Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Kerger, assisted by his sister, undertook the task of Instruction at Liegnitz in Silesia, early in the eighteenth century. He availed himself at once of design, of pantomime, of the oral and labial alphabets, and of writing. Of dactylology he makes no mention; but of the utility of the language of action, he expresses himself in the highest terms; entertaining, in this respect, views materially resembling those of De l'Epée at a later period.

Contemporary with Kerger, was George Raphel, the father of three deaf and dumb children. Led first by parental affection to become an instructer, and having subsequently succeeded even beyond his hopes, he committed to paper an account of his method, for the information of others. This work was first published at Lunenburg, in the year 1718.

Lasius confined himself to the teaching of language under a visible form. He made use neither of the manual alphabet nor of design. Arnoldi, on the other hand, gave to this latter instrument considerable expansion, and taught the use of the oral and labial alphabets. He employed also pantomime, but only so far as it is the work of the deaf and dumb themselves.

Samuel Heinicke was the director of the first institution for the deaf and dumb, established under the patronage of a government. This Institution was founded at Leipzig in 1778. Heinicke had, before this time, announced in the public papers, that, in the course of six weeks, he had taught a deaf and dumb person to answer, by writing, whatever questions were proposed to him. Arnoldi, says Degerando, could not but declare, that such a result seemed to him incomprehensible. Still, Heinicke was a man of no common ability; and his success is attested by the reputation, which obtained for him the direction of a public institution. But he was, at the same time, a man of immeasurable self-conceit, irritable in his temper, rude, coarse and overbearing in his manners. In consequence of the existence of such traits in his character, though his pupils were the principal sufferers, all who had to do with him were subject to more or less annoyance. He attributed to himself the honor of invention, but so far as his processes have come to the light, they afford no justification of his claim. In some trifling particulars, his methods were indeed peculiar. He placed instruments in the mouths of his pupils, to regulate the positions of the vocal organs in emitting sounds. And he asserted (what is very improbable,) that he had made particular sensations of taste to correspond to particular articulations. Heinicke was a believer in the exclusive prerogative of the voice to serve as an instrument of thought. Otherwise, his views were eminently in accordance with sound philosophy.

France seems not only to have been behind other European nations in her efforts for the education of the deaf and dumb, but even in the knowledge of what had been accomplished abroad. Hence, when at length she saw the advocates of this unfortunate class spring up within her limits, she opposed to them all those prejudices, which had elsewhere found their refutation in actual experiment. Still there exists testimony, that the practice of the art had not been wholly unknown, even in France, before the time of Pereiré and Ernaud. In 1769, a man deaf and dumb from birth, named Guibal, is recorded to have made his will in writing; and from the evidence of his knowledge produced in court, the will was confirmed. We have also some further evidence that the deaf and dumb were instructed; but nothing satisfactory until the time of Father Vanin, who rested instruction, as we have seen, principally upon the use of design.

After him sprung up Pereiré, a Portuguese. Two of his pupils, whom he exhibited, at different times, before the Academy of Sciences, were remarkable for their attainments. These were Saboureux de Fontenay, and D'Azy d'Etavigny. Pereiré made a secret of his processes. He offered to disclose them for a suitable consideration; but this consideration being withheld, they perished with him. It is even said that he bound his pupils by an oath, not to discover his modes of instruction; and made them a secret even to his family. We know, nevertheless, that the grand instrument of his system was a method of syllabic dactylology; which, by its rapidity in exhibiting words, enabled him, to a great extent, to rely on usage to explain their meaning. He was, nevertheless, apprised of the advantage of a logical method, in the teaching of languages. Few, if any, have been more successful than Pereiré. Of his pupil Fontenay, De l'Epée records, that he translated foreign works, and himself composed a number of productions designed for the press.

Ernaud, as well as Pereiré, obtained the approbation of the Academy of Sciences. He employed himself very much in reviving the sense of hearing, where it was partially lost. He asserts, indeed, that he had met with no instance of entire deafness. Articulation was, of course, his principal instrument.