THE ADVANCED

MONTESSORI METHOD

SCIENTIFIC PEDAGOGY AS APPLIED TO

THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEVEN TO ELEVEN YEARS

BY

MARIA MONTESSORI

I
SPONTANEOUS ACTIVITY IN EDUCATION

TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN BY

FLORENCE SIMMONDS AND LILY HUTCHINSON

KALAKSHETRA PUBLICATIONS
THIRUVANMIYUR, MADRAS 600 041, INDIA
2007
Reprintedwith the kindpermission of
Messrs. William Heinemann, London.-

© Kalakshetra Publications, 1965

First Published 1918

Second Impression 1919
ThirdImpression 1965
Fourth Impression 1988
Fifth Impression 2007

Printed in India.
At the Kalakshetra Publications
Thiruvanmiyur Madras 600 041
 TO

HER MAJESTY

MARGHERITA OF SAVOY
FIRST QUEEN OF ITALY
 FOREWORD

All who deal with History of Education know the impact made
on orthodox educational procedures by Dr. Maria Montessori's
two books, The Montessori Method and The Advanced Mon-
tessori Method.
Long outof print, thelatter reappears now in a historical edition.
The language reflects the literary period of the time when the first
English translation was published in 1918. Th terminology is
necessarily that of the epoch. Positivism then gave its tinge to
science. The only change is in the illustrations. Most of the
pictures have been taken in the Maria Montessori school of Ber
gamo, Italy, one of the best examples of what an advanced
Montessori school should be.
In writing an introduction to this book I do so with a feeling
of reverence and awe for its author. I wonder if anyone else
could have withstood what she did throughout her life and remain
what she was.
What she was can be gathered from the first part of this book.
In it, vivid, fresh and vigorous stands, forth in her vital essence the
glorious figure of Maria Montessori.
In The Secret of Childhood, a book she wrote later, she
relates how a group of children—aged three to six—changed the
course of her life. Practically they were waifs, fearful of society
but violent and destructive. They came from the scum of the
deprived citizenry of Rome. They were dirty, greedy little vandals.
Dr. Montessori, who was a psychologist, created for taem a
proportioned environment in which there were varied motives of
activity. She gave them exact techniques and subsequently left
them free to choose their occupations and to indulge in them as
 viii THE MONTESSORI METHOD
long as they liked. Only that which might harm or offend others
was not allowed. After a few months an incredible change took
place in the behaviour of the children. Dr. Montessori could not
bring herself to believe this was real.
" It took time for me to convince myself that this was not an
illusion," she writes in The Secret of Childhood (Longmans,
1945, page 155), "after each new experience proving such a
truth, I said to myself, I won't believe it yet, I'll believe it next
time. Thus for a long time I remained incredulous and at the
same time deeply stirred and trepidant."
But in the end she had to surrender to reality.
"One day," she relates in the same page, "in great emotion,
I took my heart inmy two hands as though to encourage it to raise
to the heights offaith and I stood respectfully before the children,
saying to myself: Who are you then? Have I perhaps met with
the children who were held in Christ's arms and to whom divine
words were spoken? I will follow you to enter with you into the
Kingdom of Heaven."
The revelations however were not over. She was due for
further surprises. With the intention ofeventually bringing them
to reading, she had given to the children some cut-out alphabetical
letters and taught them their sound (not their names).
One day, some weeks later—all of a sudden—one child with
tremendous enthusiasm ' burst into writing'. And then another
. . . . and another. The age of these children was four
years and a half! It was incomprehensable, impossible! Is it
suprprising that she left her medical career, her University profes
sorship, the direction of the feminist movement to study these
children? They had given herthe vision of a new world—and this
was the world of a Spirrt. It is to be wondered at, if she felt
compelled to follow that vision and to safeguard and better the
conditions which had made possible the spontaneous moral
'conversion' of the children? Or to try to understand what
unconscious process could have caused the joyous conquest of a
cultural item which was one of the torments in orthodox schools?
 FOREWORD ix

She plunged into the secret of the child. Afterwards nothing

that happened to her or around her could divert her from it. And
a lot happened.
The two books she wrote, The Montessori Method and this
one, were hailed as a revelation. Soon however a controversy
started which still continues. Religious people combated her for
her positivism, positivists condemned her for using religious
language, scientists ridiculed her for lack of serious objectivity
and for indulging in demagogical expressions, educators accused
her of megalomaniac pride for refusing to accept other educational
theories . . . , for introducing intellectual subjects at an age
when children were immature for them . . . , for restricting
freedom

