Sven Gladh

HANDICRAFTS EDUCATION IN OUR FOLK SCHOOL 1866 – 1888

In: KOULU JA MENNEISYYS. (Ed.) 1968. Suomen kouluhistoriallisen seuran vuosikirja XIX. Helsinki, 116 – 204. (’The School and the Past’. XIX Yearbook of The Finnish Society for the History of Education, 116 – 204.) (Draft translation T. Kananoja)

I. JOHDANTO

This piece of research tries to clarify the early development of handicrafts education in our folk school, its aims and realisation of them in 1866 – 1888. Moreover the effort is to try to find out those concepts, which at that time were in the air about education of the subject in our country. Grouped the targets of the research are as follows:

1. a) Uno Cygnaeus had quite clear aims, why he wanted to attach handicrafts education in the program of the folk school. Did these concepts of Cygnaeus preserve same kind as he had published them before the decree of the folk school 11.5.1866 also after that when work in the folk schools according to the decree was started;b) what kind were the published aims of handicrafts in the official statements and reports of the Government andc) what kind of opinions about the aims of handicrafts and realisation of them were presented mostly among the teachers and in the press.

2. a) How the Government tried to promote and develop handicrafts education andb) what kind of handicrafts education in the folk schools of our country was done in 1866 – 1888.

In the 11th of May in 1866 the decree (Law) for the folk school was published. Already long time before that Uno Cygnaeus had broadly become acquainted with the folk school question. On this expertise he was given the task to write the plan for organisation of the folk school in our country. Already in 1857 he had in newspaper Wiborg published a writing ‘Några ord om folkskoleväsendet i Finland’ (‘Some words about the folk school question in Finland’) (Wiborg 57/1857). With this writing he appeared in publicity the first time kin the context of the folk school (Halila 1949, 248). Thinking the situation of folk education in the country in the middle of the 1900’s and its task – teaching reading skill fore mostly for the purposes of the church, the confirmation school – were the thoughts of C. for organising the folk school amazing. An institution separate from the church serving general civilization of the people might have been considered as a radical one in the Finnish circumstances at that time. When reforming the school C. totally re-planned the folk education. When doing that he brought to the school as important subjects except the academic ones also some with practical aims (singing, art, gymnastics and handicrafts). When Finland as the first country in Europe too handicrafts education as a subject equal with the other subjects, this gives C. the greatest merit. In the foreign countries C. is known except an educational reformer especially also for the development of handicrafts education. So e.g. well known educational historian Brubacher emphasizes the achievements of C. just in this connection (Brubacher 1947, 282, 287). Likewise Nurmi mentions in his research ‘The birth of the essential teacher training seminaries in our country’ (in Finnish) the achievements of C. just in this connection (Nurmi , 74; See also Franzén 1890, 48; Gavuzzi 1897, 11; Nohl & Pollat 1928, 328; Rein 1897, 213; Kansakoulun Lehti [The Folk school Journal] 6/1889;

Pedersen 1888, 168-194). C. has anyway emphasized his share in education fore mostly as the continuation of the work of Pestalozzi and Fröbel (e.g. Salo 1940, 22). Even if we cannot find out what has been the share of C’s own interest in handicrafts in his efforts, some words might be possible about his hobby in this connection. C. tells in his life story that this had a positive effect on his development. He had felt a special interest in handicrafts already from the young age. Especially in the work of the carpenter, shoemaker and wood turner he had a good start. C. remembers this hobby to be originating from his father. The father had emphasized for his son the meaning of general dexterity. He had sometimes taken the son even to become acquainted with some workshops and familiarised him there with materials as well as with working methods. Father considered handicrafts as one of the civilization instruments for the youth. This understanding he had got from pedagogical writings, fore mostly from Emile by Rousseau. Development of the principle of general dexterity in the educated one was later on one of the main principles of C. (UC life story). Education of cottage crafts in the schools for the common children was not a new phenomenon in the school in the 1900’s. Already in the programs of schools in 1700’s this kind of handicrafts is mentioned, even included in the curricula. In the well known text ‘Schulmethodus’ of duke of Gotha-Coburg in 1642 there was a statement of handicrafts education (Günther, Hoffman, Hohendorf, König 1962, 100) like in the proposal for regulations for parish schools in Tartto, Estonia, in the beginning of the 1900’s handicrafts education was clearly within (Rajainen 1961, 301). The so called ‘educational handicrafts’ meant a step forward for handicrafts to become in the curriculum of the modern folk school. When C. chose handicrafts as a subject in the folk school, it is possible to think that it happened after thorough consideration. Handicrafts must have had a special position in the mind of C. and a valuable position in education of the child; otherwise he would not have included it in the program of the new school. And he did not want handicrafts to be some kind of ‘filling’ or ‘added’ subject. As an example of that we might have a passage from his letter to teacher Kaarlo Moberg: ‘Be diligent and active except in other subjects, mainly in religion and handicrafts’ (UC to Moberg 2.12.1873). Likewise he expressed his thoughts e.g. to the director of the seminary C.J. Meijerberg; the folk school system in our country should have a religious-ethical basis, but added to that a teaching method in practical direction’ (UC to Meijerberg 1.7.1872). Especially in these two subjects, religion and handicrafts – C. saw a vehicle, ‘the only means’, to develop the people, as he himself it expressed (Rauhamaa 1911, 88). In his proposal for organisation of the Finnish School system he said:

‘If---the school will unite practical handicrafts and teaching with each other so that another one will not, like in most handicraft schools, continue separately from each other but both teaching and work are done as organic entity; and the school tries to realise education for work through work; only then one can hope that it will wake up desire for work, develop working skill and promotes ability to work in people better than up today’ (UCk, 194).

Without referring more to, what C. aimed at with handicrafts education in the folk school, and also not to, how that subject should be more closely be compared with other subjects (Salokannel 1918, 131; Mietintö 10 1912, 61), the core of the vision of C. can on education and teaching be crystallized as follows: ‘through work for work’ was the child supposed to mature to be a decent civic. Those generally known aims, which C. gave for handicrafts education when bringing it to the folk school program, will be returned in our mind later on in this paper. So the Decree for the Folk School was given in May 1866, and so the government created a basis, on which it was possible to construct the new school. Teacher seminary was, however, founded in Jyväskylä already in 1863 in order to certificate teachers for the new school, and at first Uno Cygnaeus was its director. When the National Board of Education was founded in 1870, Cygnaeus was elected to be the Chief Inspector. There he worked nearly up to his death. So this research handles a sequence of 22 years. This is because the idea was to limit in scrutinizing the stages of

handicraft education in the era of the own influence of Cygnaeus. Credible is that he as ‘the father of our folk school’ had a direct significance for the beginning development of the school. On the other hand by limiting the time of the research like this the idea has been to get room for a more detailed research and so especially there was a wish to see the initial development of handicraft education more clearly. In this research seems, however, the follow-up of the periods of the first three school years, 1866 – 67, 1867 – 68 and 1868 – 69, remain without clearer scrutiny. This is because the first annual reports of the seminaries and the rural and urban schools of the country are only from the school year 1869 – 70. The National Board was founded in 1870 and its archives have plenty of material for this piece of research, including as most important part the mentioned annual reports. These were obviously requested by the National Board only from the school year 1869 – 70 on. Likewise the supervision reports of the school inspectors and other documents have information generally after the same school year on. Because the material is considering the quality of this piece of research, extremely large, here the scrutiny is limited mainly in periods of five years. School year 1869 – 70 was the first research focus, as such also very limited, because only a small part of the schools has sent the annual reports on that year to the National Board. That year there were 108 rural schools working. Only 34 annual reports of those schools are kept in the National Archives and on 74 schools the scrutiny of handicrafts education could not be done. It is obvious that the request for the annual reports was not so severe in the beginning. Scrutinizing the annual reports is anyway not meaningless, because if some school did not have handicrafts education later on, it might not also have it earlier: in the scrutinized annual reports there is none telling a school having taken handicrafts in the program and then leaving it. Still has to be remarked that the annual reports in 1869 – 88 are especially on handicrafts education greatly varied. Mentioning is not clear: in the meantime the subject in question has been reported for, in the meantime not. Likewise some reports mention the produced artefacts and the used periods, some other reports have left this information out and the whole is passed with a rough remark. That is why e.g. any kind of period table would not be meaningful. Because of that this paper had to be left mostly on examples only.

