PROOF COVER SHEETJournal acronym: CPDH

Author(s): Geert Thyssen

Article title: The stranger within: Luxembourg’s early school system as a European prototype of

nationally legitimized international blends (ca. 1794–1844)

Article no: 786105

Enclosures: 1) Query sheet

2) Article proofs

Dear Author,

1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author tocheck these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor &Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the productionprocess. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready forpublication.

Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignificantchanges, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making alarge number of small, non-essential corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We thereforereserve the right not to make such corrections.

For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please seehttp://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names arestructured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. Thischeck is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 Geert Thyssen

Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.

AUTHOR QUERIES

General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission fromthe appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material inyour article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please checkthat any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.

AQ1 Please rewrite or clarify ‘all but straightforward’.

AQ2 Please check the changes made to this sentence.

AQ3 Please rewrite or clarify ‘For want of political parties, strong and undivided clericalauthority, a notable public opinion and accessible uncensored press, most Luxem-bourgers did not immediately share the Belgians’ enthusiasm. Nevertheless, whetheror not influenced by Jean-Baptiste Nothomb,’

AQ4 Please rewrite or clarify ‘Since also the French law as such was very concise incomparison to the Luxembourg one, the ordinances issued between 1816 and 1828,which formed its foundation, were also included in the comparison. This reserva-tion is important,

AQ5 Please indicate where this quote starts and ends.

AQ6 Please rewrite or clarify ‘a civil authority hereditary of gallican Orangism’

AQ7 Is this translation correct? Please confirm.

AQ8 Please rewrite or clarify ‘The teacher-grade examinations on the occasion of whichthese certificates were to be awarded by the head of the anticipated normal school,like this precise institution, formed a central element in teachers’ training’.

AQ9 Please clarify ‘the preaching language’.

AQ10 Please rewrite or clarify ‘the admission of a “reunion of religious and civic instruc-tion” was later accused of giving way to the “legal confiscation of education” inLuxembourg. Linster, “Question scolaire,” 60. A similar appreciation has oftenfallen to “inner activities” connected to the curriculum as part of the school sys-tem’s organization.’.

AQ11 Please rewrite or clarify ‘’ Depending on their nature, in Luxembourg school lawelements were even perceived as ‘strange’ to the country by both parts of the politi-cal spectrum,’

AQ12 Please provide page range.

AQ13 Please clarify ‘’ Idem, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,” 46-7’

AQ14 Please clarify ‘Au Conseil de Gouvernement du Grand-Duché à Luxembourg,”Ibid.;’

AQ15 Please clarify ‘Compare Idem, 349-50; Calmès, Création d’un état, 270; Maas, “Loiscolaire de 1912,” 12; and Idem, “Question scolaire,” 103.’

AQ16 Please clarify ‘’ Idem, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,” 415’

AQ17 Please provide Note on Contributor.

The stranger within: Luxembourg’s early school system as aEuropean prototype of nationally legitimized internationalblends (ca. 1794–1844)

Geert Thyssen

5 Department of Languages, Media, Culture & Identity, University of Luxembourg

(Received 3 May 2012; final version received 12 March 2013)

This comparative analysis of Luxembourg’s early school (law) system revealsthe extent to which European school systems reflect “national-cultural idiosyn-crasies” apart from “structural isomorphism”. It first examines the legal soil into

10 which the Luxembourg school system was implanted. Legislative pendularswings, reflecting shifts in power relations, cultural–linguistic affinities and soon, determined the direction in which the school system would develop. Indeed,these oscillatory motions had unexpected results, which the second sectionreveals by presenting similarities with laws that provided inspiration for the

15 Luxembourg law. Despite criticism of Belgian policy, the Grand Duchy’s firstschool law system was very similar to it. The article then focuses on some keycomponents of the Luxembourg system and identifies a pattern of borrowings:in more strictly administrative and pedagogical matters, the French and Dutchschool laws served, while the Belgian school law constituted the reference for

20 matters intersecting with religious interests. This synchronic analysis is extendedby a diachronic analysis of the historical evidence for the selective borrowing ofkey components of the law. The final section suggests that incipient national–cultural particularities are perhaps to be found only on the level of “inner activi-ties” of a school system’s organisation, and that they are the products of

25 national historiography rather than historical features observable from a compar-ative–perspectivist viewpoint.

Keywords: education systems; school laws; comparative analysis; culturalidiosyncrasy; structural isomorphism

30Introduction

In the wake of the Enlightenment, the whole of Western Europe witnessed theemergence of “nation states”, a development to which the formation of ‘national’

35 school systems has been associated.1 These processes generally have already beenthe focus of much research. Hardly any attention, however, has thus far been paidto the institutionalisation of one central Western European school system: that ofthe Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

This paper analyses Luxembourg’s early “primary” school system and compares40 it to similar ones established in neighbouring countries in the first half of the

1Cynthia Pereira Sousa et al., “School and Modernity: Knowledge, Institutions and Practices.Introduction,” Paedagogica Historica 41, no. 1–2 (2005): 2–3.

Paedagogica Historicahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2013.786105

� 2013 Stichting Paedagogica Historica

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

nineteenth century. The comparison focuses particularly on France, the Netherlandsand Belgium; three countries with which Luxembourg shares a common past. Itinvestigates to what extent Luxembourg’s early lower education system can beunderstood as national – that is, the degree to which it reveals “cultural idiosyncra-

5sies” relative to its neighbours apart from “structural isomorphism”.2 The analysistakes specifically as its point of departure one constitutive element of Luxembourg’sschool system: its first school law, promulgated on 26 July 1843.3

The following hypotheses guided the research. At least on the formal–structurallevel, Luxembourg’s early school law system greatly resembled that of its neigh-

10bours. Only at the cultural level of “inner activities” related to its organisationwould indications of national idiosyncrasies be found. Moreover, such idiosyncra-sies would only have been emerging: that is, nearly all recent research has indicatedthat in Luxembourg, an appreciable “national sentiment” or “identity” only beganto take shape after the 1850s.4

15The first section of the paper, then, investigates some of the origins of Luxem-bourg school law in terms of past legislative connections with the countries nowknown as France, the Netherlands and Belgium. The second section analyses whichschool law most directly inspired the Luxembourgian one by quantifying similaritieswith laws in force in the neighbouring countries. The third section focuses on key

20law components and identifies a loan pattern. Such “systematic” (synchronic) analy-ses are complemented in the fourth section by “archaeological” (diachronic) onesthat trace the historical origins of some key components borrowed. The final sectiondiscusses the extent to which Luxembourg’s early school system manifested incipi-ent national particularities and/or international commonalities.

25Legislative residue from the French, Dutch and Belgian eras

Rather than being rooted in ancient traditions,5 the legal sediment into whichLuxembourg’s school system was planted resulted from all but straightforwardpolitical–religious, social–economic and cultural–linguistic developments. In particu-lar, the power struggle between Church and State seems to have left its mark on

30school legislation in the eras considered here, although the role of a third power,the municipality, must not be neglected.6 In any case, Luxembourg school law didnot emerge from a vacuum but from a broader context, which accounts for the posi-tions taken by various stakeholders involved in its fabrication. Observed pendularswings in legislation help avoid the pitfalls of teleological thinking and the blaming

2Cf. John Meyer and Francisco O. Ramirez, “The World Institutionalization of Education,”in Discourse Formation in Comparative Education, ed. J. Schriewer (Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang, 2000).3Mémorial législatif et administratif du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, no. 39, 1843, 561–92.4Pit Péporté et al., Inventing Luxembourg. Representations of the Past, Space and Languagefrom the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 434.5Paul Margue, A Short History of Luxembourg (Luxembourg: Ministry of State, Informationand Press Department, 1984), 58.6Cf. Christine Mayr, “Zwischen allen Stühlen: Elementarschullehrer im 19. Jahrhundert imSpannungsfeld zwischen lokalen und staatlichen Machteinflüssen. Das Großherzogtum Lux-emburg, Reinpreußen, die bayerische Pfalz und das Départment Meuse im Vergleich,” inLokale Gesellschaften im historischen Vergleich. Europäische Erfahrungen im 19. Jahrhund-ert, eds. R. Dörner, N. Franz and C. Mayr (Trier: Kliomedia, 2001), 383 ff.

