, and part of his work was concerned with education: De ratione studii (1511; “On the Right Method of Study”), De civilitate morum puerilium (1526; “On the Politeness of Children’s Manners”), Ciceronianus (1528), De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis (1529; “On the Liberal Education of Boys from the Beginning”). His educational program was original in many ways but in no sense democratic. The masses could not partake in higher education, since their aim was that of gaining skill in an occupation. He felt that religious instruction should be made available to all but that Classical literary studies—the most important of all studies—were for a minority.

Study of ancient languages and intelligent comprehension of texts formed the basis of Erasmus’ system of education; he took a stand against the formalism and dogmatism that were already creeping into the humanist movement. Erasmus was in favour of acquiring a good general liberal arts education until the age of 18, being convinced that this would be a preparation for any form of further study. His great love for the Classical languages, however, made him neglect the vernacular; he was not interested in local traditions; and he attributed very little importance to science, which he did not think necessary for a cultured man. He was against instruction being imposed without the participation of the student. His optimism about the nature of man and the possibilities of molding him made Erasmus feel that, if adequately educated, any man could learn any discipline. He further sought renewal of the schools and better training for teachers, which he felt should be a public obligation, certainly no less important than military defense. Many of Erasmus’ themes were elaborated a century later by John Amos Comenius and form the basis of modern education, in particular the effort to understand the child psychologically and to consider education as a process that starts before the school experience and continues beyond it.

Juan Luis Vives

Strongly influenced by Erasmus was Juan Luis Vives, who, though of Spanish origin, spent his life in various parts of Europe—Paris, Louvain, Oxford, London, Bruges. His most significant writings were De institutione foeminae Christianae (1523; “On the Education of a Christian Woman”), De ratione studii puerilis (“On the Right Method of Instruction for Children”), De subventione pauperum (1526; “On Aid for the Poor”), and De tradendis disciplinis (1531; “On the Subjects of Study”).

Not only was his vision of the organic unity of pedagogy new, but he was the first of the humanists to emphasize the importance of popular education. He felt that it was the responsibility of the city to provide instruction for the poor and that the craft and merchant guilds had an important contribution to make to education. Unlike other humanists, moreover, he did not despise the utilitarian aspects of education but, on the contrary, suggested that his pupils should visit shops and workshops and go out into the country to learn something of real life. Just as he felt that education should not be limited to a single social class, so he felt that there should be no exclusion of women, though perhaps they required a different kind of education because of their different functions in life.

Vives worked out a plan to take account of both educational structures and teacher training. In emphasizing the social function of education, he was against schools being run for profit and believed teachers should be prepared not only in their specific fields but also in psychology, so as to understand the child. He also suggested that teachers should meet four times a year to examine together the intellectual capacities of each one of their pupils so that suitable programs of study could be arranged for them. Vives considered that, in teaching, games had psychological value. He favoured use of the vernacular for the first stage of education; but, as a humanist, he had a passion for Latin and felt that there was no substitute for Latin as a universal language. Classical studies were to be completed by investigation of the modern world, in particular its geography, the horizons having been greatly enlarged by recent discoveries. Vives’s method was an inductive one, based not on metaphysical theories but on experiment and exercise.