II. BACKGOUND OF THE RESEARCH

1. Measures leading to the Folk School Decree

Of the reforms of Czar Alexander the II also the folk school institution had its share. In 1856 he left to the Senate a reform program and handled in the third paragraph development of rural folk education. The Dioceses only wanted to supervise and repeat the validation of the order about folk education: as a matter of fact the school should still be preparation to confirmation school. The Senate published the proposals and these started a vivid discussion in the press. Yrjö-Koskinen talked in ‘Suometar’ for wide-spread folk civilisation. The same was proposed by Agathon Meurman by emphasizing the practical task of the folk school in developing the rural livelihood. Nineteen expert statements were given, the most important one being that of Uno Cygnaeus, ‘Scattered thoughts about the folk school planned for Finland’. In the Senate the question became to be prepared by the editorial board of the church department. Its chairman was H.V.W. Furuhjelm and presenter and the secretary G.M. Waenerberg. Their merit was the positive solution of the matter in the Senate. The Senate gave in 19th of April in 1858 the gracious statement for founding the folk school in the Finnish Grand Duchy. At the same time when this statement was given Uno Cygnaeus was appointed on the government grant to make research on folk education in Finland and abroad. After that he was supposed to leave his Memo on the matter to the Senate. During 1858 – 59 Cygnaeus made large tours and gave about them a study tour report to the Senate.

The report of Cygnaeus was presented to the Senate in February 1860. When it was found out to be of great expertness, Cygnaeus got a task to write a full proposal for organising the seminary and folk school in the country. It was ready already in November in the same year. A Committee was founded to scrutinize the proposal and its Memo was published and forwarded to be criticized generally. The Inspection Committee with Senator S. Gripenberg as the chairman ended the work in 1862. It did not agree everything with the writer. When a contra statement was asked from Cygnaeus and it was given and also got some added clarification, the 11th of May 1866 the Decree for the Folk School was given (Somerkivi 1958; Tarjanne 1916). In the meantime the seminary for the educating the teachers for the becoming folk school was already founded in 1863. This first teacher training institution was situated in Jyväskylä. From that above Ruutu is writing: ‘thinking the development of then Finnish folk power it would be difficult to show in Finland in the 1800s more basic measures than founding the folk school and the Finnish language academic school’ (Ruutu, 1956).

2. About the development of our folk school in 1866 – 1888

The new Church Law was published in 1869 and that separated the school institution from the church. The highest organ for the school became The National Board of Education. Conditions for the development of the school were created. School institution was expanded now rapidly. As a token of that the following statistics:

The growth of the rural folk schools in 1865 – 1891:

School year Schools Teachers Total Pupils Total

Male Female Boys Girls

1865 – 1866 20 20 1 211870 – 1871 108 74 39 1131875 – 1876 285 177 117 294 6667 4754 114211880 –1881 457 268 196 464 10503 7228 177311885 –1886 667 397 286 683 14136 10169 243051890 –1891 880 533 379 912 20164 15023 35187(Somerkivi 1958)

The increase of the number of the schools and the teachers and pupils was in 25 years quite rapid. Just in the years after the Folk School Decree there was a famine in Finland. It could not, however, brake the development of the school institution but municipality after municipality founded schools and also the government gave funds for that. (Uusi Suometar 1869). Already soon there were some opinions that to civilize whole the nation should not have been necessary. It would be enough if part of the nation would get higher education. There was also a movement for supplementing the folk school and replacing it with a church managed small school. These changed opinions were represented in e.g. in the parliamentary decision from 1872: if the municipality already had got government support for one school, it would not get any other funds to found more schools (decision in 1882). In the folk education meeting in the same year Cygnaeus expressed his very sad opinion about that (Halila 1949). Somebody explained that the higher folk school was ‘too high’ for the large layers of the people and there were severe initiatives to replace the folk school with a small school ( UC to Leinberg 1872). Most far decision in this context was made by the meeting of priests in Turku in 1875. Its Committee discussing the folk school question expressed a Memo that the only and appropriate folk education would be that, which would be only religious education given and supervised by the priests. This small school movement made to the 1877 – 78 Parliament an application for obligation for the municipalities to found small schools. According to the application every rural municipality should found a school board with the vicar as

the chairman. Further the municipality should have been divided in as many districts as needed and then made a decision if education would be given in the permanent village school or in circulating schools. All seven year old children should belong to the compulsory school, etc. Changing the school system in the mentioned direction was discussed also after the death of Cygnaeus. In the 1890s the Church began a determined work to cover the people for the liberal doctrines in order to preserve the old basis in education approved by the church. The Church put its wishes in the circulating school and in the clergy there were plans about its development. When the clergy at the same time little by little was alienated from the inspectorate of the folk school, it became more important for this group to develop the circulating schools of the church. The church school should naturally have meant a central and emphasized position of religious education in the folk school. Handicrafts would not have any room in the curricula and even not in teacher training. The Church and the Folk School became so to some kind of a cultural fight situation in the end of the 1900th century. The fight still continued after the death of C. (Halila 1949). Still should be mentioned, that also among the people there were opinions that this kind of a new civilization institute, the modern folk school, was thought to be a little bit too high. There was a general slogan that the folk school educated ’noblemen’, that kind of not willing to work, who ‘do not go to the cow barn’, flee from the ‘heavy’ or ‘dirty’ work. People thought that the school took the child labour force, which was needed. It did not see in education any use for the daily life (Castrén 1931). Many efforts to change the folk school system from 1866 did not succeed, however.

II. ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HANDICRAFT EDUCATION IN OUR SCHOOL

1. The own ideas of Cygnaeus

When the idea of Cygnaeus about handicraft education in education of people was new and deviating from the previous ones not only in our country but in the whole Europe, it was clear that he had to justify this approach in many ways. In his many talks, negotiations, letters and proposal for the Folk School Committee and in the travel report he had to explain his idea for handicrafts education in order to get it in the curriculum of the becoming folk school. Because Juhani Jussila is thoroughly writing about the principles of handicrafts education of Cygnaeus before the 11.5.1866 Folk School Decree, concerning that I will refer to his article in this same publication (Jussila 1968). What about the situation after getting the Folk School Decree and the way was open for the birth of the new school? Were the concepts of C. preserved the same also after handicrafts education began in the schools? This question is very easy to give an answer. As already was written in the II chapter, giving the folk school decree was not satisfactory to all, but there were powers who tried to turn the future development of the school in other direction than C. had wanted. He had constantly to defend and clarify his visions. That is why also his correspondence about these things still is rich so that there is enough evidence. Soon after the folk school decree was given, the same year in August, C. sent a letter to S.A. Hedlund to Sweden. In this letter he asked, that if Hedlund would write something about handicrafts education, he should emphasize, that handicrafts education should be organised in the school so that it would be a formal education method. When many new subjects in the folk school were new and odd for many, we can imagine that C. could think it be important that these, including handicrafts, soon would get support from as possible influential level as possible. Because of that C. remarked at the same time that when Hedlund might have had use from his function in education, C. asked him to give support for his work and not by all means for himself but because of his work. C. believed

that recognition and support from Hedlund would influence ‘at least in some circles’ in our country as an oracle type of answer. Because C. felt that just the biggest ‘shouting’ people were performing just here, it would be a general opinion, what they would say. When these explainers did not according to C. understand pedagogy at all they would welcome what would be said from the authoritative level (UC to Hedlund 1866). As it was mentioned before, C. in his letter to Moberg emphasized with religious education also the importance of handicrafts education in the school. In the same letter C. emphasized the development of general dexterity in handicrafts education (UC to Moberg 1879). Developing the senses for form and beauty he emphasized again in a letter to A. Th. Bruhn. In that he stressed that handicrafts should not be done in the school professionally. This subject should be taken care of by a teacher. Folk school should be a general education institution and not a vocational school (UC to Bruhn 1876; UC to Markkunen 1879). For his principles above C. gave light also in 1878 to S.A. Hedlund and in exactly same way than before. This time he especially emphasized that he saw himself as one of the links between the systems of Pestalozzi and Fröbel, because also he wanted fore mostly to educate children ‘though work for work’ (UC to Hedlund 1878). At that time some people considered handicrafts education to be a promoter for rural livelihood. There were wishes to subordinate handicrafts education in the folk school to serve only the economic aims. These streams did not remain unnoticed by C. and because of that he was worried. His anxiety he shared e.g. to Hedlund. He emphasized particularly that if handicrafts education would not be considered as a formal education method the whole thing will be spoiled. He referred to Basedow and philanthropists when saying that they had failed just because they had moved from the pedagogical line when making handicrafts a medium of entertainment (UC to Hedlund 1878). At the same time when C. was afraid about going and spoiling handicrafts education so that from outside of the school would be ordered, what should be done in these periods and how, he, however, convinced his belief in the victory of his own message. In one of his letters he anyway found out that in all ways people are trying to mix up things and take out that seed, which he had sown. He said that handicrafts education is that kind of fermentation, which would raise the whole school institution in flower (UC to Lydecken 1878). He often warned for ‘unnecessary ornamental work’ many teachers, e.g. B.V. Ahlfors, E. Kauppinen and A.G. Hovilainen (UCk). In his letter to Kauppinen he gives thanks to him when Kauppinen had let the boys make a sofa, tables, chairs, church chairs, etc., but mentions as an important thing in handicrafts that the boys should learn to use the tools skilfully and make clean work (UC to Kauppinen 1882). In 1880 C. wrote three letters to C.J. Meijerberg, in all of which he again repeated the aims above. These show that C. thought that handicrafts education should educate self-motivated working. That is why it is important that the teacher is at the same time a pedagogically civilized person who will understand to make handicrafts education in a developing method as educative and civilized (UC to Meijerberg 1880). So he continued his argumentation about the meaning of handicrafts education in child’s education. ´Whole the time he saw the aims of handicrafts education to be same kind and he did not change his opinions in this respect (UC speech 1881; UC to Hynninen 1883; UC to Raitio 1884; UC to Sundwall 1884; UC to Sipilä 1884; UC to Lönnbeck 1886). Once more in an undated text, which presumably has been done in his later days, stated his leading thought. The title of the writing is: ‘A short presentation about those principles in school education, which have been my basis when I worked as an educator’ (UC: VA). Because the points concerning handicrafts education would only be repeating the principles above, they can be left here aside. Writing anyway is some kind of an ideological testament.