AQ1

AQ12

2 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

5 of individuals of particular persuasions, which are recurring elements in Luxem-bourg (school) historiography.7

Residue from the French Republic and Empire (1794–1813)

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, the southern Netherlands (including Lux-embourg) became integrated into the French Republic and subjected to the law of

10 25 October 1795. Pursuing a centralisation policy, it intended to break down theeducational structures of the ancien régime by requiring each canton to organise aprimary school stripped of all religious influence. While this was far from beingimplemented correctly, the law still resulted in the Catholic Church losing itsleading role in education and numerous congregational schools closing down, if

15 temporarily.8 A similar politics had already been initiated under the reign of MariaTheresa and her son Joseph II. Locally, however, their “Gallican-Josephist” incen-tives only affected middle and higher education,9 with lower education remaining inclerical hands until the advent of the French Republic.10

In the northern Netherlands, in turn invaded by the French, school regulations20 serving a similar purpose of secularisation had already been issued by the

Estates General in 1655 and 1725. Aside from introducing certificates ofcompetence based on national norms, these regulations remained in the Reformationsphere.11 In the heralded Batavian Republic, the Society for the Common Good, aprivate Protestant-inspired organisation, was to play a key role in the standardisation

25 of schooling.12 Its board soon published a blueprint for reform in keeping with thecentralist spirit of the first Batavian constitution, which assigned authority tothe State at the expense of the municipalities. This blueprint directly inspiredthe Batavian school law of 1806, which was to become a reference point in

7See, e.g. Guy Linster, “La question scolaire: ses racines dans notre histoire politique,”inAlmanach culturel 1968 des centres culturels et d’éducation populaire: Bonnevoie,Differdange, Luxembourg-Ville et Walferdange (Esch-sur-Alzette: Imprimerie CoopérativeLuxembourgeoise, 1968).8Maurits De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer. De opleiding van leerkrachten inBelgië en Luxemburg, van het eind van de 18de eeuw tot omstreeks 1842 (Leuven: Universi-taire uitgaven, 1970), 106; and Baudoin Groessens, “La question scolaire en Belgique(1801-1884),” in Le choc des libertés. L’Eglise en Luxembourg de Pie VII à Léon XIII(1800–1880), ed. A. Neuberg (Bastogne: Musée en Piconrue, 2001), 89–91.9Joseph Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent, 1804–1884. Vicaire Apostolique de Luxem-bourg,” in Biographie nationale du pays de Luxembourg depuis ses origines jusqu’à nosjours, vol. 8 (Luxembourg: Victor Buck, 1957), 270.10Albert Calmès, Le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas (1815–1830) (Bruxelles: Edition Universelle, 1932), 5; and Idem, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,”46–7; Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 89–91; Eddy Put, “Onbezonnen of ongebonnen werk?De hervorming van het lager onderwijs in de Oostenrijkse Nederlanden (ca. 1770–1795),” inTweehonderd jaar onderwijs en zorg van de Staat. Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis vanopvoeding en onderwijs 2002, eds. P. Th. F. M. Boekholt et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002),50, 55.11Johannes M.G. Leune, “Onderwijs en maatschappelijke verandering. Een terugblik op 200jaar onderwijs en onderwijsbeleid in Nederland,” in Tweehonderd jaar onderwijs (see note10), 12–13.12Pieter Th. F. M. Boekholt and Engelina P. de Booy, Geschiedenis van de school in Neder-land vanaf de Middeleeuwen tot aan de huidige tijd (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1987),96.

AQ2

AQ13

Paedagogica Historica 3

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

nineteenth-century Europe.13 It was, however, enacted only after the departure of5Napoleon Bonaparte, who integrated the northern and southern Netherlands into his

empire in 1799 after a coup d’état and slightly tempered the prior revolutionaryschool policy of charming, above all, the Catholic Church. The decrees accompany-ing a concordat he concluded with Pope Pius VII in 1801, like later laws, neverthe-less left the Church further subjected to the State.

10Residue from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1813–1830)

Shortly after Napoleon’s fall, the northern and southern Netherlands came to consti-tute the United Kingdom of the Netherlands under the rule of William I of the Houseof Orange-Nassau. This arrangement was recognised by the great powers at the Con-gress of Vienna in 1815, on which occasion Luxembourg was dispossessed of terri-

15tory in favour of Prussia and paradoxically rechristened “Grand” Duchy.14 Onecondition stipulated was that Luxembourg would form a distinct nation-state in spiteof its personal union with the Dutch Kingdom; hence its forced integration in theGerman Confederation.15 Nevertheless, William I extended a new 1815 Dutch con-stitution to Luxembourg. Whether or not this meant that the Grand Duchy was trea-

20ted as merely another province of his kingdom,16 schooling in Luxembourg, as inthe Netherlands, henceforth became subject to the “constant care of the govern-ment”.17 By March 1814, the King/Grand Duke had already declared the 1806 Bata-vian law unsuspended and applicable also in Luxembourg. In order to equalise thequality of primary education in both parts of the Netherlands, the law was enforced

25more strictly in the south from the early 1820s onwards. Thus its accompanyingregulations and instructions were reissued there with apparently only minoradaptations.18

13De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer, 117–18, 122, 134, 138, 301; Pieter Th. F.M. Boekholt, “Der Einfluss Deutschlands auf das Schulwesen in den Niederlanden,” Infor-mationen zur Erziehungs- und Bildungshistorischen Forschung 25, no. 3 (1984), 19–40;Boekholt and de Booy, Geschiedenis van de school, 84–93; Theo A.L.M. Storimans, “Hetkarakter van 200 jaar regelgeving inzake de inrichting van het lager onderwijs in Neder-land,” in Tweehonderd jaar onderwijs (see note 10), 9; Marjoke Rietveld-van Wingerden,Johan C. Sturm and Siebren Miedema, “Vrijheid van onderwijs en sociale cohesie in histori-sch perspectief,” Pedagogiek 23, no. 2 (2003), 98–9; Guy Janssens and Kris Steyaert, Hetonderwijs van het Nederlands in de Waalse provincies en Luxemburg onder Koning Willem I(1814–1830). Niets meer dan een boon in een brouwketel? (Brussels: VUB Press, 2008), 70.14Margue, Short History of Luxembourg, 50.15Albert Calmès, La création d’un état (1841–1847) (Luxembourg: Saint-Paul, 1954), 141.16Ibid., Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas, 6–8; Ibid., “Het Gro-othertogdom Luxemburg, 1839-1945” (offprint from Algemene geschiedenis der Nederlan-den, vol. 12, 1914-1945, Utrecht: De Haan, 1958), 408; and Alexandre M. Dées de Stério,La franc-maçonnerie au Luxembourg (Paris: Éditions Maçonniques de France, 1998), 52.See, for a critical note on this narrative, Péporté et al., Inventing Luxembourg, 175–6, 182.17Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 90; and Paul Wynants and Martine Paret, “Ecole et clivag-es aux IXe et XXe siècles,” in Histoire de l'enseignement en Belgique, ed. D. Grootaers(Crisp: Bruxelles, 1998), 20.18The regulations and instructions of May 1822 and June 1824, respectively, applied to thesouthern provinces in general. In the city of Luxembourg separate regulations were issued inJuly 1825. Cf. Théodore Witry, La situation de l’enseignement primaire dans le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg pendant la période de 1815 à 1900 (Luxembourg: De la Cour v.Bück, 1900), 22, 26–7; and Jean Joris, La révision de la loi de 1843. Le nouveau projet deloi sur l’instruction primaire et le «Wort » (Luxembourg: Jean Joris, 1880), 19–20.