Even politics joined in. Dictatorship in several countries closed

her institutions and ostracised her for her theories, so that several
times she had to go into voluntary exile.
If for nothing else, Dr. Montessori should go into history for
having been the most misunderstood educator of all times
Anyone else would have given up, for everything and everyone
seemed to conspire to belittle and destroy her work. But she was
secure in her vision and the children constant in their revelations-
Nothing proved to be powerful enough to suffocate the truth
inherent to her work. Banned from one country, it sprang up
in another, to return enriched and full of new vigour where it
had been stamped out.
This in itself shows the value of this book which was one of the
two that caused so much animosity and misunderstanding. When
you read it you will hear ' the apostle of the child,' as she was
often called, inveighing against society as the prophet of old ful
minated the citizens of Sodoma and Gomorrah. For from the
start, her activity had become essentially a social campaign in
favour of childhood. She struck out at the appalling conditions
in which the children lived at the epoch she wrote the book.
Some of her expressions may seem exaggerated, but one must
not forget that she had to rouse the social conscience and that a
x THE MONTESSORI METHOD

formidable barrier made up of millenary (even if often uncon

scious) prejudice, of incomprehension and of spiritual insensibility
confronted her.

It is in the social aim she envisaged that in itself justifies the

Use of these expressions which are certainly unusual in purely
theoretical and scientific work. These are however but an
impetuous manifestation of this aim and not the apodictical
tendency they appear to be. This is illustrated and becomes
very evident in her inveighing—among other things—against child
fantasy and against the general attitude with regard to it of the
educational and psychological trends of the time. But it cannot
be denied that they exaggerated in giving the same general value
to all the expression of this fantasy, without distinguishing the
normal from the abnormal; and that they confused its constructive
aspects with what was purely distractive.

If she seemed to dispraise play as well as fantasy, it is not

that she did not recognise the value of play. That she did
so is illustrated in her later works. But at that time fantasy
and play, combined with the natural child's credulity were
veritable weapons in the hands of the adults who used them
to make the child *behave'. That is to stop him from molest
ing them.

' Go and play' was the most frequent expression of those who
did not want to be bothered by the children. Fairy tales were
used not only to enchant and amuse them, but to reduce the
children to immobility, to obtain obedience with threats that
otherwise the ogre might come and eat them or that the good
fairy would be disgusted and would not bring them the presents
they expected from her. The happiness of children when one
plays an imaginative game with them covered a lot of sins at that
time and not the least of them condemning the children to mental
starvation. The fact that the children of that first Montessori
school left the toys (The Secret of Childhood, page 164) in
order to engage in what then was considered ' work' is very
significant in this sense.
 FOREWORD xi

Luckily times have changed and today there is no longer need

to use fantasy to satisfy the child, but at that time it was used even
in the physical field. The anecdote recounted in this book of
the mother who, being too poor to give her child meat to eat with
his bread, breaks the latter in two and tells him that one of them
is meat, is touching. But more touching still is the fact that the
child accepted the situation and was happy imagining that he
now had also meat, though he realised perfectly well that what
he had was only bread.

Granted that her vehemence in condemning society was not

the usual scientific language; it is however not true, as she has
been accused to have done, that she used it in order to impose
her philosophical views and to belittle those of others. As I
mentioned previously, it was a means to awaken dormant con
sciences, to make better understood what the children had showed
to be their needs. The fact that these were a revelation for her is
the clearest proof that the phenomena she witnessed were not
due to any educational theory of hers.

Dr. Montessori never wished to be—and never was—a theorist

of science. Her approach, if an approach there was, borders
on the empirical. The intention to build a system, be it psycho
logical, pedagogical or philosophical, never entered her mind.
What she did was to elaborate an orientation. What she gave
was directives which are scientifically solid, the validity of which
has been proved by experiences conducted on a very vast scale,
in all strata of society, the world over: directives for a practical
action in educational and social fields to help the development
of the human personality.

She concentrated upon the phenomena and facts as they were

revealed in the various environments which she, or her assistants*
or those who had been inspired by her work, worked in. She
always sought to catch the essence of the phenomena which were
observed and, if it were possible, to elaborate from them an
essential and existentialistic ' vision'. The interpret and illustrate
both the phenomena she was confronted with, in her practical
xii THE MONTESSORI METHOD