Added to the text here about the concepts of C. for education of handicrafts will be handled once more when scrutinizing the development of handicrafts education between the limiting years of this study, 1866 – 1888.

2. Correspondence (letters) between Uno Cygnaeus and Otto Salomon

In the especially vivid correspondence C. was at the end of the 1880s with a well-known Swedish educationist Otto Salomon (1849 – 1907). Otto Salomon was the developer of the Swedish school handicrafts in Sweden. He also founded the known Handicraft school at Nääs. The ideas of these both reformers about handicraft education deviated in some quantity from each other. In a vivid correspondence they defended their visions to each other. In this context it is not anymore important to mention the concepts of C. about handicraft education, which has been clarified in the previous chapter. Also these remaining letters verify indisputably that C. showed himself to keep his ideas. There is actually not so much new in them: C. repeats in them things, which he had once adopted and found to be right according to his mind (Letters by UC to Salomon 1879 – 1888).

3. The aims of handicraft education in the official documents

In the gracious decree of the Emperor, Majesty and Czar for organising the folk school in the Grand Duchy of Finland the 11th of May in 1866 there was the idea that the male students in the seminary would be practised in ‘meaningful handicrafts’ and the female students in ‘handicrafts’ (§ 24). In the second department of the model school of the seminary, the ‘upper folk school’, should girls be acquainted with ‘female handicrafts’, boys with ‘dexterity and handicrafts’ (§ 90). In the ‘upper folk schools’ in towns girls should be practised in ‘female handicrafts’. Added to that the appropriate congregation had the right to add handicrafts for boys (§ 107). In the rural folk schools the girls should be guided in ‘female handicrafts’ and boys in ‘dexterity’ (§ 121). Above there is all the essential substance, which was mentioned in the folk school decree about handicraft education. Mentioned was there what could be taught but aims or methods were not said. Instead the Gracious Regulation of his Empirical Majesty for the folk school teacher and lady teacher seminaries in 11.5.1866 ordered that ‘the idea of meaningful handicrafts was to reach the general dexterity and skill in some works best suited to the common people’. Especially the regulation emphasized that for the male students was aimed as important to teach dexterity in using woodwork, wood turning and blacksmiths tools, in order to be able to produce the most usual household and agriculture tools. The female students should learn to make the ‘rough and fine’ female handicrafts. In 1875, 9 years after the Folk School Decree, the National Board published for the first time its concept about the aims of handicraft education. It was told in the circular letter 18:

‘---When selecting the samples of handicraft fore mostly should be considered that the sent artefacts will show that the school had understood handicrafts as an important medium of formal civilization, the aim of which is to develop not only general dexterity but also the senses of form and beauty---‘ (KK 1875).

The 3rd of March 1881 the National Board gave its well-known circular letter, which e.g. covered the so called model courses, guidance how handicrafts education should happen in the future in the folk school. The aim of the model courses was tp develop the whole school institution: handicrafts was only a part of it. The model courses mentioned as the aim of handicrafts education ‘to develop the observation power of the eye and sense of beauty and practise the hand to use the tool freely (KK 1881). This had to be the main aim of handicrafts education in the folk school. The aim was

general dexterity and not any special vocational skill. This educational aim of handicrafts should be considered. Teaching and practice had to be organised according to the inclinations of the pupils (KK 1881). Already these two circular letters tell that the official understanding about handicraft education was the same then C. had. ‘Cygnaeus-type’ is also the circular letter of the National Board n:o 80/30.11.1883:

‘---But because handicrafts in the folk school means practice as well for the eye than for the hand, and making any, even smallest artefact should promote not only accuracy, order and cleanliness but also good and refined sense for beauty, so let us not prevent also the parents or at this point also most gifted pupils --- to practise making such handicrafts, which --- aim at beautiful and pleasant things at home---‘ (KK 1883).

The largest and most directive official guidance, which is timed at the period covered in this research is the Memo of the Handicraft Committee in 1886. C. himself worked as the chairman of the Committee. The Committee understood with handicraft education the following:

- handicrafts should develop and educate the pupil,- these technical skills and knowledge, which are learned in making handicrafts, have no

important meaning; instead the general dexterity given by teaching is important,- mechanically organised handicraft education is outside the possibilities of the school,- handicrafts education is a formal civilization method, where, however, should not be going

to too one-sided solutions. The observation from that above is that the official concept was mostly the same than that of Cygnaeus.

4. Understanding of the teachers and the press about the aims of handicrafts education

When the folk school decree was given and so created the basis for the new folk school, which greatly deviated from the former traditional institution managed by the church, there was substance to discuss and argue if it was necessary or not. Question in this connection was about the whole of the folk school: what kind it should be and who would be the director of it. That is why it is understandable that maybe it was not so necessary to start arguing the necessity of a single subject, the aims, methods, etc. This would explain why as late as in 1875 for the first time there expressed an opinion on handicraft education in the folk school in publicity. Then wrote the ’Literary Monthly’ under a title ‘Thoughts about the area of the folk school’ about that. As a matter of fact the main idea of the text was on the general task of the folk school but it fixed the attention also on handicrafts education. ‘Generally we consider’, was the text, ‘that the school should, if possible, practice handicrafts theoretically, e.g. from the viewpoint of beauty and presenting good models and leaving the essential practice of dexterity and work tricks for the home’ (Journal Kirjallinen kuukausilehti [Literary Monthly] 4/1875). Developing general dexterity in folk school handicrafts was stressed especially in the Folk School magazine (Journal Kansakoulu 5/1875). In the Priests’ meeting in 1875 there was a discussion about how to get the people bring the children actively to the school. Pastor Wilh. Fredriksen had said in the meeting that people is in many respects in opposition to the school. He thought the school would get some supporters by organising a handicraft school in the connection of it. If the folk school could combine its main aim, civilisation, with practical skill, he thought the willingness for the folk school would increase in the people. Also another speaker, Dr. L. Lindelöf agreed (Journal Satakunta 47/1875). In the annual report of Kiikka municipality school there is a mentioning supporting those opinions: if the school would not teach handicrafts, half of the girls would not come to the school (Ei 7. KHA. VA). In the following year the ‘Official Finnish Newspaper’ had a title: ‘Folk school and handicraft school’ and mentioned