4 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

William I’s intensified centralisation politics, inspired by “enlightened despotism”,in theory further restricted Church influence.19 Like any other private authority, the

5 clergy could organise instruction only if it was granted permission from the govern-ment and if neither the State nor the municipality were able to do so.20 The soon-to-be Belgian episcopate opposed the leading role assumed by the State and a ProtestantKing in matters of education, although in practice the latter remained strongly influ-enced by Catholicism:21 while, for instance, the temporary juries created from 1817

10 onwards to “propagate enlightenment” in provinces like Luxembourg22 were replacedin the early 1820s by permanent instruction commissions, which later imposed certifi-cates of competence and other requirements even for congregational teachers, thesecommissions always included clerics.23 Still, opposition increased among Catholicsafter the Dutch authorities issued orders that placed both the primary instruction and

15 the preparation of seminarians organised by religious congregations under state super-vision. Such measures were at odds with the ideas of, for instance, the French intellec-tual Hugues-Félicité de Lamennais, who became increasingly popular in the southernprovinces while advocating “a free Church in a free State”.24

A concordat concluded between William I and the Pope in 1827 eased the20 tension for a while, but its subsequent violation only increased dissatisfaction. This

spread to a general level due to the King/Grand Duke’s dutchification policy andunbalanced political–economic regime.25 Protest also occurred occasionally inLuxembourg,26 where in 1828 new regulations were issued that were to provide fora “definitive organisation” of its lower education system. None of the articles of

25 these regulations granted the clergy any influence over the school. In an accompa-nying circular, moreover, it was thought wise to remind administrators in chargethat lower education was the exclusive domain of the State and municipalities, andnot of “various individuals” (read: clergy).27 A gradual restoration of religious

19Boekholt and de Booy, Geschiedenis van de school, 102; Groessens, “Question scolaire,”79.20Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 270; Jacques Maas, “La loi scolaire de 1912: un enjeupolitique majeur,” in La loi Braun de 1912. La libération de l’instituteur. recueil de mémo-ires publiées à l’occasion du 75e anniversaire de la loi scolaire de 1912, eds. E. Kirsch, J.Maas and J.-C. Reding (Luxembourg: FGIL, 1987), 11; Wynants and Paret, “Ecole et clivag-es,” 20; Janssens and Steyaert, Onderwijs van het Nederlands, 69.21Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 90.22De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer, 352. See also Calmès, Grand-Duché deLuxembourg dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas, 47–8; Wynants and Paret, “Ecole et clivages,”20; Janssens and Steyaert, Onderwijs van het Nederlands, 84, 215.23Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 90; and Jaques Maas, “La question scolaire au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg,” in Choc des libertés (see note 8), 103.24Georges Hellinghausen, “Bischof J. Th. Laurent zum 200. Geburtstag: Wissenschaft, Nach-wirken, Reminiszensen. Rezente und aktuelle Laurent-Forschung im Überblick, mit Pers-pektiven,” Hémecht: Zeitschrift für Luxemburger Geschichte/Revue d‘histoireluxembourgeoise 56, no. 3, 2004, 316. See also Aloïs Simon, La liberté de l’enseignementen Belgique. Essai historique, Études religieuses Series, no. 679 (Liège: La Pensée Catholiq-ue, 1951); and Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 91.25Maurits De Vroede, “Onderwijs en opvoeding in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden 1815-circa1840,” in Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol. 11 (Weesp: Bussum, 1983), 128,132; Janssens and Steyaert, Onderwijs van het Nederlands, 39.26De Stério, Franc-maçonnerie au Luxembourg, 51–2.27Joris, Révision de la loi, 18–19; Witry, Situation de l’enseignement primaire, 26–33; Goed-ert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 447.

Paedagogica Historica 5

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

freedom and freedom of language through a number of decrees and orders could5not prevent Catholics and other parties from joining the revolution that broke out

rather unexpectedly in Brussels in August 1830.28

Residue from the Belgian era (1830–1839)

The Belgian revolution also infected Luxembourg, albeit with a delay. For want ofpolitical parties, strong and undivided clerical authority,29 a notable public opinion

10and accessible uncensored press, most Luxembourgers did not immediately sharethe Belgians’ enthusiasm. Nevertheless, whether or not influenced by Jean-BaptisteNothomb, a native Luxembourger who helped design the Belgian constitution andfirst “primary” school law, the Provisional Government installed in Brusselsdeclared Luxembourg and Belgium inseparable.30 As a result of this, the school

15(law) system created during the Dutch era was entirely dismantled, at least in themain part of Luxembourg.31 Until February 1841, there were in fact two schoolsystems: one in the capital under Prussian–Dutch control and William I’s concordat-based influence, which restricted Church authority, and one in the rest of thecountry under Belgian supervision and the principles of religious and educational

20freedom (the controversy over which prevented a proper legislative framework fromemerging).32

The Treaty of London and the succession of the throne

The Treaty of London in December 1839 attributed the predominantlyFrench-speaking part of Luxembourg to Belgium and returned only the areas where

25“German idiom” predominated to William I.33 The King/Grand Duke expanded thegermanisation policy he had meanwhile started to pursue in the city ofLuxembourg,34 as his decision to integrate the Grand Duchy into the German

28Calmès, Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas, 148; Ibid., LeGrand-Duché de Luxembourg dans la Révolution Belge (1830-1839) (Bruxelles: EditionUniverselle, 1939), 8–9; and De Vroede, “Onderwijs en opvoeding,” 89–91.29Karl Möller, Leben und Briefe von Johannes Theodor Laurent, Titularisbischof von Cher-sones, Apostolischer Vikar von Hamburg und Luxemburg. Als Beitrag zur kirchengeschichtedes 19. Jahrhunderts. 1840-1850, vol. 2 (Trier: Paulinus, 1888), 170; Goedert, “Jean-Théo-dore Laurent,” 271–2; Maas, “Question scolaire,” 103; and André Tihon, “Unionisme, libé-ralisme, ultramontanisme, 1830-1884,” inChoc des libertés (see note 8), 57.30Louis Lefebrebvre, “Octobre 1830 dans le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Les évènementsrévolutionnaires à Arlon et à Bastogne,” in Jean-Baptiste Nothomb et les débuts de la Belgi-que indépéndante. Actes du colloque international de Habay-la-Neuve, 5 juilet 1980, ed. R.Petit (Bruxelles: Archives générales du Royaume, 1982), 25–8.31Wynants and Paret, “Ecole et clivages,” 21; Groessens, “Question scolaire,” 92.32Calmès, Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans la Révolution Belge, 139; Ibid., Création d’unétat, 36; Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 281–2; Maas, “Question scolaire,” 103; JacquesLory, Libéralisme et instruction primaire, 1842-1879. Introduction à l’étude de la lutte sco-laire en Belgique (Leuven: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1979), 235–8; Tihon, “Unionisme, libéral-isme, ultramontanisme,” 53–4; Wynants and Paret, “Ecole et clivages,” 21; Groessens,“Question scolaire,” 92.33De Stério, Franc-maçonnerie au Luxembourg, 53–4.34Péporté et al., Inventing Luxembourg, 10, 12. Contrary to what these authors have sug-gested, this “botched” reform attempt was undertaken most markedly in the period between1830 and 1834.

AQ3

6 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

Customs Union shows. This fit his alleged tendency to anchor Luxembourg’s insti-tutions and administration on expertise imported from Hesse-Nassau, for instance,

5 via his executive governor Hans Daniel Ludwig Friedrich Hassenpflug.35 The latterattempted to reinstate the 1828 regulations abandoned outside the capital36 andassigned the development of a lower education bill to the head of Luxembourg’sathenaeum, Mathieu Manternach. This clergyman allegedly allowed his denomina-tion to pervade the bill, causing it to be rejected.37 Be that as it may, the succession

10 of William II to the throne in October 1840 heralded the end of the pro-Germanpolicy. As Belgian policy was heavily criticised in Luxembourg after its indepen-dence for abandoning lower education to the discretion of the municipalities andprivate, mostly clerical, authorities, France henceforth became the main referencepoint for Luxembourg’s new administration.38 This raises the question of whether

15 the same applied to Luxembourg school law.