work with the children and the conclusions she derived from
them, she expressed herselfin the scientific terminology of the time.
Because of this—and because the theories she refers to have
been 'exploded '—certain trends of Educational Psychology have
proclaimed that what she says is false. This is as logical as to
declare false the fact that children do come into the world because
C. F. Wolff with his "Theoria Generationis" exploded the
theories of the animalculists and of the ovulists. The theories
prevailing at that time may have been exploded, but facts are facts
and those Dr. Montessori described then, continue to repeat them
selves today when other theories are accepted as true. Were
she endeavouring to make these facts understood in our era
Dr. Montessori would naturally refer to the present theories. That
is what she did at that time. She had to use what was felt in the
different fields of contemporary science. But that does not mean
that the theories then extant were her theories.
Has Dr. Montessori then said the 'last word' in the field of
education? She certainly did not think so.
If philosophers and educators accused her of being dogmatic
and rigid, of having the pretension that she only was right and
everyone else wrong, it was because they did not realise that, while
they continued to debate from the old, she had shown the starting
point of a new science of education.
Dr. Montessori realised fully well that the new science was at
its infancy and that in future, as science progressed, there might
be the possibility of further interpretations. Her own initial one
evolved, as can be seen, in her later books.
" What I have shown in the immense potentiality of the child,"
she said again and again, " is the existence of an energy which
previously had not been taken into consideration. But as far as its
utilisation or knowledge about it is concerned, we are still at the
stage of Galvani when he realised that the flexing of the legs of
dead and decorticated frogs were due to some mysterious energy.
He pointed this out and thus created the interest in electricity that
evolved into atomic science."
 FOREWORD xin

The atomic era has contributed to vindica te Dr. Montessori.

to cope adequately with the progress which has been created, our
times require that humanity learns more and faster. Humanity
itself is confronted with the constant threat of being wiped out
by the immense destructive powers it has developed. And while
a crying need is felt for men who are more tolerant and more
equilibrated, the appalling reality is one of increasing youth
criminality, of neurosis affecting almost one half of the child
world-population, of college students in need of ' spelling clinics.'
Inthis dilemma, the refulgent figure ofthe child, Dr. Montessori
pointed out, who had found his own path to mental health, who
spontaneously and joyfully had taken to learning at an early age,
has anew caught the general attention. All the more so because
in varied scientific fields modern research has come now to the
same conclusions Dr. Montessori came to fifty years ago.
Hence the publication of this historical edition. I must warn
however that since 1916, when this book first appeared in Italy,
immense strides have been made in the development of school
subjects, so that what is dealt with in the second part of this book
has become, so to say, but the corner stone of a majestic
building. Unluckily, to date, little or nothing has been published
to illustrate this evolution. It is however being spread in the
yearly courses given by the International Centre of Montessori
Studies in Bergamo, Italy, and it is to be hoped that in the near
future a series ofbooks will make it available to the public.
Amsterdam
]965 Mario M. Montessori
 CONTENTS

Page

I. A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 1

II. A SURVEY OF MODERN EDUCATION 23

III. MY CONTRIBUTION TO EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE 55

IV. THE PREPARATION OF THE TEACHER 103

V. ENVIRONMENT 117

VI. ATTENTION 126

VH. WILL
140

VIII. INTELLIGENCE 161

IX. IMAGINATION .. 199

'•*;'•. ~$. : .•

jK,--.tr- >":>'. '/:".• ..I

mv
 I

A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE

The general laws which govern the child's psychical health

have their parallel in those of its physical health.—Many persons
who have asked me to continue my methods of education for very
young children on lines that would make them suitable for those
over seven years of age, have expressed a doubt whether this would
be possible.
The difficulties they put forward are mainly of a moral
order.

Should not the child now begin to respect the will of others
rather than his own? Should he not some day brace himself to
a real effort, compelling him to carry out a necessary, rather than
a chosen, task? Finally, should he not learn self-sacrifice, since
man's life is not a life of ease and enjoyment?
Some, taking certain practical items of elementary education,
which present themselves even at the age of six, and must be,
seriously envisaged at seven, urge their objection in this form:
Nowweare face to face withthe ugly spectre of arithmetical tables,
the arid mental gymnastics exacted by grammar. What do you
propose? Would you abolish all this, or do you admit that the
child must inevitably bow to these necessities?
 2 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

It is obvious that the whole of the argument revolves round

the interpretation of that "liberty" which is the avowed basis
of the system of education advocated by me.

Perhaps in a short time all these objections will provoke a

smile, and I shall be asked to suppress them, together wih ray
commentary on them, in future editions of this work. But at the
present time they have a right toexist, and tobedealt with, although
indeed it is not very easy to give a direct, clear and convincing
answer to them, because this entails the raising of questions on
which everybody has firmly rooted convictions.