then about handicrafts e.g. that ‘handicrafts and meaningfulness had special assets so that the children would get used already early in those meaningful activities, which they as adults had to do and so they would be accustomed to work.’ This is ‘as clear truth that we must not waste words for it. It is clear like the day for everybody who ponders even a little bit.’ Every delay in this connection is according to the paper a loss for the society ‘in morality and in power---‘ (Suomen virallinen Lehti, ‘Finlands Official News’ 11/1876). Still in the same year the newspaper Bårgå Bladet wrote about handicrafts education in the folk school. Under the title ‘Handicrafts in the folk school’ it commented a presentation of lector O. Wallin. The text showed that handicraft was taken in the fold school as a subject because it was a necessary civilisation medium for every human being irrespective of the social class and gender. According to the paper this education should not be given by the professionals; it was not preparing pupils for any profession but its aim was to promote general dexterity at the same time when handicrafts education develops the eye and the hand and serves the verbal development (Bårgå Bladet 101/1876). In January 1877 a school inspector, head pastor J.W. Bäsman had invited the teachers in his area to discuss the folk school matters. The discussion handled e.g. the question: ‘How could handicrafts practice be promoted and what kind of handicrafts would be the best ones?’ In the meeting there were two opinions about the aim of handicrafts. Other opinion was that every municipality should practise fore mostly handicrafts, which could be sold. Because of that also the schools should persuade the children in the same work. According to another opinion in the connection of producing the folk school handicrafts there should not be question of actual profit but they should have an indirect influence: handicraft education should be the medium of education. In all handicraft artefacts also the development of cleanliness and sense of beauty should be considered (Newspaper Tampereen Sanomat 5/1877). The latter opinion represented the direction, which has in this piece of research already become known. The Cygnaeus type of view on the task of handicraft education. Another standpoint, the representatives were at least in the teachers of inspector Bäsmans district, and which was also supported in 1876 by the Finnish Official Paper (Suomen Virallinen Lehti), deviated from the interpretation of Cygnaeus: the main focus of handicrafts was seen in its factor producing practical use. This was also agreed by Morgonbladet journal. According to it handicraft should not be left in the folk school to be too theoretical. Morgonbladet emphasized that anyway childrens’ time spent in school is not very long. That is why children at school should learn such activity readiness, which is for their own benefit in their future development. Therefore the journal writes that it was not so ‘horribly’ important to develop childrens’ senses for beauty and form, but give them opportunities to become familiarised with everyday activities and this should happen by producing everyday requisites and toys (Morgonbladet 147-148/1878). In 1879 the Director General of the Norwegian education institute Nils Hedberg visited us. He wanted to acquaint with our handicraft education in the folk schools of our country. Afterwards he was supposed to give a statement about it to the government of his country. He thought that the aim of handicraft education in our country was to reach the general dexterity especially for male pupils handicrafts suitable for common people; also technical readiness was aimed to be given for using tools of carpenter, wood turner and blacksmith in order to produce usual household requisites and agriculture tools. The female pupils were tried to make able to make both rough and more fine handicrafts. Spinning, weaving, sewing and cutting and making linen clothes were work, where their skills would be needed later on. He had noticed that one of the aims of handicrafts was to develop taste and intelligence so that work would not be professional but it would serve the pedagogical aims by developing not only the only hand skills but also senses of form and taste. So teaching at this point was a formal method of civilisation on which he had noticed to be given great emphasise. He had also noticed that work had to be done accurately and neatly. All this he considered to be the credit of Cygnaeus. C. had according to him tried to develop and realise the ideas, which Pestalozzi and Fröbel had presented (newspaper Helsingfors Dagblad 351/1879).

Occasionally the teachers were having meetings to think over the school matters and handicrafts education was often the focus of the discussions. The Folk School Meetings of the whole country naturally were the most authoritative forum, where the teachers could give their opinions about pedagogical questions. Already in the first folk school meeting in 1869 the attention was fixed on handicrafts education and its aims were pondered. Lecturer Göös presented his opinion that the handicraft projects should be simple and at the same time clean ‘so that feeling beauty could be experienced on the artefacts’ (1st Folk School Meeting 1869, 44). By producing neat and clean artefacts dexterity would be best promoted in our country, was his opinion (1st Folk School Meeting 1869, 44). Without scrutinizing more closely the discussions in the meeting one can find out that the opinion of the majority of the teachers was mostly the same than that of C. (Newspapers, e.g. Uusi Suometar 20/1881 and Minutes of the meeting). On the other hand there had also presented opinions that handicrafts education should have clearly useful direction, but the opinions of this kind at least among the teachers were a clear minority. The idea of the so called great public about handicraft education cannot be traced because most of the newspaper articles handling that have mostly been news from the own questions of the education representatives.

III. REALISATION OF HANDICRAFT EDUCATION

1. The plans and measures of the Government to intensify handicraft education

In the gracious Decree of the Imperial Majesty for organising the folk School in the Grand Duchy of Finland and in the Gracious Statement of the Imperial Majesty for the Seminaries of the Folk School teachers and lady teachers there was also a short notice that handicrafts were taken in the program in the Folk School and that the male students should be educated in ‘versatile handicrafts’ and the female students ‘the female handicrafts’. That was all. More clear guidance for teaching the subject was missing so far.

a) The Memo of the Cottage Craft Committee in 1873

For the first time after the Folk School Decree the interest of the government was publicly fixed on handicrafts education in the folk school in the Memo, which was given to the Senate in 20.3.1873. It was the Memo of the so called Cottage Craft Committee, the task of which was to make a proposal for developing cottage crafts in the country. The Committee based the development of cottage industry considerably on handicraft education in the Folk School. The Committee considered folk school handicrafts a method for promoting this livelihood. The Committee made several proposals for solving the problem so that folk school handicrafts should especially serve the aims of the committee. Its most important proposals were among other thins as follows:

- the seminaries should hire three ‘skilled’ work masters and in the female seminaries three lady teachers to teach handicrafts;

- for teachers and lady teachers already at work should be given during the holidays of the folk school opportunity to increase their handicraft skill in the seminaries;

- obligation of the municipalities should be to purchase necessary and functional tools and constructing suitable work rooms for boys’ handicraft;

- the Committee also considered important to give handicraft education in folk school for those who already had finished the school;

- the ownership of the artefacts made by the boys should be considered to belong to the school. These would be sold after the yearly term and the funds be used for purchasing and maintenance of the tools or in some other way to the benefit to the school. Girls, however had the right to keep all their artefacts, if they had purchased the materials for them;

- the best artefacts should be publicly shown and prized. Then they should be sent to tried to be sent to agriculture shows and other public exhibitions. Public funds should be used to purchase suitable models both for the seminaries and folk schools and

- for the teachers working for cottage crafts should be given prizes and grants for travelling (Cottage craft Memo 1872, 3-17).

Finally the Committee stated that it ‘did not doubt to propose the folk school to promote cottage craft’ but it anyway assumed that ‘fruits can be expected only after one or two decades’ (Cottage craft Memo 1873, 18). Halila has written that at that time the industry politicians of the country were especially interested in reforms for rural industries. Behind were just the severe famine years, which also speeded these reform measures. These persons considered important to try to bring the folk schools in the service of the regeneration plans of the country. Also Snellman supported this course. The practical orientation of teaching was a priority according to them (Halila, 284-285; Kirjallinen Kuukausilehti 4/1875, 85). The handicraft Committee had the same kind of spirit.

b) The funds from the last will of Furuhjelm

The Memo of the Committee did not at least in the beginning to have any practical impact from the government on handicraft education in the folk school. The first concrete measure was made by a private person. In the circular letter 29/15.1.1877 the National Board informed that statesman Karl Harald Felix Furuhjelm had in his testament given funds for ‘livelihood for the poorest ones but at the same time the most hopeful of the children of the Finnish municipalities’ (KK 29/15.1.1877), so that they could take a whole year in the folk and handicraft school. Grants for each municipality would be given for at the most three boys and girls at the same time. These grants should be given mostly to the municipalities where the folk school ‘had united handicrafts-, agriculture- or gardening-school an d where health education belongs to the subjects’ (KK 29/15.1.1877). These funds were really given yearly especially for the children succeeding in handicrafts (KK 29/15.1.1877).

c) The decision of the Senate 11.12.1879

However, only few children received the funds of Furuhjelm and so the funds could not have any decisive meaning for handicrafts education. Necessarily measures of the government were needed for intensifying handicraft education. Not before than the letter of the Imperial Senate to the Board of Education the 11.12.1879 and the letter of the Board to the inspectors the 16.1.1880 are the first measures of the government to promote handicraft education. The contents of the letter are as follows:

‘When the social ranks of the country in the last diet had decided that folk school, which is giving education in some real handicrafts will get according to the proposal of the inspector funds from the public funds and for that had stated 30,000 marks for the last five years time: so and then when the decision of the parliament ranks will be approved by Imperial Majesty’s Gracious approval and You have been ordered to bring a humble proposal for the most suitable way to organise this matter, have You in a humble writing in the 1st of October 1879 proposed:

1:o, that You in that time would get the possibility to deliver for that purpose yearly six thousand marks at most in three hundred marks’ grants for those schools, which are teaching handicrafts best and at greatest success, for the condition, that the funds will be used to promote this education further, like purchasing tools and models, working room, if it was not found before, etc., and with a responsibility to

give full accounts in the yearly report to the Board of the school about the grant given to the school in that year;2:o, that if handicrafts education without any effective measures from the municipality has been

started because of the skill and assiduity of the teacher of the female teacher, the grant should be given for them as a compensation for their effort and sacrifice and for a challenge to further efforts for the matter;

3:o, that You, in order to get a better possibility to evaluate the success of your school in handicraft education and a more secure leadership in delivering the grants, would be allowed, not only to get the statements of the concerned regional inspectors, but also from time to time to send samples of the artefacts made by the pupils so that You would have the possibility to found a collection of the best handicraft artefacts in the folk schools; 4:o, that from the funds for promoting handicraft education in the beginning of every year six thousand marks would be given to be used, after which Your responsibility should be to send the grants to the folk school inspectors concerned who should, in every region, do the delivery according to the list prepared by of You, and

5:o, that the accounts of the delivery and use of the funds will be published in the next yearly report about the work of the folk schools.

