INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION OF INSTRUCTORS OF DEAF-MUTES AT MILAN.

BY EDWARD M. GALLAUDET, PH. D, LL. D.,

President of the National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.

DURING the progress of the Universal Exhibition of 1878 at Paris, steps were taken by the government of France to secure the assembling of several conventions of specialists. One of these was a socalled International Convention (Congrès Universel) of Instructors of the Deaf and Dumb. As the call for this convention, which met on the 23d of September, was issued only in July, it was not strange that the attempt to make the meeting international in character proved unsuccessful.

Out of twenty-seven instructors inscribed as members, twenty-three were from France. The remaining four delegates were from Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium.

At this meeting, however, a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, for a convention to be held in Milan in September, 1880, which might fairly represent the great body of teachers of the deaf in all parts of the world. Pains were taken by the committee of organization to secure the fullest possible attendance, and in point of members the Milan meeting was a success, one hundred and sixtyfour instructors being present.

The selection of Milan as the seat of the convention was owing in part to the fact that in the capital of Lombardy two justly celebrated institutions for the deaf and dumb have existed for many years; but especially because these schools have for some time been giving the greatest possible prominence to articulation, of which method a majority of the committee were ardent supporters.

That the claims of the oral method were to engross the attention of the convention, to the exclusion of nearly everything else, was apparent from the first. Th circulars of invitation urged delegates to be present in Milan two days in advance of the organization of the convention, that they might witness examinations of the two schools arranged for those days.

These exercises, which were extremely interesting, and in many respects highly creditable to teachers and pupils, were in certain particulars open to serious criticism.

An enthusiastic English member of the convention, writing to the

London "Times" in the interest of the "pure oral method," speaks of these "examinations" as follows:

"Let it be noted that the medium of examination-the sole medium of communication, in fact, between pupil and examiner, whether teacher or visitor-was speech; speech alone. Every word of the examination was uttered audibly, every word of the answer was spoken in like manner, audibly and loudly. There was not, even in this country, where gesture and action so commonly accompany speech, the least resort to signs or finger language. . . . Deaf children were addressed just as if they were not deaf, in spoken language, and they one and all answered in spoken language, though in our country we call them dumb.”

Now, while this was all true, the English letter-writer failed to report that the examinations followed very closely the order of printed programmes; that answers were in many instances begun before the examiner had completed his question; that no real examination was made by outside persons; that many pupils were asked very few questions, while certain pupils were examined at great length; that these discriminations were made by the teachers in every instance; that no information was given as to the history of any pupil,—that is, as to whether deafness was congenital or acquired, and whether speech had been developed before hearing was lost, or not; that the impression was thus sought to be conveyed to the audiences that all the speech possessed by all the pupils had been imparted to them by their teachers, which was certainly not the case in view of all which, we do not hesitate to characterize these so-called examinations as mere exhibitions, deserving to have very little influence with the professional observer.

On Monday, the 6th of September, the convention was called to order in the hall of the Royal Institute of Technology, by Dr. Zucchi, president of the Board of Directors of the Royal Institution for the Deaf and Dumb in Milan, and chairman of the local committee of arrangements.

After addresses of welcome by prominent citizens of Milan, the convention was organized by the choice of the Abbé Gulio Tarra, principal of the Provincial Institution for Deaf-Mutes in Milan, as president; and of Prof. Pasquale Fornari, senior teacher in the Royal Institution as secretary. Vice-presidents were elected as follows: For the Italian language, Padre Marchio, of the Siena Institution; for the French language, M. Auguste Houdin, principal of a private school for deaf-mutes in Paris; for the German language, Dr. Treibel, principal of the Royal Institution at Berlin; for the Eng

lish language, Dr. Isaac Lewis Peet, principal of the New York Institution. Vice-secretaries were also chosen to represent the four languages of the convention as follows: Padre Lazzeri, principal of the Turin Institution; the Abbé Guerin, vice-principal of the institution at Marseilles; M. Hugentöbler, principal of a boarding-school for deaf-mutes at Lyons; Mr. Arthur Kinsey, principal of a training college for teachers of the deaf, on the German system, at Ealing, near London.

Of these ten gentlemen, who formed the bureau of the convention, nine were supporters of the method of articulation; Dr. Peet standing alone in favor of the combined system.

The subjects presented for discussion by the committee on organization were grouped in four classes, namely: (1) Those relating to buildings and all material arrangements for the accommodation of the inmates of institutions; (2) Everything concerning the details of instruction; (3) The various methods of teaching; (4) Special ques

tions.

The subject of methods was first taken up, and the discussion was opened by M. Magnat, principal of the Pereire school for deaf-mutes in Paris, who presented a printed volume of one hundred and sixteen pages, in which the topics included in the first three groups were treated in extenso. A small portion only of this volume was read to the convention, by M. Magnat.