A parallel may perhaps serve to save us a good deal of the

work. Indirectly, these questions have been answered already
by the progress made inthe treatment ofinfants under the guidance
of hygiene. How were they treated formerly? Many, no doubt,
can still remember certain practices that were regarded as indis
pensable by the masses. An infant had to be strapped and swad
dled, orits legs would grow crooked; the ligament under its tongue
had to be slit, to ensure its speaking eventually; it was important
that it should always wear a cap to keep its ears from protruding;
the position of a recumbent baby was so arranged as not to cause
permanent deformity of the tender skull; and good mothers stroked
and pinched the little noses of their nurslings to make them grow
long and sharp instead of round and snub, and put little gold ear
rings through the lobes of their ears very soon after birth " to
improve their eyesight''. Such practices may be already forgotten
in some countries; but in others they obtain to this day. Who
does notremember the various devices for helping a baby to walk?
Even in the first month after birth, at a period of life when the
nervous system is not completely developed, and it is impossible
for theinfant to co-ordinate itsmovements, mothers wasted several
half-hours of the day "teaching baby to walk". Holding the
little creature by the body, they watched the aimless movements
of the tiny feet, and deluded themselves with the belief that the
child was already making an effort to walk; and because it does
actually by degrees begin to arch its feet and move its legs more
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 3

boldly, the mother attributed its progress to her instruction. When

finally the movement had been almost established—though hot
the equilibrium, and the resulting power to stand on the feet—
mothers made use of certain traps with which they held up
baby's body, and thus made it walk on the ground with themselves;
or, when they had no time to spare, they put the baby into a kind
of bell-shaped basket, the broad base of\ which prevented it from
turning over; they tied the infant into this, hanging its arms out
side, its body being supported by the upper edge of the basket;
thus the child, though it could not rise on its feet, advanced, moving
its legs, and was said to be walking.
Other relics of a very recent past are a species :of convex
crowns which were put round the heads of babies when they were
considered capable of rising to their feet, and were accordingly
emancipated from the basket. The child, suddenly left to himself
after being accustomed hitherto to supports jcomparabk to the
crutches of the cripple, fell perpetually, and the crown was. a pro
tection to the head, which would otherwise have been injured.
What was the revelations of Science, when it entered upon
the scene for the salvation of the child? It certainly offered no
perfected methods for straightening the noses and tht ears.nor did
it enlighten mothers as to the methods of teaching babies to walk
immediately after birth. No. It proclaimed first of all that
Nature itself will determine the shape of heads, noses, and ears;
that man will speak without having the membrane of the tongue
cut and further, that legs will grow straight and that the function
of walking will come naturally, and requires no intervention.
Hence it follows that we should leave as much as possible
to Nature; and the more the babe is left free to develop, the more
rapidly and perfectly will he achieve his proper proportions and
higher functions. Thus swaddling bands are aboMshedj and the
" utmost tranquillity in a restful position "is recommended. The
infant, with its legs perfectly free, will be left lying full length,
and not jogged up and down to "ainuse" it, as many persons
imagine they are doing by this device. It will not be forced to
4 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

walk before it is time. When this time comes, it will raise itself and
walk spontaneously.
In these days nearly all mothers are convinced of this, and
vendors of swaddling-bands, straps, and baskets have practically
disappeared.
As a result, babies have straighter legs and walk better and
earlier than formerly.
This is an established fact, and a most comforting one; for
what a constant anxiety it must have been to believe that the straight-
ness of a child's legs, and the shape of its nose, ears, and head
were the direct results of our care! What a responsibility, to which
everyone must have felt unequal! And what a relief to say:
" Nature will think of that. I will leave my baby free, and watch
him grow in beauty; I will be a quiescent spectator of the miracle."
Something analogous has been happening with regard to the
inner life of the child. We are beset by such anxieties as these:
it is necessary to form character, to develop the intelligence, to
aid the unfolding and ordering of the emotions. And we ask
ourselves how we are to do this. Here and there we touch the
soul of the child, or we constrain it by special restrictions, much as
mothers used to press the noses of their babies or strap down
their ears. And we concealour anxiety beneath a certain mediocre
success, for it is a fact that men do grow up possessing character,
intelligence and feeling. But when all these things are lacking
we are vanquished. What are we to do then? Who will give
character to a degenerate, intelligence to an idiot, human emotions
to a moral maniac?

If it were really true that men acquired all such qualities

by these fitful manipulations of their souls, it would suffice to
apply a little more energy to the process when these souls are
evidently feeble. But this is not sufficient.
Then we areno more the creators of spiritual than ofphysical
forms.
It is Nature, "creation," which regulates all these things.
If we are convinced of this, we must admit as a principle the
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 5

necessity of " not introducing obstacles to natural development";

and instead of having to deal with many separate problems-
such as, what are the best aids to the development of character,
intelligence and feeling?—one single problem will present itself
as the basis of all education: How are we to give the child
freedom?