The Imperial Senate has approved your proposal above’ (Letter of the Senate 11.12.1879; Circular letter to the inspectors 16.1.1889).

d) Model courses in 1881 and the Circular letter of the Board of Education in 30.11.1881

In 1881 the Model courses, which have been written about already before, were published (Circular Letter 67/3.3.1881). The idea was that the time after the Folk School Decree had given so much experiences about the education system that taking care of folk school and its development further ‘in the direction already begun seems to demand now that the education program would be specially planned and more than could be done before’ (CL 67/3.3.1881). It was noticed that it was the time to define more detailed the space and direction of the subjects in the folk school. This was demanded already by enjoying some social benefits, which were based on folk education done. However, here was not place for strict uniformity. Anyway these model courses did not mention so many words about teaching of handicrafts. The number of weekly handicrafts periods became five. There was a notice that for health and ‘psychic’ reasons handicrafts should be place on Monday and Thursday afternoons so that the change from the greater laziness of the days before to the poorly knowledge aspects or ‘Book-work’ would not be too sharp (CL 67/3.3.1881). Other guidance for handicrafts education was not given in the model courses: there were no guidance for the artefacts to be made, tools to be used, etc. Instead of the fact above the Board of Education in a Circular Letter (80/30.11.1883) gave attention for handicrafts education. After the remark, that the delivery of the funds of Furuhjelm did not always happen according to the guidance of the Board of Education and after the emphasize of following the former rules the Board of Education ordered now that in the future the plan for handicraft education had to be written for every yearly terms. This plan had to catalogue those sorts of handicrafts, which in the year should be done in handicraft exercises. Also the order of performing them had to be shown.

e) The Memo of the Handicrafts Committee 1886

In 1886, after even 20 years from the Folk School Decree the Committee for the task to write the program for boys’ handicrafts education in the folk schools finalised its work. The Committee consisted of: Chairman Uno Cygnaeus, director of Mustiala agriculture school Kaarlo A. Zitting, lecturers of art (drawing) and technical handicrafts in Jyvaskyla, New Karleby and Sortavala seminaries Rafael Hårdh, Eerikki Hedström and Erkki Mäkinen, folk school inspectors Aksel

Berner and Oskar Hynén and folk school teachers Kaarlo Kunelius from Kauhava and Juho Koivistoinen from Tohmajärvi. The Committee considered as his task to:

- order the sorts of handicrafts;- order the suitable artefacts for the handicraft sorts;- suit the artefacts in series according to the order in the program;- form a collection of models, actually not the exact order, considering the rural folk schools

and the upper folk schools of the towns;- name the most necessary tools for folk schools and- show the costs for the reform and the methods to purchase the needed working rooms,

models and tools. About the appropriateness for handicrafts in the upper folk schools the Committee considered that the so called ‘smaller handicrafts’, which meant artefact made with a knife and woodwork and wood turning should be done in the first place but also give room for other such arts of work, which could be found to develop the quality, and which in some places in the country belonged then to cottage crafts or deserved to become in it (brush work, palming of shingles and willow). Iron and metalwork could be done as exceptions. The proposal for the model collection consisted of 70 different artefacts each of them having its special number. 55 of them were woodwork, 2 brush work, 2 twist work, 2 bark work, 3 cardboard work, 3 steel wire work and one metal sheet work. The Committee had let to make a sample collection of the proposed artefacts. The aim was not that every pupil would make all the items. The most difficult ones were only the most skilful pupils. Finishing the artefacts with different substances the Committee considered important piece of teaching. The collection covered all kinds of household artefacts. They were ordered according to the difficulty to make and given numbers as 1 – 70. So the artefact no 1 was the easiest to make, no 70 the most difficult one. As a hint about the quality of the artefacts may be said that number 1 was a round pointing stick, no 2 a key tag, then followed a ‘gnawing stick’, a round flower stick, etc. Further the artefacts to be made were fish board, stool, ‘suuntapiirrin’, bowl for dough, tools and pieces of furniture. At the end of the list there were a wire square, cube and a basket. Most skill demanding was number 70, one litre measure made out of metal sheet. In order to reach as positive results as possible in handicrafts education the Committee proposed that for those working in good conditions should be purchased extra drawings because of the lack of model artefacts, and also 7o of these. Because work according to the drawings might be difficult the Committee considered necessary that the schools would purchase also the pictures of the artefacts in the drawings. The Committee gave attention to the order of appropriate and proper tool collections and emphasized the importance to get appropriate funds for realisation of the reforms of the Committee. The Board of Education agreed in 19th of October in the all the main points of the proposal of the Committee.

f) Circular letter of the Board of Education 102 in 15.11.1887

Already at the 15th of November in 1887 in the Circular letter 102 the Board of Education could tell about its measures for promoting handicrafts education as follows:

- decision to print 2000 copies of the drawings and pictures of the model artefacts and extra artefacts proposed by the Committee;- decision to print 2000 Finnish and 1000 Swedish guides to use the model artefacts and tools and a short guide for teaching handicrafts properly;- decision to produce the models proposed by the Committee;- decision to purchase the tools proposed by the Committee;

- decision that when the schools would make orders for series of models and tools they would be given the two above mentioned series of drawings and the guidance booklet for handicraft education;

- decision to give to schools funds for the tolls purchased for the first time depending on the number of pupils. As well the government should assist when the lathes were bought for the schools. The poorest municipalities would be given funds to construct the handicraft rooms;

- shorter courses would be organised for the teacher already at work (CL 102/15.11.1887). The first logical plan for handicraft education in the folk school had been published.

2. About handicraft education in the schools

a) The yearly reports of the Seminaries

When scrutinizing the development of handicrafts education in the practical work of the folk schools one might at first take a look to handicrafts education done in then Seminaries. These institutes certified those teachers who later on moved to folk schools in different areas of the country and gave teaching also in handicrafts. It seems that these institutes have mostly guided the becoming teachers quite in the same way. So the teachers coming from the Seminaries had approximately the same starting points. One can also assume that according to the local circumstances also teaching given by these teachers had been similar. Naturally the personality of the teachers and his / her choices between certain motives will give some differences.

Handicrafts for the male students

The number of handicraft periods given to the male students was quite the same in the different Seminaries. In the I – III grades the share of the 39 – 42 weekly periods 7 – 8 were used for handicrafts. In the IV, the last grade, handicraft was not in the program. The final demonstration sample they had anyway to make before the certificate. Only Jyvaskyla Seminary had started its work before 1869 – 70. The motifs for artefacts made there in handicrafts were mostly home and many necessary artefacts connected to it. Checking the list of handicrafts, made in the mentioned terms tells that the male students had made plenty of cloth hangers, bread boards, ladders, shelves and fine birch sticks for Kindergarten fence; blacksmithing for hooks for window roll curtains, hooks for roof lamp, fish smoking cabinet out of wire and keys for the doors. Handicraft lessons were spent for maintaining many school instruments. So a pedal was repaired in the harmonium, a handle at the door, sometimes a broken board for ironing was repaired by the student, etc. However, in this first folk school teacher seminary of the country there was a lack in the male students’ department of work rooms. All handicraft lessons could not be used for teaching the subject. Already in 1871 the Chief Inspector at that time, Cygnaeus, found out in his inspection report that part of the periods for handicrafts had been used for gardening. Lecturer Hårdh for male handicrafts mentioned in the yearly report of the seminary from 1872 – 73 that the courses could not be defined exactly but handicrafts were tried to be taught as ‘methodically’ as possible. He also referred to the use of handicrafts lessons also in that year for gardening and agriculture. In the yearly report 1877 – 80 he complained the lack of space for handicrafts. In the yearly reports of 1877 – 80 there are still mentions about using handicraft lessons for gardening but also for making firewood, and part of the lessons were not held. In the Seminary starting work in municipality of New Karleby in 1873 there was no complaints about lacking space or other harmful factors for male handicrafts. In the yearly reports there was as

well no information about using handicraft periods for other purposes. The produced artefacts were quite much the same than were made in Jyvaskyla Seminary.