An accomplished English lady, Mrs. B. St. John Ackers, who has been for some years superintending the education of a deaf daughter, read a paper on the "Mental Development of the Deaf under the German System."

Mrs. Ackers was followed by Miss Susanna E. Hull, of London, the mistress of a private school for deaf-mutes, in a paper entitled "My Experience of Various Methods of educating the Deaf-born." Both these ladies urged, in eloquent terms, the superiority of the German or oral method over the French or sign method; but neither answered the objection which may be raised against the use of the oral method with all deaf-mutes, that in point of fact a large proportion of the deaf and dumb are incapable of attaining any real success in speech and lip-reading.

The writer of this article opposed the use of either the German or the French method to the exclusion of the other, and advocated a combined system, in which all available means should be employed, these being wisely adapted to the diverse conditions of those who are to be taught. He admitted the propriety of maintaining schools in which the oral method should prevail, but insisted that at

the same time other schools should be provided for the benefit of those who are incapable of success in speech.

These views, however, found little favor in the convention, and after a somewhat extended debate, in which the presiding officer, the Abbé Tarra, was the most prominent speaker, he occupying more than two hours on two successive days, the following resolutions were adopted with only four dissenting voices:

"I. The convention, considering the incontestable superiority of speech over signs, -(1) for restoring deaf-mutes to social life; (2) for giving them greater facility of language, -declares that the method of articulation should have the preference over that of signs in the instruction and education of the deaf and dumb.

"2. Considering that the simultaneous use of signs and speech has the disadvantage of injuring speech and lip-reading and precision of ideas, the convention declares that the pure oral method ought to be preferred."

The London "Times" in a recent editorial article claims that "no more representative body could have been collected than that which at Milan has declared for oral teaching for the deaf, and for nothing but oral teaching"; and speaks of the action of the convention as expressing "a virtual unanimity of preference for oral teaching which might seem to overbear all possibility of opposition."

So far from being a representative body, the Milan gathering was as complete a failure in an international point of view as was the Paris meeting in 1878; for of the one hundred and sixty-four enrolled as active members of the convention, Italy furnished eighty-seven, France fifty-six, England eight, the United States five, Scandinavia three, Germany three, Belgium one, and Switzerland

one.

Forty-six active members were officers and teachers in the two schools of Milan, in which the number of pupils does not rise to one hundred and eighty; three active members represented a small private school in Paris, containing no more than a score of pupils. Here there were forty-nine votes with a constituency of three schools and two hundred scholars behind them; while the five votes from the United States represented fifty-one schools, nearly four hundred teachers, and over 6,000 pupils. And moreover, the American delegates were formally accredited as representatives of a conference of principals held last May, at Northampton, Mass., in which the supporters of the several methods of instruction now made use of in this country (including all that are known in the world) were assembled in friendly council.

Other facts could be given, showing that no truly international or representative character can attach to the Milan meeting, but this is believed to be unnecessary.

The resolutions adopted at Milan are open to the very serious criticism of disingenuousness; for they recommend the entire abandonment of signs in the instruction of the deaf, while in the debate which preceded their adoption some of the most prominent supporters of the "pure oral method" freely acknowledged that they used signs to a certain extent, and yet voted against a resolution which recognized this fact.

But the most damaging criticism of all that can be brought against the conclusions sought to be established at Milan is, that they are based on unsound premises.

Taking into account the whole body of deaf-mutes, and the time and money that are available for their education, it is not true that the method based on speech has an "incontestable superiority" over that based on signs.

Under the method of de l'Epée, called the French, which makes a free use of signs and does not attempt to impart speech, many thousands of deaf-mutes in France, in the United States, and in certain other countries have been, during the last hundred years, sent out from school into society educated, intelligent, self-sustaining men and women, who have lived happily and prosperously in all the relations of life, as useful citizens, grateful for the blessings they have received, and rejoicing through their Christian faith in the hope of immortal life; and surely no more satisfactory results can be claimed for the German method of Heinicke. Where, then, is the "incontestable superiority of speech over signs for restoring deaf-mutes to social life"? It is claimed, and with justice, that many deaf-mutes educated under the French method have an imperfect command of language, and for this the "method" is made responsible.

Now, it is very well known by those familiar with deaf-mutes educated without speech and with signs, that large numbers of them do acquire a fair mastery of their vernacular; that a majority of those who fall short of this do so because they have not been under the care of judicious and skilful teachers; and that the remainder fail because of mental defects that would stand in the way of their success under the oral method. Those who have come into communication with large numbers of deaf-mutes educated under the oral method are equally well aware that "deaf-mutisms" frequently appear in the composition of many of these, and that not a few are sent from school into the world with very little command of either oral or verbal language.