In according this freedom we must take account of principles

analogous to those laid down by science for the forms and func
tions of the body during its period of growth: it is a freedom in
which the head, the nose, and the ears will attain the highest beauty,
and the gait the utmost perfection possible to the congenital powers
of the individual. Thus here again liberty, the sole means, will
lead to the maximum development of character, intelligence and
sentiment; and will give to us, the educators, peace, and the possi
bility of contemplating the miracle of growth.
This liberty will further deliver us from the painful weight of
a fictitious responsibility and a dangerous illusion.
Woe to us, when we believe ourselves responsible for matters
that do not concern us, and delude ourselves with the idea that we
are perfecting things that will perfect themselves quite independently
of us! For then we are like lunatics; and the profound question
arises: What, then, is our true mission, our true responsibility?
If we are deceiving ourselves, what is indeed the truth? And what
sins of omission and of commission must be laid to our charge? If,
like Chanticleer, we believe that the sun rises in the morning because
the cock has crowed, what duties shall we find when we come to
our senses? Who has been left destitute, because we ourselves have
forgotten "to eat our true bread"?
The history of the " physical redemption " of the infant has
a sequel which is highly instructive for us.
Hygiene has not been confined to the task of anthropological
demonstration, such as that which not only made generally known,
but convinced everyone, that the body develops spontaneously;
because, in reality, the question of infant welfare was not concerned
with the more or less perfect forms of the body. The real infantile
 6 THE MONTESSORI METHOD
question which called for the intervention of science was the
alarming mortality among infants.

It certainly seems strange in these days to consider this fact:

that, at the period when infantile diseases made the greatest ravages,
people were not nearly so much concerned with infantile mortality
as with the shape of the nose or the straightness of the legs, while
the real question—literally a question of life and death—passed
unobserved. There must be many persons who, like myself, have
heard such dialogues as this:"I have had great experience in the
care of children; I have had nine." And how many of them are
living?'' " Two.'' And nevertheless this mother was looked upon
as an authority!

Statistics of mortality reveal figures so high that the pheno

menon may justly be called the "Slaughter of the Innocents ".
The famous graph of Lexis, which is not confined to one country
or another, but deals with the general averages of human
mortality, reveals the fact that this terrible death-rate is of universal
occurrence among all peoples. This must be attributed to two
different factors. One is undoubtedly the characteristic feebleness
ofjnfcincy; the other the absence of protection for this feebleness,
an absence that had become general among all peoples. Good
will was not lacking, nor parental affection; the fault lay hidden in
an unknown cause, in a lack of protection against a dire peril of
which men werequite unconscious. It is now a matter of common
knowledge that infectious diseases, especially those of intestinal
origin, are those most destructiveto infant life. Intestinal disorders
which impede nutrition, and produce toxins at an age when the
delicate tissues are most sensitive to them, were responsible for
nearly the entire death-roll. These were aggravated by the errors
habitually committed by those in charge of infants. These errors
Were alack of. cleanliness which would astound us nowadays, and
a complete absence of any sort of rule concerning infant diet. The
sailed napkins which were wrapped round the baby under its
swaddling hands would be dried in the sun again and again, and
replaced oh theinfant v/ithout being washed. No care was taken
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 7

to wash the mother's breast or the baby's mouth, in spite of fermen

tation so pronounced as to cause local disorder. Suckling of
infants was carried out quite irregularly; the cries of the child
were the sole guide whereby its feeding times, whether by night
or day, were determined; and the more it suffered from indigestion
and the resulting pains, the more frequently was it fed, to the
constant aggravation of its sufferings. Who in those days might
not have seen mothers carrying in their arms babies flushed with
fever, perpetually thrusting the nipple into the little howling mouth
in the hope of quieting it? And yet those mothers were full of self-
sacrifice and of maternal anguish!

Science laid down simple rules; it enjoined the utmost possible

cleanliness, and formulated a principle so self-evident, that it seems
astounding people should not have recognised it for themselves:
that the smallest infant, like ourselves, should have regular meals,
and should only take fresh nourishment when it has digested what
has been given before; and hence that it should be suckled only
at intervals of so many hours, according to the months of its age
and the modifications of physical function in its development.
No infant should ever be given crusts of bread to suck, as is often
done by mothers, especially among the lower orders, to still its
crying, because particles of bread might be swallowed, which the
child is as yet incapable of digesting.

The mothers' anxiety then was: what are we to do when the

baby cries? They found to their astonishment after a time that
their babies cried a great deal less, or indeed not at all; they even
saw infants only a week old spending the two hours' interval
between successive meals calm and rosy, with wide-open
eyes, so silent that they gave no sign of life, like Nature in her
moments of solemn immobility. Why indeed should they cry
continually? Those cries were the sign of a state of things
which must be translated by these words: suffering and death.

And for these wailing little ones the world did nothing. They
werestrapped up in swaddling clothes, and very often handed over
8 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

to a young child incapable of responsibility; they had neither a

room nor a bed of their own.