(In 1879 – 80 the production of artefacts covered among others 2 chests of drawers, 4 chairs, 2 stained chairs with seats and back support of cane, 1 rocking chair, 1 painted table, 2 selves for music notes, 3 rulers, 3 boxes, bird cage, pail, bookmark, 3 rings for serviettes, fruit basket, 2 flower selves, 1 cigarette box, sewing basket, 2 book selves, etc.)

However, in Kymola Seminary in Sortavala (founded in 1880) part of the male handicraft lessons like in Jyvaskyla has been used in autumns and springtime for gardening, e.g. in 1883 – 84 one third of the handicraft lessons were gardening. The produced artefacts were otherwise similar than in Jyvaskyla and New Karleby Seminaries except in Kymola Seminary quite much tools were made, especially different kinds of planes. Here as the lecturer of handicrafts worked Erkki Makinen, known for developing handicrafts. The topics of handicraft artefacts in the Seminaries were for years quite much the same. So it would not be necessary to scrutinize the sort of artefacts so much. People were not satisfied with the quality of handicrafts education for the male students in the Seminaries. In 1882 Cygnaeus told about his problems to teacher E. Kauppinen for the products of Jyvaskyla students. He considered the artefacts as very awkward. ‘That kind of cheating will ruin the reputation of our Seminaries’, he said (letter in 4.10.1882). The dissatisfaction in the handicrafts education in the Seminaries is mostly written in the Memo of the Handicrafts Committee in 1886. Even if this Committee was supposed to plan boys’ handicrafts education in the folk school it at the same time considered as its obligation to give the Seminaries a public notice about male handicrafts education and emphasized that all the handicrafts periods were supposed really to be used for teaching that subject (Memo 1886, 11). Especially this notice in a public document has to be taken as a reliable indicator that at least the male handicrafts education could not have been in 1866 – 88 very well done. One could assume also that just in these institutions the circumstances and teaching should be best possible.

Female handicrafts

The periods for female handicrafts in the Seminaries were divided weekly a little differently from the male handicrafts. In grades I – III handicrafts covered 4 – 6 periods per week, in grade IV 1 – 2. When female handicrafts did not absolutely have for rooms and tools such demands as the male handicrafts, teaching of female crafts could be done properly in all the working seminaries for female teachers at that time. These seminaries were three. Jyvaskyla and Kymola Seminaries in Sortavala had both male and female teachers. The third seminary was Tammisaari female Seminary founded in 1871. The yearly report 1884 – 84 of that Seminary shows what kind of work was made in these Seminaries. The artefacts were quite much the same in all the Seminaries.

…

First grade; 4 weekly periods:Knitting linen and woollen socks, knitting gloves, marking, making knots and working on shoes.

Second grade; 4 weekly periods:Linen work: shirts, night gowns. Straw work: working the straws, twisting, making hats and handbags.

Third Grade; 4 weekly periods:Spinning linen and wool, weaving and wool works: crochet and weaving.

Fourth grade; 1 weekly period:Fröbelian handicrafts. …

In handicrafts household equipments, linen clothes and accessories were made. The ‘Fröbelian handicrafts‘ were made because the becoming teachers should guide handicrafts in the lower grades according to that. They were mostly twisting and plaiting.

b) The yearly reports of the folk schools

The folk school decree in 1866 had made handicrafts as a subject equal to the other subjects in the folk schools. The frame was there but the teachers and the school board had however, to create the contents in every school according to the possibilities and the local circumstances. It was quite late, in 1875, when the National Board of education gave orders for handicrafts education. So an individual teacher had possibilities to influence his teaching in his own school, if the outer conditions were there.

In the yearly reports from 1869 – 70, of which only 34 is preserved, can be seen that almost half of the folk schools, 16, had no handicrafts in the program. So both the boys and the girls did not have any handicrafts education in these schools. The writers of the reports did not even mention why the handicraft was not in the program. Was it not an important subject? These schools, which had mentioned the reason for leaving handicrafts out, tell about the lack of rooms and tools.

What kind of handicrafts education was in the schools where it was in the program? Some examples: The boy pupils in Hausjarvi school had to ‘give practice for the hand’ made all kinds of small ‘wooden things’. The girls had knitted socks, sewed clothes and practised a little crocheting. In Lope school ‘one evening in the week’ had been made some music instruments, psalm kantele, some more pupils made ‘models of domestic animals’, quite many wooden spinning wheels, rakes and some ‘models of agriculture machines’. In handicrafts lessons also other activities were made: ‘in autumns and springtime the pupils made gardening work’. This was done by both boys and girls. In Hirvensalmi school boys had been in handicrafts 3 hours per week, girls for 6 hours. Boys’ number of lessons was smaller because there were not yet the necessary rooms or tools’. Similar were also the other yearly reports of the rural schools in 1869 – 70 where handicrafts were mentioned.

(‘As an example of different ways to realize handicraft education the following passage Joroinen school: Boys in handicrafts have got half a day every week the possibility to practise at home to use the knife and carve all kinds of models of small tools, the best of which, in order to wake up competition, have been prized in school with a small present. In the springtime the boys’ handicraft lessons have worked near to the school house a small garden with a small bench for everybody, for which the master of the close factory has given all kind of seeds to be sown.

The girls have worked in the school 8 hours in a week and practised all kinds of sowing clothes, knotting socks, belts, scarves, etc. and twisting the straw baskets. Handicraft materials for those who did not have them themselves, has been purchased with school funds and all artefacts made of them will be sold and 2/3 of the funds will be given to the school and 1/3 f (As an example of different ways to realize handicraft education the following passage Joroinen school: Boys in handicrafts have got half a day every week the possibility to practise at home to use the knife and carve all kinds of models of small tools, the best of which, in order to wake up competition, have been prized in school with a small present. In the springtime the boys’ handicraft lessons have worked near to the school house a small garden with a small bench for everybody, for which the master of the close factory has given all kind of seeds to be sown.

The girls have worked in the school 8 hours in a week and practised all kinds of sowing clothes, knitting socks, belts, scarves, etc. and twisting the straw baskets. Handicraft materials for those who did not have them themselves, has been purchased with school funds and all artefact made of them will be sold and 2/3 on the money is given to the school and 1/3 to the pupil who made it.

Boys could not be practised in school in handicrafts or gymnastics more than I period in a week, have been the problem when the schools do not have more than only one room, which also is difficult to use in these things.)’

For these 18 schools can found out that handicrafts education was very different in different schools depending on the fact if there were appropriate working rooms or not. Except the rooms

also there was lack of tools. The periods used for handicrafts differed from 1 to 8 in a week. The periods for handicraft were used also for other activities. On the other hand there were schools with handicrafts for girls but when no rooms or tools for boys were available, boys were not given teaching this subject. The produced artefacts were usually useful things, tools, clothes and other things serving everyday needs.

(Example Siitonen school: ‘Boys’ classes; 4 periods per week: In this subject the main idea has been to familiarize pupils to use knife, axe, saw, chisel, plane and other machines and o has been made in one year 31 rakes, 19 chisel heads, 50 model birds of bast, 2 frames for a saw, 9 ‘soukkaa’ (?), 9 ‘sotkukarttua’ (?), 13 rulers, 14 knife heads, 14 crochet nails, 44 shuttles, 10 spoons, 2 right angles, 17 axe handles, 12 plane stocks, 13 spades, 4 feet for wooden buckets, 13 flower sticks, 3 stools, 5 lanterns, 8 screws, 2 saw frames, 2 model rakes, 4 nail sticks, 6 spinning … , 5 sledges, 10 drawing boards, 2 measuring sticks, 2 ‘riimotti’ (?), 3 big spoons, 5 turned woodwork bench hooks, 6 woodwork bench screws, 16 file heads, 2 model bird handles and 1 of each: picture frame, book self, bailer, ‘käsisotka’ (?), fish board, model for a plough, nail stool, corner measure, inch measure, clubs, saw handles, skates , cover for a bucket and hand bellows. Together for all girls in all grades: Sown 39 shirts, 32 aprons, 58 skirts, 47 skirts, 17 pillow covers, 17 linen towels, 19 towels, 12 handkerchiefs, 6 curtains, 8 vests, 3 mandolines (?), 29 pairs of socks, 12 pairs of gloves, 9 pairs of wrist belts, 12 pairs of sock bands, 1 pair shoe covers, 9 ‘sarffi’ (?), 1 belt, 4 table clothes, 9 basket clothes, 8 gloves, candle stand feet, 5 string scarves and 44 measures lace.