School laws compared to the 1843 Luxembourg law

Probable sources of inspiration

In the context sketched, three school laws likely provided immediate inspiration.The first was the Batavian law from 1806. While its final bill was drafted by Adri-

20 aan van den Ende,39 its text is known to have descended from eighteenth-centuryPrussian regulations,40 seventeenth-century Jesuit models and Estates General regu-lations and regulations “silently copied” from model municipalities of previous cen-turies.41 In this respect, the Batavian law was no exception to the rule; the act ofcopying was as inherent to the process of making school laws as it was to the draft-

25 ing of constitutions.42

Whether laws are as “provincial” and “stubbornly local” as some have claimedremains a matter for debate, but they indeed seldom aspire to “revolutionary”effects.43 The French school law of 1833, the second law that likely modelled forLuxembourg’s, in fact constituted a moderation of prior school laws that had been

30 intended to be revolutionary. Together with the Batavian one, this law, named afterFrançois Guizot,44 is known to have served as a reference point for bills in the

35Ibid., 55; Calmès, Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans la Révolution Belge, 259; Ibid., Cré-ation d’un état, 21, 135–6, 204; Idem, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,” 409.36Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 446.37Joris, Révision de la loi, 14; Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 443.38See Georges Vuillermoz, Das Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz. Eine Rechtsgeschichtli-che und Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung (Luxemburg: Georges Vuillermoz, 1990), 25–7;Calmès, Création d’un état, 165.39The law and its accompanying regulations, ordinances and general school order haveappeared in Publicatie van Hun Hoog Mogende, vertegenwoordigende het Bataafsch Gem-enebest aangaande het lager schoolwezen en onderwijs in de Bataafsche Republiek, gearre-steerd den 3 April 1806 (Den Haag [’s Gravenshage]: Staats-Drukkerij, 1806).40Especially those of 30 June 1736 and 12 August 1763. Cf. Ibid., 1: 400–1.41Leune, “Onderwijs en maatschappelijke verandering,” 12–13; Storimans, “Het karakter,”90.42Cf. “Discussion des 6e et 7e exposés,” in Jean-Baptiste Nothomb (see note 30), 114–7.43Bruno Latour, The Making of Law. An Ethnography of the Conseil d’Etat (Cambridge: Pol-ity Press, 2010), vi, 243.44The law can be found via http://www.adressrlr.cndp.fr/uploads/media/006_1833_2806.pdf(accessed February 8, 2013) and in Fourrier (1965, 147).

Paedagogica Historica 7

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

Belgian school law of 1842, the third law analysed here.45 The latter was preparedby Adolphe Dechamps but has more often been ascribed to the abovementionedNothomb.46 A Prussian or other German law would have constituted a fourth obvi-

5ous point of comparison, but, by the beginning of the 1840s, no such law had beenissued; nor had any ordinances been generally applied.47

Selected points of comparison

The school laws mentioned have been compared in detail with the Luxembourg lawon the basis of 15 subjects selected in 1900 by Luxembourg chief inspector Théo-

10dore Witry for his own comparison of this law with later ones.48 Based on theseparameters, all apparent similarities with the Dutch, French and Belgian school laws(including literally copied passages) have been registered and counted. This analysisshows that the Luxembourg law mostly resembles the Belgian one and bears moreor less equal resemblance to the French and Dutch laws. This finding contradicts

15two common views of Luxembourg historiography: namely, that the 1843 lawheralded a conscious consolidation of the prior Dutch school law system49 and thatit was “more or less the same” as, though “infinitely better” than, its Belgiancounterpart.50 That said, the findings mentioned require some qualification.

The general regulations enacted in 1846 have not been included in the compara-20tive analysis.51 Likewise, those enacted the same year in Belgium exceeded

this study’s scope.52 The Dutch law, in contrast, has been analysed together with itsaccompanying regulations, instructions and general school order. Since also theFrench law as such was very concise in comparison to the Luxembourg one,the ordinances issued between 1816 and 1828, which formed its foundation, were

25also included in the comparison.53 This reservation is important, as it corroboratesthe greater similarity found between the Belgian and Luxembourgian laws. Thefollowing section first considers the kind of similarities found between the

45Cf. De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer, 401, who has pointed to influencesfrom the Batavian law in particular on the 1834 Belgian bill, for instance, in that it providedprovincial school commissions and local school committees.46See Loi organique de l’instruction primaire en Belgique, promulgée le 23 septembre 1842(Bruxelles: Imprimérie du Moniteur Belge, 1842).47Friedrich Thiersch, Ueber den Gegenwärtigen Zustand des Öffentlichen Unterrichtes inden Westlichen Staaten von Deutschland, in Holland, Frankreich und Belgien (Stuttgart/Tüb-ingen: Gotta, 1838), 1: 408; and Victor Cousin, De l’instruction publique dans quelquespays de l’Allemagne, et particulièrement en Prusse, 2 vols. (Paris: Pitois-Levrault, 1840).48Witry, Situation de l’enseignement primaire.49Cf. Ben Fayot, “Moralitätszeugnis für die Lehrer,” in Lëtzebuerger Almanach vum Joe-rhonnert 1900–1999 (Luxembourg: Editions Guy Binsfeld, 1999), 112.50Cf. Joris, Révision de la loi, 8, 81.51See Mémorial législatif et administratif du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, no. 17, 1846,189–209. Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 45 has stressed the importance ofthese regulations, as they outlasted several later school laws with only a few alterations.52See Rapport triennal sur la situation de l’instruction primaire en Belgique et sur l’exécu-tion de la loi organique du 23 septembre 1842, présenté aux chambres législatives, le 20novembre 1846 par M. le comte De Theux, Ministre de l’Intérieur, vol. 1, Texte du rapport(Bruxelles: Devroye, 1847), 284-7.53The ordinances were found via http://www.inrp.fr/edition-electronique/lodel/dictionnaire-ferdinand-buisson/document.php?id=3077 (accessed February 8, 2013).

AQ4

8 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

Luxembourgian and other school laws studied, and then focuses on some key legalelements.

5 A systematic analysis of some essential law components

At the risk of over-generalising, it could be said that in relation to more strictlyadministrative and pedagogical matters, the French and Batavian school laws servedas reference points. This is the case, for instance, for the ways in which schoolingcould occur (public, private and home schooling), prerequisites for teaching (the

10 age of majority, certificates of competence and morality), the classification ofschoolteachers (division into ranks according to knowledge and aptitude), the schoolattendance age and the ways used to obtain regular school attendance. The samedoes not apply to obligations imposed on municipalities, anticipated state provisionsin primary education and expenditure related to municipal schools, or the authorities

15 solicited to provide for them. Conversely, in matters intersecting even remotely withreligious interests, the Belgian school law apparently constituted the main frame ofreference. This holds true, for instance, for the general supervision of education, thecomposition of the main supervisory body, the instruction commission54 and thesupervision of religious teaching in all elementary schools and an anticipated

20 teacher-training school. The same may be said for teacher appointments anddismissals, interschool examinations, the subject matter prescribed for all schoolsand the approbation of textbooks and prize books offered to meritorious pupils.Interestingly, the influence of the Batavian law predominated as regards the require-ments for the establishment of a private school.

25 Among the key legal components considered, we first turn to the ways in whichschooling could be provided. In this regard, the 1843 law (Art. 8) was most similarto the regulations attached to the Dutch law (Art. 2) in that a clear distinction wasmade between public schools, which were entitled to state subsidies, and privateschools (mostly congregational ones), which were not. Unlike the situation under

30 Belgian and French law, private schools could not be adopted or subsidised as pub-lic schools.55 As in the Dutch law, they were subject to the same conditions andcontrol mechanisms (teacher examinations and related certificates, state supervision,secular inspection, etc.) that applied to public schools.

With respect to a second key component, the general supervision of education35 and supervision of religious teaching, the Luxembourg law (Arts. 57 and 59) more

resembled the Belgian one (Arts. 7 and 17). General supervision was delegated bythe State to the municipal authorities (assisted by district commissioners in Luxem-bourg), but in practice was left to cantonal inspectors and the instruction commis-sion(s). Religious supervision, in turn, was granted to the clergy, who had to be

40 represented in the instruction commission(s) and were allowed to inspect schools attheir discretion. However, since the foreseen inspection system in both Luxembourgand Belgium was the “keystone of the judicial framework – an essential element inthe law’s “correct application”,56 some important differences need to be mentioned.