It was Science which came to the rescue and created nurseries,

cradles, rooms for babies, suitable clothes for them, alimentary
substances specially prepared for them by great industries devoted
to the hygienic sustenance of infants after weaning, and medical
specialists for their ailments; in short, an entirely new world, clean,
intelligent, and full of amenity. The baby, has become the new
man who has conquered his own right to live, and thus has caused
a sphere to be created for him. And in direct proportion to the
diffusion of the laws of infantile hygiene, infant mortality has
decreased.

So then, when we say that in like manner the baby should

be left at liberty spiritually, because creative Nature can also
fashion its spirit better than we can, we do not mean that it should
be neglected and abandoned.
Perhaps, looking around us, we shall perceive that though we
cannot directly mould its individual forms of character, intelligence,
and feeling, there is nevertheless a whole category of duties and
solicitudes which we have neglected: and that on these the life or
death of the spirit depend.
The principle of liberty is not therefore a principle of abandon
ment, but rather one which, by leading us from illusions to reality,
will guide us to the most positive and efficacious "care of the child."
The liberty accorded to the child of today is purely physical,.
Civil rights of the child in the twentieth century.—Hygiene has
brought liberty into the physical life of the infant. Such material
facts as the abolition of swaddling bands, open-air life, the pro
longation of sleep till the infant wakes of its own accord, etc.
are the most evident and tangible proof of this. But these are
merely means for the attainment of liberty. A far more important
measure of liberation has been the removal of the perils
of disease and death which beset the child at the outset of life's
journey. Not only did infants survive in very much greater
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 9

numbers as soon as the obstacles of certain fundamental errors

were swept away, but it was at once apparent that there was an
improvement in their development. Was it really hygiene which
helped them to increase in weight, stature, and beauty, and
improved their material development? Hygiene did not accomplish
quite all this. Who, as the Gospel says, can by taking thought
add one cubit to his stature? Hygiene merely delivered the child
from the obstacles that impeded its growth. External restraints
checked material development and all the natural evolution of
life; hygiene burst these bonds. And everyonefelt that a liberation
had been effected; everyone repeated in view of the accomplished
fact: children should be free. The direct correspondence between
"conditions of physical life fulfilled" and "liberty acquired"
is now universally and intuitively recognised. Thus the infant is
treated like a young plant. Children today enjoy the rights
which from time immemorial have been accorded to the vegetables
of a well-kept garden. Good food, oxygen, suitable temperature,
the careful elimination of parasites that produce disease; yes,
henceforth we may say that the son of a prince will be tended with
as much care as the finest rose-tree of a villa.

The old comparison of a child to a flower is the reality to

which we now aspire; though even this is a privilege reserved for
the more fortunate children. But let us beware of so grave an
error. The babe is a man. That which suffices for a plant cannot
be sufficient for him. Consider the depth of misery into which a
paralysed man has sunk when we say of him: " he merely vegetates;
as a man, he is dead," and lament that there is nothing but his
body left.
The infant as a man—such is the figure we ought to keep in
view. We must behold him amidst our tumultuous human society,
and see how with heroic vigour he aspires to life,
What are the rights of children? Let us consider them for a
moment as a social class, as a class of workers, for as a fact they
are labouring to produce men. They are the future generation.
They work, undergoing the fatigues of physical and spiritual
10 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

growth. They continue the work carried on for a few months

by their mothers, but their task is a more laborious, complex, and
difficult one. When they are born they possess nothing but
potentialities; they have to do everything in a world which, as even
adults admit, is full of difficulties. What is done to help these
frail pilgrims in an unknown world? They are born more fragile
and helpless than an animal, and in a few yearsthey have to become
men, to be units in a highly complicated organised society, built
up by the secular effort of innumerable generations. At a period
in which civilisation, that is, the possibility of right living, is based
upon rights energetically acquired and consecrated by laws, what
rights has he who comes amongst us without strength and without
thought? Like the infant Moses lying in the ark of bulrushes on
the waters of the Nile he represets the future of the chosen
people; but will some princess passing by perchance see him?

To chance, to luck, to affection, to all these we entrust the

child; and it <vould seem the Biblical chastisement of the Egyptian
oppressor, the death of the first-born, is to be unceasingly renewed.