Woven: 76 measures linen clothe and 3 measures mats.Span: 3 w wool.Carded and mixed: 19 ½ wool.Preparing weaving: 120 and 350 measures clothe, winded up weaving material, prepared strings.Tied 25 parcels bast. Plaited 3 straw mats.Added to that everybody has constructed their own clothes and worked on hobby crafts.’

In rural areas the artefact at home ware mostly self made and simple up to the last half of the century. Most important tools were axe and saw. The table furniture was rough: the pints, cups, bowls and the spoons were made of wood. These could be made ‘even by the boys’ (E.g. Vilkuna 1934, 316-17; Kuusanmaki, 403; Sirelius 1921, 299-312, 510-511). The 107 § of the Folk School Decree ordered that in the urban schools girls should have teaching in handicrafts, for boys it was optional, so the municipalities (towns) had the opportunity to make the decisions, if they would take boys’ handicraft in the program. For 1869 –70 only three towns sent their yearly reports, Helsinki, Pori, Vaasa, and they reported about teaching in the year. All these towns had done according to girls along the decree and girls had got education in handicrafts. Not even one of these three towns had taken boys’ handicrafts n their program. When moving forward in time to the following issue, the yearly reports of 1874 – 75 it was not a surprise that further there are schools, which do not report leaving out handicrafts education. (In App. I reports of occasionally selected two regions (Kuopio and Uusimaa) with all the folk school reports also on handicrafts education. App. II situation in the same schools in 1884 – 85). This is understood well when one remembers that only from 1880 on the government had economic support also for handicrafts. Such schools, which not even did taken handicrafts in the program and did not explain the reason for it were e.g. schools in Kuusjarvi, Nurmijarvi, Pyhajarvi in Vihti, Luumaki, Mynamaki and Iitti. Kangasala reported that boys’ handicrafts ‘will not in the program until working room and tools will be purchased’. For the same reason the schools in Huittinen, Isokyro, Juva, Karjalohja and Ummeljoki had not organised boys’ handicrafts. In the schools giving handicrafts education the produced artefacts were generally the same kind than those produced in 1869 – 70. Generally the boys had made household artefacts and pieces of furniture, girls different pieces of clothes and linen textiles. The number of the periods changed as before from 1 to 8. The idea of selling the artefacts made by the pupils seemed to be more general (schools in Pomarkku, Halikko, Mikkeli rural congregation and Ruovesi). This was the way to collect funds for handicraft education. This refers to the fact that many schools – when the government of the municipality did not any more give funds – had motivation to organise proper handicraft education.

Periods for handicrafts were already mostly used for handicrafts, but anyway not everywhere. Johannes folk school organised handicrafts only when ‘there was the opportunity and good climate’. Handicraft work was focused in this school only on smaller maintenance work in the school ‘like also carving statues and planing materials for the fence of the school yard and some smaller activity’. In the autumn term trees were planted in the school yard. Girls’ handicrafts were taught by persons asked for it by the school board. Only two townships, Kuopio and Mikkeli, had already given in 1874 – 75 handicrafts also for boys. However, they did not mention in their yearly reports what kind of artefacts the boys have made. The role of the urban schools in the development of boys’ handicrafts still was nearly insignificant. Statesman Furuhjelm had in his testament given funds for promoting handicrafts education and the National Board of Education was in this sense taken some measures with the circular letter 15.1.1877 to deliver the funds for poor, talented pupils. The 1879 – 80 reports tell that the funds had really been delivered. One school generally had received 50 marks ‘Furuhjelm funds’. So in the Hame region schools in e.g. Hauho, Hollola and Lavia schools report having received the funds. In Hauho the money was given to Wilhelmina, daughter of Heikki, and to son of a carpenter Rikhard Helenius, because they were the most poor and the most skilled in handicrafts. Now also the government funds were sent to the schools. One school generally got 100 marks. Hauho school decided in the future give this amount for purchasing tools and models. Hollola school had the same idea to deliver the funds. In Lammi these funds were decided to be used so that 50 marks will be paid for wood turning stool for boys and other 50 marks for handicraft models for the girls. In Wiljakkala the funds were used for ‘work equipment’. These examples are not exceptions from the reports of other schools. Most schools tried to purchase working equipment and models for handicrafts education. Now also the government had begun to promote this subject. The National Board of Education had from the 15.1.1880 on begun to send to the schools funds for development of handicrafts. However, this was only the start from the government, because there were still schools where handicrafts education was not done for boys. Instead of handicrafts for girls was already so general that it was in the program of practically every school. The models for the produced artefacts were the same than before. The number of periods still varied a lot. However, little by little 3 – 5 weekly periods seemed to generalize as a most usual number of weekly periods. (Example from Joutsa school: ‘Boys 4 weekly periods. Produced different kinds of brushes flour scoops, cream spoons, cigar boxes, strings and tools for weaving, etc. Girls 5 weekly periods. Socks 7 pairs, aprons 6, female shirts 4, male shirts 3, scarves 1’.) The last scrutinized period here covers 1884 – 85. Because the 1885 big handicraft exhibition is handled more detailed later on here presenting plenty of school handicrafts from 1884 – 85, they will not be handled here. Instead there is the reason to find out that the yearly funds given by the social ranks were little by little beginning to be fruitful. Schools like in Hollola, Lahti, Ritvaniemi at Ruovesi, Keihaslahti at Kuru, Teisko and Kitee report now of teaching handicrafts for boys according to the models of lecturer Makinen. Schools in Ylojarvi, Pirkkala, Saaksmaki, Ilomantsi and Artjarvi have purchased or got the handicraft models from the Finnish Economic Society. Purchasing the models refers to the fact that now the models were becoming to be more uniform especially for boys’ handicrafts. As a special case should be mentioned that in schools in Fiskars and Pohja reported having used the Naas system (Otto Salomon). The number of periods were continuing to be varied in different schools. There were still schools with no periods for handicrafts (Ahtiala in Nastola, Erasjarvi, Pekkala in Sahalahti, Iisalmi, Juuka, Kiihtelysvaara, Kiuruvesi, Maaninka, Tuusula, Bromarf, Snappertuna, etc.) Still 20 years after the Folk School Decree there were schools with no handicrafts for boys. Still the periods for handicrafts were used for other activities. Development in urban schools was slow but, however, there was increase of those schools, which little by little joined to the schools teaching handicrafts for boys. In 1879 – 80 that number of

schools had grown to be 10, and after 1884- 85 the number was 15 schools. When, however, the number of towns in the country was 32, handicrafts for boys was not even organised in half of the schools.

a) The supervision reports of the schools Checking some of the supervision reports of the inspectors supports the text above about the development of handicrafts education in the folk schools. Inspector Karl Wilen reported in December 1874 about handicraft education in his region as follows:

‘…

Hauho folk school:Handicrafts were not taught up to now, these I urged the teacher immediately to start.

Padasjoki folk school:Handicrafts were not in the program. Same remark as for Hauho.

Jamsa congregation school:Handicrafts were done a little, mostly toys with knives. Girls: handicrafts were done, e.g. a large altar clothe, donated by the pupils and the female teacher to the church. Models for both boys’ and girls’ schools were used.

Luopioinen folk school:I urged the lady teacher --- to teach handicrafts.

Koski chapel folk school:Handicrafts had been made in the school.

Lahti folk school in Hollola:I made a remark on handicrafts, that teaching them should be started definitely.

Karkola school:Handicrafts were not taught in the school; I remarked on that like in Hauho.