54In Luxembourg only one instruction commission was to be established.55A suggestion of the contrary was found in Calmès, Création d’un état, 267.56Marc Depaepe et al., “L’enseignement primaire,” in Histoire de l'enseignement en Belgique(see note 17), 133.

AQ5

Paedagogica Historica 9

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

Unlike its Belgian counterpart, the Luxembourg law distinguished neither provincial5inspectors (superior to cantonal ones) nor a separate Church inspectorate.

The third key element of the 1843 law regards compulsory education and schoolattendance. However, like the other laws investigated, the Luxembourg law containsno article directly treating the matter.57 In all four laws, only an impetus to compul-sory education can be found. Among other things, the laws obliged or at least urged

10municipal (or departmental) authorities to provide sufficient schools free of chargefor indigent children.58

With respect to a fourth key component, the curriculum, in contrast, all lawsstudied were quite explicit. Luxembourg school law requirements regarding subjectmatter and textbooks (Arts. 1 and 73) were thus quite similar to those included in

15the Belgian (Arts. 6 and 9) and French laws (Art. 1). Among the compulsory sub-jects, for example, religion took first place (nominally distinguished from moralityin the French and Belgian laws), followed by reading and writing, then by the sys-tem of measurement or elements of French language (in Belgium and France,respectively) and finally by mathematics. School books were neglected in the

20French law, but the Luxembourgian and Belgian laws in this regard generallyrequired approval from the instruction commission(s) unless the books wereintended for religious instruction or mixed purposes. In the former case, theyrequired approval only from the head of the Church; in the latter, both secular andreligious authorities had to approve the books.

25As regards the appointment, dismissal and training of teachers, finally, severalLuxembourg law articles resemble Belgian ones, although others are more similarto those in the French law and the ordinances related to the French and Dutch laws.In conformity with local government legislation, both the Luxembourgian andBelgian law (Arts. 34-39 and 10-11, respectively) in theory empowered municipal

30authorities to appoint and discharge teachers. In practice, however, approval wasstill required from the government, which reserved the right to discharge teacherson its own initiative after having consulted the municipal administration, schoolinspector and teachers concerned. The French law, in contrast, allowed municipalauthorities only to advise district school commissions concerning nominations; tea-

35cher appointments ultimately fell to the Minister of Education (Art. 22).59

Some components of the Luxembourg law concerning teacher-training (Arts. 75and 87) also reappear in its Belgian equivalent (Arts. 33, 35 and 36). Inscribed inboth laws, for instance, was the creation of a “normal school”, an institution alsocalled for in the French law (Art. 11). Both clerical and secular authorities were fur-

40ther involved in teacher-training: a clergyman had to be appointed for religiousteaching in the anticipated normal school, and Church authorities were granted theauthority to inspect this institution with regard to matters of religion. Nevertheless,with respect to the established examination and ranking system, intended to increasethe knowledge and aptitude of the teacher, the Luxembourg law (Arts. 76-77)

45resembled the French ordinances of 1816 and 1824 (Arts. 11 and 7, respectively)and the ordinances accompanying the Dutch law (Arts. 1–3). While the French law

57Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 51.58Cf. Arts. 13 and 26 of the Luxembourg law, Arts. 1 and 5 of the Belgian law, Arts. 9 and14 of the French law, Art. 2 of the Dutch law and Art. 29 of the Dutch regulations.59In the law no mention is made of any authority of the prefects in this matter. CompareMayr, “Zwischen allen Stühlen,” 383.

10 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

reduced the elaborate grading system and only kept the distinction between elemen-tary and superior teacher and school ranks (Art. 25), the Luxembourg law harkedback to the Dutch system.60 In principle, it even allowed for an indefinite number

5 of teaching ranks.

An archaeological analysis of the school law’s main constituents

While it is perhaps too simplistic to explain the structural features of any schoolsystem, it is tempting to connect the main differences in reference points for theLuxembourg school law directly to key players involved in the production of its

10 text and to their presumed spheres of influence. Gaspard Théodore-Ignace de laFontaine, for instance, president of the first true Luxembourg Cabinet, hadreportedly been deeply impressed by the Dutch policy as a former Provincial Statesdeputy and made it his political goal to revive it.61 Similarly, Baron Frédéric deBlochausen, appointed state chancellor of William II in The Hague, allegedly had

15 Josephist persuasions and tended to invoke Dutch regulations and “non-suspended”French law articles in disputes between State and Church authorities.62 GovernmentRegistrar Jean-Baptiste Gellé, who was de la Fontaine’s right-hand man and prede-cessor in a provisionally installed regency, in turn appears to have been a supporterof the French and Dutch regimes as an alleged former Jacobin, Bonapartist and later

20 Orangist.63 These three men were most influential in the bourgeois administration,industriously creating laws.64 Supposedly pervaded for the greater part by a “deeplyentrenched Gallican Josephism”, this administration appears to have been stronglyattached to Napoleon’s concordat and decrees.65 The polemical terms used to denotethis attachment, which at times were identified with “anti-clericalism of more or less

25 conceded foreign importation”,66 can be traced back to denunciations of contempo-raries.

One particularly notorious contemporary was Jean-Théodore Laurent, appointedVicar Apostolic of Luxembourg in January 1842.67 As opposed to the supposedlyamiable, tolerant and impressionable Jean-Théodore Van der Noot, whom he

30 replaced as head of the Catholic Church in Luxembourg, Laurent has been labelleda “representative of militant Catholicism”.68 He has indeed been portrayed routinelyas a combative ultramontanist, an ultrareactionary Belgian- and German-schooledfigure fiercely targeting the French-cultured liberal bourgeois and government cir-cles, allegedly associated for the greater part with freemasonry.69 Several biogra-

35 phies and Church histories have been devoted to Laurent and have endeavoured to

60Witry, Situation de l’enseignement primaire, 14; Antoine Prost, L’enseignement en France,1800-1967 (Paris: Colin, 1968), 135.61Calmès, Création d’un état, 159.62Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 453.63Calmès, Création d’un état, 27.64Ibid., 157; Möller, Leben und Briefe, 204-5.65Ibid., 340; Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 269.66Calmès, Création d’un état, 332–3.67Georges Hellinghausen, “Ultramontanisme et libéralisme au Grand-Duché après 1840,” inChoc des libertés (see note 8), 59.68Linster, “Question scolaire,” 59.69Cf. Dées de Stério, 1998, p. 59; Maas, “Loi scolaire de 1912,” 12; Linster, “Question sco-laire,” 103.

Paedagogica Historica 11

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

trace the origins of his actions and opinions to his Rhenish and Belgianexperiences, for instance his alleged inspiration by Lamennais.70 Yet from thesources such inspiration, however plausible, could not be substantiated as a processinvolving genuine “performative observation”.71 In what follows, then, an “archaeo-

5logical” analysis is undertaken and more substantial historical evidence of purposelyselective borrowing of key law components is examined.