Let us see how social justice receives the infant when he enters
the world. We are living in the twentieth century; in many of
the so-called civilised nations orphan asylums and wet nurses are
still recognised institutions. What is an orphan asylum? It is a
place of sequestration, a dark and terrible prison, where only too
often the prisoner finds death, as in those mediaeval dungeons
whence the victim disappeared, leaving no trace. He never sees any
who are dear to him. His family name is cancelled, his goods are
confiscated. The greatest criminal may retain memories of his
mother, knows that he has had a name, and may derive some
consolation from his recollections, comparable to the soothing
reflections of one who having become blind recalls the beauty of
colours and the splendour of the sun; but the foundling is as one
born blind. Every malefactor has more rights than he; and yet
who could be more innocent? Even in the days of the most odious
tyranny, the spectacle of oppressed innocence kindled a flame of
justice thatsooner or later blazed up into revolution. The persons
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 11

imprisoned by tyrants because they had happened to be witnessess

of their crimes, and who were cast into dungeons where darkness
and inaudible suffering were henceforth their unhappy portion, at
least roused the people to proclaim the principle of equal justice
for all. But who will lift up his voice for our foundlings? Society
does not perceive that they too are men; they are indeed only the
"flowers" of humanity. And to save honour and good name,
what society would not with one accord sacrifice mere " flowers"?

The wet nurse is a social custom. A luxurious custom, on

the one hand. Not very long ago, a girl of the middle, and not
even the upper middle class, who was about to marry, boasted
in the following terms of the domestic comfort promised her by
her future husband: "lam to have a cook, a housemaid, and a
wet nurse." On the other hand, the robust peasant girl who has
given birth to a son, looking complacently at her heavy breasts,
thinks: " I shall be able to get a good place as wet nurse." jit is
only quite recently that hygiene has cried shame upon those
mothers whose laziness makes them refuse to suckle their own
children; in our times queens and empresses who suckle their
children are still cited admiringly as examples to other mothers.
The maternal duty of suckling her own children prescribed to
mothers by hygienists is based on a physiological principle: the
mother's milk nourishes an infant more perfectly than any other.
In spite of this clearindication, the dutyis far frombeing universally
accepted. Often in our walks we still see a robust mother accom
panied by a wet nurse gorgeously attired in red or blue, with gold
and silver embroideries, carrying a baby. Wealthy mothers have
untidily dressed wet nurses who do not go out with them, who
always follow the modern nurse, an expert in infantile hygiene>
who keeps the baby " like a flower ".

And what of the other child? ... For every infant who has
a double supply of human milk at his disposal, there is another
child who has none. The wealth in question is not an industrial
product. It is apportioned by Nature with careful precision. For
each new life, the ration of milk. Milk cannot be produced by
12 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

any means other than the production of life. Cow-keepers know

this well; their good cows are hygienically reared, and calves are
sent to the butcher. Yet what distress is felt whenever the young
of some animal is parted from its mother! Is it not so in the case
of puppies and kittens? When a pet dog has given birth to a litter
so numerous that she cannot sukle them all, and it is necessary
to destroy some of the puppies, what sincere grief is felt by the
mistress of the house, whose own baby is being suckled by a mag
nificent wet nurse! Well—the thing which excites her compassion
above all is the eager, whimpering mother, which does not under
stand whether she has or has not the strength to suckle all the
shapeless puppies she has borne, but which cannot lose one of
them without despair. "The wet nurse is quite another affair; she
came of her own accord to offer her milk for sale. What the other
—her own child—was to do, no one cared.

Only a clearly defined right, a law, could have protected him,

for society is based on rights. These, it is true, are the rights of
property, which are absolute; steal a loaf, even if you are starving,
and you are a thief; you will be punished by the law and outlawed
by society. The rights of property constitute one of the most
formidable of the social bases. An administrator of landed estate
who should sell the property belonging to his master, make money
out of it for his own enjoyment,, and leave the rightful owner in
the direct poverty, is a criminal difficult to imagine. For who would
buy a property without the signature of the owner? Society is so
constituted that certain crimes would not only be punished if
committed, but are almost impossible to commit. Yet in the
case of young infants, this crime is committed every day, and is
not regarded as a crime, but as a luxury. What can be a more
sacred right than that of the baby to his mother's milk? He might
say of this in the words of the Emperor Napoleon: " God has
given it to me." There can be no doubt whatever as to the legiti
macy of his claim; his sole capital, milk, came into the world with
and for bim. All his wealth is there: strength to live, to grow,
to acquire vigour are contained in that nourishment. If the
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 13