The historical origins of elements borrowed for the 1843 school law wouldideally be traceable from records describing the preparation of its bill and the lat-ter’s discussion in the Assembly of the “States”, a precursor of the Luxembourg

10Chamber of Deputies. Particularly as concerns the bill’s preparation, however,sources and works are in short supply. What is known is that, shortly after the pro-mulgation of Luxembourg’s first constitution in October 1841, initial “consulta-tions” were held and preparatory “committees” convened by the government.72

Better documented is that as early as June 1841, upon William II’s first visit to15Luxembourg, Vicar Apostolic Van der Noot handed the King/Grand Duke a memo-

randum in which he requested that popular education be soundly rooted in religionand that a central role be given to local clergy with regard to its organisation andinspection.73 Similarly, on William II’s second visit to the country in June 1842,Van der Noot’s successor, Laurent, presented him with a petition assuming on his

20part the shared conviction “that popular education... had] to be religious and moralin order to thrive and not to disrupt or pervert”.74 Laurent’s petition proposed that apriest be appointed chief supervisor of education, albeit within the competence ofthe State; that in each canton one or more priests nominated by the Vicar Apostolicbe placed in charge of school inspection and teacher surveillance; that school books

25be approved by the same authority from a religious viewpoint; that a certificate oforthodoxy and morality be required for teacher appointments; that the administra-tion of any eventual teacher seminar be left to a cleric and, finally, that schools besingle-sex institutions and, in the case of girls, be organised by nuns financiallysupported for this purpose.75

30The omnipresence of religious practice in Luxembourg made Church inter-vention self-evidently necessary for the Vicar Apostolic: it would safeguard

70Cf. Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 230; Tihon, “Unionisme, libéralisme, ultramontan-isme,” 58; Hellinghausen, “Ultramontanisme et libéralisme,” 58; Hellinghausen, “Bischof J.Th. Laurent,” 316.71Cf. Daniel Tröhler, “Wirkungsvisionen und Rezeptionspraktiken oder: Wahrnehmung alsPerformanz, nationale Semantiken und transnationale Sprachen,” in R. Casale, D. Tröhlerand J. Oelkers (eds.), Methoden und Kontexte. Historiographische Probleme der Bildungsf-orschung (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2006), 184–5.72Cf. Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 451; and Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primar-schulgesetz, 29.73Jean-Théodore Van der Noot to King/Grand Duke William II, memorandum, Luxembourg24 June 1841, “Promemoria, eingegeben an S.M. dem König in der Audienz vom 24 Junÿsic 1841 zu Luxemburg,” file Briefe des Apostolischen Vikariats an die Landesregierungund andere Zivil-Behörden seit Anfang 1841 bis Ende 1844, ADL.74Jean-Théodore Laurent to King/Grand Duke William II, Luxembourg, 7 June 1842, “Aller-durchlauchtigster Großmächtigster König, durchlauchtigster Großherzog und Herr!,”; Ibid.75bid. Cf. Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 451; Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primar-schulgesetz, 27–8.

12 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

God’s rights against an outlandish power epitomised by a civil authority heredi-tary of gallican Orangism.76 To secure Church authority, Laurent even subtlythreatened non-participation on the part of the clergy and potential upheaval

5 among the population, something to which William II was particularly sensitive.Remembering the Belgian revolution and, as a Protestant King, intent on keep-ing the peace with his Catholic subjects, he allegedly shared Laurent’s concernabout the administration’s “Josephist” mentality.77 Instead of sending his petitionto State Chancellor de Blochausen for advice, as would have been customary,

10 William II had it examined by an external party, possibly the Dutch Minister forCatholic Affairs.78 Even though Laurent’s demands were considered excessive,the King/Grand Duke, acting as the final judge, decided they had to be takeninto account in view of the population’s religious homogeneity.79 De Blochausenthereupon conveyed Laurent’s desiderata to the government, “interspersing them

15 with marginal notes recalling the regulations of the Dutch regime”.80 In a reportof August 1842, the Cabinet protested fiercely, alluding not only to the legal sit-uation in France, Prussia and Bavaria but also to that in later Italian provinces.It was further stated that although the Dutch constitution was no longer in force,the principles on which it relied still determined all laws related to education. In

20 the eyes of the government, the pressure exerted by the Vicar Apostolic repre-sented the foreign element in Luxembourg society, influenced as it was byRoman forces and Belgian conditions. His demands, it was claimed, wentagainst the country’s traditions and modern laws; since time immemorial, educa-tion had been in the hands of the State.81

25 Its protests being futile, the Cabinet requested permission to pursue its con-sultations, from which Laurent remained excluded. Upon a complaint on his partto the King/Grand Duke in October 1842,82 the Vicar Apostolic neverthelessbecame involved in the law-making process. What is striking about the negotia-tions that followed by correspondence is the resemblance between the reasoning

30 followed by Laurent and the arguments central to an Exposé published by hisformer mentor, Cornelis Van Bommel, the Bishop of Liège.83 In this line of rea-soning, religion and morality as an inseparable unity had to form the “basis andsoul” of all education. Supervision of the schools therefore fell at least partly tothe clergy, as did the approval of textbooks and the appointment, surveillance

35 and dismissal of teachers. For the same reason, a “representatively” composed

76Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 451.77Möller, Leben und Briefe, 391.78Cf. Calmès, Création d’un état, 336–9.79Ibid.; and Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 452.80Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 453.81Ibid., 452, 454.82Cf. Jean-Théodore Laurent to King/Grand Duke William II, Luxembourg, 19 Oktober1842, “A sa Majesté le Roi des Paÿs-Bas sic, Grand-Duc de Luxembourg à La Haÿe,” fileBriefe des Apostolischen Vikariats an die Landesregierung und andere Zivil-Behörden seitAnfang 1841 bis Ende 1844, ADL; and Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 29.83Cornelis R.A. Van Bommel, Exposé des vrais principes sur l’instruction publique, prim-aire et secondaire, considérée dans ses rapports avec la religion (Liège: Kersten, 1840),102, 109.

AQ6

Paedagogica Historica 13

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

inspectorate and instruction commission were duly required.84 Whether Laurentactually drew on this Exposé could not be confirmed from the sources, althoughhe did remain in contact with Van Bommel during the negotiations about theschool law. William II, moreover, had recommended it to his administration as a

5source of inspiration.85 Laurent was well informed of developments abroad, hisreference frame being not only Belgian legislation but also that of the Germanstates and especially Prussia;86 if the episcopates in these countries could pridethemselves on the liberties they had won, the Vicar Apostolic was no less suc-cessful at the pre-judicial level, to the regret of at least some later observers.87

10In analysing the key components discussed in the previous section, Laurent’sinfluence is indeed undeniable, even if not always at first sight. More salient, forinstance, in terms of the ways in which schooling could take form are the numerousclauses the government managed to build into the school law allowing only “limitedfreedom” of education and restricting private, congregational initiatives.88 Most of

15the restrictions imposed (for instance, financial autonomy for private schools, tea-cher examinations and certificates, secular inspection, etc.) go back to regulationsalready in force during the Dutch era. The same holds true for more subtle restric-tions such as the obligation for parents to contribute to public school teachers’ sala-ries, regardless of whether their child went to a public or a private school.89 As

20Joseph Goedert has noted, it may be surprising that Laurent, following the line ofreasoning mentioned above, showed no intention of declaring the State incompetentin educational matters and of claiming unlimited educational freedom after the Bel-gian model.90 Mindful perhaps of Church finances as much as of the “freedom ofeducation” aftereffects, as perceived not just in Luxembourg but also in Belgium,

25the Vicar Apostolic indeed pursued neither the exclusive right for the Church toorganise primary education nor the possibility for new congregational schools to beadopted or subsidised as municipal schools. Rather, he used the absence in theschool bill of a thus conceived educational freedom as leverage to obtain maximum

84Cf. Jean-Théodore Laurent to King/Grand Duke William II, Luxembourg, 5 December1842, “A sa Majesté le Rois des Paÿs-Bas sic, Grand-Duc de Luxembourg à la Haÿe,” fileBriefe des Apostolischen Vikariats an die Landesregierung und andere Zivil-Behörden seitAnfang 1841 bis Ende 1844, ADL; Jean-Théodore Laurent to the Luxembourg Cabinet, 19December 1842, “Au Conseil de Gouvernement du Grand-Duché à Luxembourg,” Ibid.;Möller, Leben und Briefe, 307; Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 30; and PaulMargue, “Zum Nachwirken Bischof Laurents in Luxemburg,” in Mélanges offerts à JosephGoedert. Festschrift für Joseph Goedert, eds. G. Trausch and E. van der Veke (Luxembourg:Bibliothèque Nationale, 1983), 158–9.85Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 293.86See, for instance, Jean-Théodore Laurent to King/Grand Duke William II, Luxembourg 16June 1843, “(Gesetzesvorschlag über den Elementar-Unterricht) Sire!,” file Briefe des Apos-tolischen Vikariats an die Landesregierung und andere Zivil-Behörden seit Anfang 1841 bisEnde 1844, ADL; and Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 27.87Compare Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 277, 454; Linster, “Question scolaire,” 64–5.88Calmès, Création d’un état, 270.89Compte-rendu des séances des États du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Sessions de 1843(Luxembourg: Lamort, 1844), 343.90Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 452.

AQ14

14 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

clerical influence within a single public school network,91 thus making Catholicism5 the de facto state religion.

Indeed, most constitutional and canonical elements related to general supervisionand the specific supervision of religion-related matters bear the stamp of Laurent’s“ardent zeal”.92 More concretely, six of seven assurances which he requested forthe safeguarding of education’s religious spirit ended up in the law almost unal-

10 tered.93 At the States Assembly, “liberal” deputies attempted to counter clericalsupervision, but to little avail. Its debates became heated, particularly with regard totwo of Laurent’s demands, defended by Matthias Simons.94 The first concerned thecomposition of the anticipated instruction commission. While a single State’s dep-uty opposed altogether the creation of this organ, erroneously labelling it an “inno-

15 vation”,95 most merely condemned its proposed composition. Simons and de laFontaine justified the clergy’s representation in the commission, recalling customarypractice in the temporary jury and permanent commission established under theDutch regime.96 Opposing deputies succeeded only in limiting the number of cler-gymen requested in the commission to one third of all members and in excluding

20 from the law a clause that required the representation of two clergymen on theorgan’s permanent committee.97

The second major obstacle regarded the demanded supervision over teachers’religious conduct, epitomised by a certificate of morality on which teachers’appointment and eventual dismissal were advised to depend.98 Laurent perhaps

25 based this demand on the system defended by Van Bommel in analogy withcommon practice in the German states and in Prussia, in particular, where such acertificate had already been introduced at the end of the eighteenth century.99

During the State’s debates, Simons defended the introduction of this measure, argu-ing that even under the Dutch regime no one could become a teacher if not in

30 possession of a certificate provided by a local priest, and that such a system wasalso in force in France.100 While the former claim may have been justified, the lat-ter was not; the French school law indeed prescribed a certificate of morality but,

91Jean-Théodore Laurent to the Luxembourg Cabinet, Luxembourg 22 May 1843, “AuConseil de Gouvernement du Grand-Duché à Luxembourg,” file Briefe des ApostolischenVikariats an die Landesregierung und andere Zivil-Behörden seit Anfang 1841 bis Ende1844, ADL. Cf. Möller, Leben und Briefe, 314; and Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primar-schulgesetz, 34–7.92Möller, Leben und Briefe, 320.93Compare Idem, 349-50; Calmès, Création d’un état, 270; Maas, “Loi scolaire de 1912,”12; and Idem, “Question scolaire,” 103.94Möller, Leben und Briefe, 318; Roger Spautz, Die ’Lex Kirpach’. Ein Schulgesetz, dasFurore machte. (Luxembourg: Imprimerie Centrale, 1981), 15; Vuillermoz, LuxemburgischePrimarschulgesetz, 40.95Compte-rendu des séances des États (see note 89), 370.96Ibid., 371, 375.97Calmès, Création d’un état, 271; Maas, “Question scolaire,” 104.98Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 40.99Jean-Baptiste Bivort, Commentaire de la loi sur l’instruction primaire du 23 septembre1842, suivi des arrêtés organiques et des instructions ministérielles sur la matière (Brux-elles: Deprez-Parent, 1845), x; and Manfred Heinemann, Schule im Vorfeld der Verwaltung.Die Entwicklung der preußischen Unterrichtsverwaltung von 1771-1800 (Göttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 267.100Compte-rendu des séances des États (see note 89), 358, 378–9.

AQ7

AQ15

Paedagogica Historica 15

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

contrary to stipulations in the ordinance of April 1824, this certificate no longerdepended on clerical authority but on municipal ones.101

5The teacher-grade examinations on the occasion of which these certificates wereto be awarded by the head of the anticipated normal school, like this preciseinstitution, formed a central element in teachers’ training. Whereas the teachingexamination and grade system were borrowed directly from the Batavian law andintroduced in the 1818 regulations by the temporary jury,102 the Dutch law relied

10on self-tuition and thus lacked formal teacher-training provision.103 The concept forthe normal school partly built on that of teacher summer schools, also introduced in1818 by the temporary jury. Inspiration could further have come from the middleschool established in Diekirch, where between 1830 and 1840 permanent normalschool courses were organised under the direction of a priest.104 Finally, Belgian

15Episcopal models inspired by the Prussian teacher seminars, such as the “novici-ates” promoted by Van Bommel as of 1831,105 might have served as models for theLuxembourg law.

Concerning the curriculum, the primacy of religion and morality was hardlycontested. Subject to discussion, rather, was the way in which religious teaching

20had to be provided. For his part, Laurent obtained the guarantee that a local priestcould teach religion or delegate it to the teacher if necessary. The Cabinet andStates, in turn, succeeded in reserving the right for the municipality to determinethe times at which religious instruction was to take place and for teachers to directtheir class without clerical interference in all matters not directly related to reli-

25gion.106 More resistance met the proposed inclusion of French as a compulsory sub-ject in all elementary schools, since the country’s vernacular language was thenconsidered to be German (or rather German idiom, now known as Luxembour-gish).107 This amendment was introduced by the States’ central section and report-edly inspired both by the “frequent relations with France” and “a philanthropic

30sentiment” towards labourers, who generally found more advantages in Belgiumand France than in Germany.108 As the country had just entered the CustomsUnion, some feared the States might be suspected of “the desire to Gallicize Ger-man Luxembourg” – indeed a suggestion made in contemporary German papersand a possibility hinted at in later analyses.109 Others stressed that, under the previ-

35ous “dominations”, French had been the administrative language. The argument thatproved decisive entailed the country’s having just adopted an administrative lawthat put German and French on a par, hence the opportuneness of teaching both lan-guages.110 It was a sore subject, touching on an emerging national consciousness,

101Prost, Enseignement en France, 165.102Witry, Situation de l’enseignement primaire, 13–14.103De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer, 138; and Boekholt and de Booy, Geschi-edenis van de school, 110.104Ed Kirsch, “L’instituteur luxembourgeois avant 1912,” in Loi Braun de 1912 (see note20), 31–2, 42.105De Vroede, Van schoolmeester tot onderwijzer, 401–2.106Vuillermoz, Luxemburgische Primarschulgesetz, 30.107Calmès, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,” 415.108Compte-rendu des séances des États (see note 89), 304, 325.109Idem, 324. Cf. Calmès, Création d’un état, 187; and Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,”443.110Compte-rendu des séances des États (see note 89), 324-33.

AQ8

16 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

social inequities and even religious–political issues: French was not the preaching5 language but the intellectual language of a cultured elite.111

Emerging idiosyncrasies of the Luxembourg school law

From the comparative analysis, some early idiosyncrasies emerge. Consideredsuccessively are the supervision of education; requirements imposed regarding theorganisation of schools; the curriculum; aspects related to the appointment and

10 discharge of teachers; ways of obtaining regular school attendance/stimulants toimprove instruction, and, relatedly, teacher-training provisions.

The first Luxembourg school law awarded supreme authority over education tothe State, but also recognised the Catholic Church as entitled to a right of consulta-tion. As a formal–structural characteristic of the school law system, this itself was

15 not specific to Luxembourg; cooperation in terms of supervision was built into theschool systems of other countries, if only tacitly. Nevertheless, in Luxembourg thisprospect generated considerable protest. States deputies deemed this sharedsupervision “strange to [the] morals and customs” and “hardly to the taste of theinhabitants” of Luxembourg.112 Some associated the very idea with “a tendency to

20 clerical invasion never witnessed in Luxembourg”113 and identified this “foreign”element with the person of Laurent, who was suspected of wanting to evade civicauthority.114 While “isomorphic” resemblances can be noted in this regard (in casuwith Belgian legislation), some “wisdom of practice” particular to the Grand Duchyis no less evident. This applies, among other things, to two supervisory bodies:

25 those of the district commissioners, given the role of intermediaries in the event ofa dispute arising between teachers and the clerical or municipal authorities,115 andof the instruction commission. In this main inspection organ, the position ofvice-president was alternated between a civil servant, selected by the King/GrandDuke, and the head of the Church. The commission was further given the authority

30 to inspect textbooks other than those directly related to religion. Another peculiaraspect of the Luxembourg law related to general supervision was that bi-annualinspection meetings were made compulsory also for private school teachers.