defrauded infant should become weak and rickety, what would

become of him, condemned by poverty to a hard calling? What
a claim for damages, what a question of accident during work
with permanent injury resulting there from might be raised if some
day the infant could present himself after the manner of a man
before the tribunal of social justice!
In civilised countries rich mothers have been induced to suckle
their children because hygienists have proved that this is beneficial
to the baby's health, but not because it has been recognised that
the " civil right'' of the adult extends to the infant. These mothers
consider countries where the wet nurse is still an institution as
less highly developed, but on the same plane of civilisation as
their own.
It may be asked: what if the mother is ill and unable to suckle
her child? In such a case the child of the sick woman is the un
fortunate one. Why should another have to suffer for his
misfortunate? However poverty stricken individuals may be, we
do not allow them to take from others the wealth that is so urgently
needed by them. If in these days an Emperor could be cured of
terrible sufferings by immersion in a bath of human blood, he
could notbleed healthy men for thepurpose asa barbarian Emperor
would have done. These are the things that make up our civili
sations. This it is which differentiates us from pirates and
cannibals. The rights of the adult are recognised.
But not the rights of the infant.1 What an implication of
baseness the fact carries with it: we recognise the rights of adults
indeed, but not those of the child! We recognise justice, but only
1Of course, should the child of the wet nurse have died,there can be no
question of an infringement of its rights. But such cases have no relation to
those in which the rich mother requires a nurse for the child she is unable to
suckle herself, owing to pathological reasons.
I may draw attention to a precautionary measure which has become a
law in Germany: this prohibits the acceptance of a post as wet nurse by a
mother until six months after the birth of her own child. This interval is
considered sufficiently long to guarantee the health of the infant. Moreover,
thespecial care devoted to artificial feeding in Germany provides a satisfactory
substitute for wet nursing, in thecase of children who are deprived of maternal
nourishment. Such laws and provisions are a first step towards the recogni
tion of the " civil rights " of poor infante.
14 THE MONTESSORI METHOD

for those who can protest and defend themselves; and for the rest,
we remain barbarians. Because today there may be peoples
more or less highly developed from the hygienic point of view,
but they all belong to the same civilisation—a civilisation based
on the right of the strongest.
When we begin seriously to examine the problem of the moral
education of the child, we ought to look around us a little, and
survey the world we have prepared for him. Are we willing that
he should become like us, unscrupulous in our dealings with the
weak? that like us, his consciousness should harbour ideas of a
justice which stops short at those who make no protests? Are we
willing to make him like ourselves half a civilised man in our
dealings with our equals,and half a wild beast when we encounter
the innocent and oppressed?
If not, then before we offer moral education to the child, let
us imitate the priest who is about to ascend to the altar: he bows
his head in penitence and confesses his own sins before the whole
congregation.
This outlawed child is like a dislocated arm. Humanity
cannot work at the evolution of its morality until this arm has
been put into its place; and this will also end the pains and the
paralysis of the injured muscles attached to it: women. The social
question of the child is obviously the more complete and profound;
it is the question of our present and of our future.
If we can reconcile to our conscience deeds of such grave
injustice, not to say crimes,without recognising them as such,
what minor forms of oppression shall we not readily condone in
our dealings with the child?
How we receive the infants which come into the world.—Let
us look around. Only of late has any preparation been made to
receive this sublime guest. It is not very long ago that little beds
for children were first made; amongst all the innumerable tasteless,
superfluous, and extravagant objects of commerce, let us see what
things are intended for the child. No washstands, no sofas, no
tables, no brushes. Among all the many houses, there is not one
 A SURVEY OF THE CHILD'S LIFE 15

house for him and his like, and only rich and fortunate children
have even a room of their own, more or less a place of exile.
Let us imagine ourselves subjected for even a single day to
the miseries to which he is condemned.

Suppose that we should find ourselves among a race of giants,

withlegs immensely longand bodies enormously largein comparison
with ours, and also with powers of rapid movement infinitely
greater than ours, people extraordinarily agile and intelligent
compared with ourselves. We should want to go into their houses;
the steps would be each as high as our knees, and yet we should
have to try to mount them with their owners; we should want to
sit down, but the seats would be almost as high as our shoulders;
clambering painfully upon them, we should at last succeed in
perching upon them. We should want to brush our clothes, but
all the clothes-brushes would be so huge that we could not lay
hold of them nor sustain their weight; and a clothes-brush would
be handed to us if we wanted to brush our nails. We should
perhaps be glad to take a bath in one of the washstand basins;
but the weight of these would make it impossible for us to lift
them. If we knew that these giants had been expecting us, we
should be obliged to say: they have made no preparations for
receiving us, or for making our lives among them agreeable. The
baby finds all that he himself needs in the form of play-things
made for dolls; rich, varied and attractive surroundingshave not
been created for him, but dolls have houses, sitting-rooms, kitchens
and wardrobes; for them all that the adult possesses is reproduced
in minitature. Among all these things, however, the child cannot
live; he can only amuse himself. The world has been given to
himin just, because no one has yet recognised him as a living man.
He discovers that, society has prepared a mockery for hisreception.
That children break their toys is so well known that this act
of destruction of the only things specially manufactured for them
is taken to be a proof of their intelUgence. We say: "He destroys
it because he wishes to understand {how things are made];" in
reality he is looking to see if there* is anything interesting inside