Among the specificities regarding clerical supervision of education can be notedfirst, that one third of the instruction commission members had to be clerics. Key

35 members to be included were not only the head of the Church in Luxembourg butalso that of Luxembourg’s athenaeum and the anticipated normal school, both ofwhom were to be chosen from among the clergy and nominated by the Vicar Apos-tolic. Within the latter’s competence was also the inspection of the “normal school”and the surveillance of candidate teachers’ religious and moral conduct. Further-

40 more, not only cantonal inspectors but also priests were allowed to inspect publicschools at all times. Clergymen were even granted permission to conduct thecompulsory inspection meetings with regard to all religious matters. Competencies

111Compare Möller, Leben und Briefe, 206; Calmès, Grand-Duché de Luxembourg dans laRévolution Belge, 254; and Hellinghausen, “Bischof J. Th. Laurent,” 316.112Compte-rendu des séances des États (see note 89), 354.113Ibid., 365.114Calmès, Création d’un état, 322.115Mayr, “Zwischen allen Stühlen,” 382–3.

AQ9

Paedagogica Historica 17

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

shared by secular and ecclesiastical authorities, finally, included the supervision ofteachers’ religious and moral conduct.

5As far as requirements for establishing and organising schools were con-cerned, an incipient idiosyncrasy can be found in the imposition of state supervi-sion even for private schools. Unlike the Belgian system, Luxembourg law didnot allow for freedom of education in the Catholic meaning of the conceptwhich, paradoxically, for some ensured a “pluralist character of the school”

10while avoiding the “school pluralism” at the heart of school wars in neighbour-ing countries.116 As with the supreme supervision of education, however, thisprinciple in itself was already inscribed in other school laws, such as the Dutchone. Again, particularities are to be found on the level of the “cultural” negotia-tion of structural similarities. Thus, a certificate of competence to be issued by

15the mayor and aldermen – if in itself no exception – was made dependent on acertificate of civic–religious morality issued by a priest. In turn, the instructioncommission was to assign different ranks to teachers based on their aptitude dis-played during examinations, which entitled them to a corresponding certificate ofcompetence. These examinations had to be taken before a jury consisting of two

20instruction commission members and normal school professors. Of these profes-sors, the one in charge of religious instruction was authorised to award a certifi-cate of religious competence.

As regards the curriculum, neither the centrality of religious and moralinstruction nor their conception as an indivisible duality in themselves were

25unique.117 Hardly contested at the time, the admission of a “reunion of religiousand civic instruction” was later accused of giving way to the “legal confiscationof education” in Luxembourg.118 A similar appreciation has often fallen to“inner activities” connected to the curriculum as part of the school system’sorganisation. On this level, however, some idiosyncrasy can be discerned. Reli-

30gious instruction, for instance, had to be given by a priest, but could be dele-gated by him to the teacher. Although the clergy was thus given power overreligious instruction and all related matters (textbooks, prize books, etc.), itscompetence was restricted. The days and hours on which religious instructiontook place, for instance, were to be fixed by the municipality; in all other mat-

35ters, teachers remained free from clerical intervention. Textbooks and prize booksused for mixed purposes, moreover, were the province of both the clerical andthe secular authorities. However, more peculiar to the early Luxembourg curricu-lum was the mentioned adoption of both German and French as of the first yearof primary education. Whether this in itself would result in the removal of a

40social boundary, as some have suggested,119 is far from certain; indeed, however,it was to make of Luxembourg a more or less bilingual country. In each case,an exemption was allowed from French instruction during the first three years ofthe law’s application, which reflects the lack of teachers capable of speaking,let alone teaching, the language at the time.

116René Gregorius, “Avant-propos,” in Loi Braun de 1912 (see note 20), 5.117Aloïs Simon, L’Église catholique et les débuts de la Belgique indépendante (Wetteren:Éditions Scaldis, 1949), 104.118Linster, “Question scolaire,” 60.119Calmès, Création d’un état, 269; and Idem, “Groothertogdom Luxemburg,” 415.

AQ10

AQ16

18 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

5 Particularities regarding the appointment and discharge of teachers not yetmentioned relate to ways in which it was endeavoured to increase regular schoolattendance and stimulate the school’s development. The teaching profession, forexample, was declared incompatible with other professions, contrary to commonpractice at the time. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to the obligatory creation

10 of a “permanent” school imposed in municipalities: the so-called “winter school”remained anchored in the school system, implicitly recognising seasonal childlabour. The latter also explains other ambiguous peculiarities inscribed in the law.Children of the age of six and over, for example, were labelled only “susceptible toschooling”. While schooling was thus not compulsory, poor school attendance could

15 result in a salary reduction for teachers and the refusal of municipal aid and benefitsfor parents.

The attribution of subsidies for new schools excepted, most other somewhatpeculiar measures included in the law were intended to stimulate the school’squalitative development. Many such measures also show formal resemblances with

20 measures included in other school law systems, in this case not least in the Dutchone. Among them are interschool examinations. In Luxembourg, these were obliga-tory even for private schools and were also supervised by an examination jury,whose composition was somewhat specific in that it included priests and even amagistrate. At the examinations, moreover, not only meritorious pupils but also

25 teachers were to be given rewards. In a similar vein, not only were candidate teach-ers to be examined by the instruction commission but, every two years, also activeteachers. The commission could further appoint teachers to summer school training,which in itself constituted an idiosyncrasy of some sort in view of the law’s refer-ence to an anticipated “permanent” normal school. The latter was to be free of

30 charge and made available to teachers desiring training, provided that the competentmunicipal administration agreed.

Concluding remarks

In Luxembourg historiography, as elsewhere, social–cultural and legislative develop-ments such as those analysed here have mainly been reduced to a process of secu-

35 larisation, as a “necessary stage” in the “evolution” of modern “nation-states”.120

Even at the religious–political level, they may nevertheless more rightly be inter-preted as the result of an oscillatory motion between various powers, yieldingequivocal effects. Particularities of school law systems like the one foregroundedhere may further be termed specific only to some extent. Depending on their nature,

40 in Luxembourg school law elements were even perceived as ‘strange’ to the countryby both parts of the political spectrum, either as the work of an administration of“largely Walloon and French” descent, or as the making of a clerical power of“Prussian” and “Belgian” origin.121 In this sense the 1843 school law has rightlybeen qualified a “school concordat”,122 in which frame idiosyncrasies as such reveal

120Fayot, “Moralitätszeugnis für die Lehrer,’ 118, 112. Likewise, church historians have beenguilty of the opposite. See e.g. Aloyse Raths, “Historisches über die Entwicklung unseresPrimärschulwesens,” Heimat und Mission 38, no. 9 (1964), 225–9. Such narratives havebeen deconstructed, for instance, in Richard J. Helmstadter, ed., Freedom and Religion inthe Nineteenth Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997).121Cf. Möller, Leben und Briefe, 203; Calmès, Création d’un état.122Goedert, “Jean-Théodore Laurent,” 472.

AQ11

Paedagogica Historica 19

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial

5themselves mainly on the level of the school system’s inner organisation and ofperception in national historiography. All in all, the analysis conducted reveals“national” school systems such as Luxembourg’s to be specific blends of “interna-tional” ingredients which are nationally legitimised: that is, assumed to be “tailoredto the sole needs” of countries’ inhabitants.123

123Cf. Linster, “Question scolaire,” 61, 63; Maas, “Loi scolaire de 1912,” 12.

AQ17

20 G. Thyssen

CPDH 786105 QA: MA30 April 2013 Initial