Lammi school:The boys’ school had the necessary tools for handicrafts.In girls’ school handicrafts were made---‘

In this inspector’s region handicrafts was not especially promoted before 1874. Still weaker was the result in inspector K.G. Ollonqvist’s report in 1876. In his region no school taught handicrafts (e.g. Noormarkku, Poomarkku, Sastamala, Kankaanpaa and Hameenkyro schools). Same was the thing in the regions of inspector E. Th. Lagus. In the inspection report of eastern Uusimaa region 1879 remarks that in all its 8 schools handicrafts was taught ‘in good order and in good success’ like in the schools of Jyvaskyla inspector Nils Grotenfeld. So, remarkable differences can be found between the different regions. Himanka school told in 1880 that boys had there handicraft 4 weekly periods. Teaching was taken care of ‘a special handicraft teacher’ whose work had been found to be especially poor by the inspector. In Kalvia the local teacher had given his own main room for handicraft education. He had done in these circumstances results which for the inspector were satisfactory. The inspectors’ report of handicrafts in these schools ended as follows: ‘…Concerning handicrafts education it is done med SNIT, with interest and skill of the teacher, exception anyway the teacher in Himanka, Poyhtari, who seems to be quite unsuitable in his position. Success could be better if proper models, good tools and a special working room would be found. The same lack of suitable tools and models was also complaining the inspector at Lope region. But also there were teachers like in Kinnarniemi school in Parikkala ‘a young but eager teacher’ who had on his own funds purchased both the collection of models and the most needed tools. The municipality had bought only a few knives and ‘kovelo’. Still in 1885 you find in the inspection reports several mentioning about the bad care taking or deleting handicrafts education. In Lapinkyla school in Kirkkonummi handicrafts had been done in the normal classroom and in the home of the

lady teacher. In the higher school in Kirkkonummi boys had been taught only 6 hours in the whole school year, because the person elected to do teaching, had been busy in own construction work on the islands and so could not com e to teach! In higher school in Fagervik inspector A. A. Wegen had noticed a lack of necessary tools and models. He had already many times made remarks on that but betterment had not been reached.

d) The minutes of the folk school meeting

When education activities were started in the country after the Folk School Decree it naturally had many problems to be solved. The teacher corps in the country took part in solving them. Most clear indication of that were the Folk School Meetings every third year, which had a very good success in participation. The first meeting was in 1869. The discussion topic generally was the actual Folk School questions. Handicraft education was quite often a central theme in these meetings. From the beginning on at the meetings usually was an exhibition of handicraft products in the folk schools. The best ones were prized. When the artefacts were shown like that for the participants they could get new ideas from them and make comparisons with their own artefacts and so make their teaching more versatile, as far as they had the opportunity in their schools. Fumbling around in the beginning is described the judges of the handicrafts exhibition of the 2. meeting wanted to remind generally that no school sent artefacts ‘which clearly could show that handicrafts should be in the school on the basis of organised exact systematic progress and development periods’. Concerning the girls’ artefacts they remarked that the girls’ schools folk school handicrafts had given way to improper direction because they had been doing too much crocheting.

Minutes of the II Folk School Meeting in 1872, 46 – 48: (When scrutinizing the yearly reports of the schools the author of this paper has found out that they did not favour crocheting at the cost of other methods. It might have been so that crocheting work had more to show and so they were sent more in the exhibition than other artefacts.)

In 1872 were prized: Girls handicrafts: Anjala Folk School, scarf and woollen string, prize 30 mk. Mikkkeli FC scarf and

woollen string, prize 20 mk. Helsinki higher FS, sewing works, prize 20 mk. Janakkala FS, woollen string, prize 20 mk. Honorary price for the following schools: Turku lower FS, mat of patch work. Siitonen FS, Sortavala, fabrics.

Boys’ handicrafts: Ristiina FS, special, well made brush and varnishing works, carpentry and more simple wood carving artefacts, prize 20 mk. Alavus FS, well made varnished carpentry and wood turning works, prize 10 mk. Keuruu FS, woodwork, prize 10 mk. Janakkala FS, special wood and basket work, prize 10 mk. Laukaa FS, collection of toys, 10 mk. Mikkeli FS, special baskets and shoes and woodwork; basket, plaited metal sheet and iron work, 10 mk. The 1875 folk school meeting had received an order from the Senate to give the statement on the Memo of the Cottage Crafts Committee. For general discussion that was presented as follows: ‘How should handicrafts, with the main aim to promote the sense for form and beauty and develop general dexterity, be practised in the folk school and what is the quantity in which these schools could promote cottage crafts in the countryside?’ (The III Folk School Meeting 1875, 47.) The meeting agreed with the statement of experts, lecturer R. Hårdh, teacher Toivonen and inspector A. Berner.

The main points of the statement of experts were: - agreement with the proposal of the Committee to hire work masters and female

teachers in seminaries to teach handicraft; - consideration as important that the already working teachers should get more skill

education in the seminaries;- teachers agreed with the Cottage Crafts Committee that the municipalities should

purchase needed and appropriate tools and construct the suitable rooms for boys’ handicrafts. However, a warning was given not to give too big difficulties for the municipalities, for this measure could prevent founding folk schools;

- already working teachers should have more guidance in handicrafts;- the funds from the pupils’ handicraft artefacts prized in the exhibition the meeting

considered to belong to the schools, other artefacts should be given to the pupils;- teachers who had worked for handicrafts should be given grants but only with the

condition that in the school of that teacher should education be in good order. In other cases the other subjects could easily be neglected (The III Folk School Meeting 1875, 47-49).

According to the opinion of the judges it seems to be so that in the produced artefacts in the folk school in girls’ handicraft lessons should fire mostly be serving the practical needs and in no case such, where only the beauty aspects would be decisive ( The IV Folk School Meeting 1875, 65-66. The statement of the girls’ judges, seminary director Ch. Forsberg, lecturer R. Hellgren, and baroness M. Wellin was as follows (boys’ judges were lecturer R. Hårdh, farmer I. Kilpinen and priest U.G. Westerlund): ‘We want to state approval for the handicrafts of Vaasa and Suoniemi schools, the teacers of the latter has with good success given education in both boys’ and girls’ handicrafts. On the other hand we want to warn for selecting such handicrafts as especially Kiikka school had made, when nearly all the exhibited artefacts lack the practical use and are such that they might more to lead pupils to luxury than to make them able to produce and maintain the needed clothes for the family, which, according to us, should be the aim of the handicrafts education in the girls’ school (The IV Folk School Meeting 1875, 65-66). What were these ‘artistic artefacts’ – for which still the judges of the V Folk School Meeting (1878) stated their warning opinions – has not been clear, because when going through the titles of the products in the exhibition there is the finding that the absolute majority was useful artefacts. (To show the quality of the exhibited artefacts of most of the schools in the following there are the sent products to the exhibition of two random schools in different years: To the IV Meeting the Suoniemi school had sent: 6 girls’ shirts, 1 pillowcase, 1 gloves, 1 socks, 3 supports for the water bowl, 2 supports for the bottles, 2 ink drying rolls, 2 reels for trolling spoon, 2 clothes peg, 3 spoons, 2 measuring sticks, 1 draughts, 1 cigarette box, 2 paper knives, 1 horse, 1 pig, 1 bird, 2 shingle baskets. (IV Meeting, 68). Pylkonmaki school had sent to the V Meeting the following products: 5 socks, 19 crocheted scarves, 12 crocheted laces, 1 blanket, 2 covered buckets, 1 basket, 1 wooden part of horse harness, 3 candle feet, 2 small tables, 6 measuring sticks, 2 butter boxes, 3 flour bails, 3 triangles, 3 small chairs, 2 ink dryers, 3 cloth brushes, 1 dust brush, 1 sewing pin, 1 stock of the plane, 1 decorative wooden part of the spinning wheel, 1 box for spinning rolls, 6 shuttles, 1 big spoon, 3 butter slices, 3 shoe pins. (V Meeting, 75.) However, one might think that the titles of the useful products would mean ‘knitting work’ and production of linen because e.g. the VII Meeting emphasized that these kinds of products had been made too much. Instead, the usual handicrafts like darning, weaving and patching had been given not enough room in the curriculum (VII Meeting 1887, 103). Obvious is also that time should not be given too much for production of some private artefact and its decoration. Seminary teacher Ingman talked for simplicity of the artefacts: ‘Decorative works are made too much. Learning to make this kind of things will wake up the will for vanity and luxury in the people. That should not be waken up but with our example and all activity we should oppose that. Why the folk school handicrafts seem to be more and more decorative might have the reason also in the seminaries, which more have started to burden students with too decorative products. Concerning girls’ handicrafts the wish is that they would be made more simple and more equivalent to the real need; so that e.g. one shirt should not be sewed whole term, maybe year, but the students would themselves start and finish the artefacts, cut them, magnify and make smaller, etc., and such decorative artefacts without which our nation very well could survive would not be taught. --- I should still want to have a wish, that as much as possible and especially in the countryside would be avoided the willingness to vanity and luxury in our nation. In our poor nation should folk school not be sowed the seeds of vanity because it will damage as much as it will give benefit. The lady teachers in the folk schools should have the obligation to show denying themselves the decorative will on the dress, home and whole behaviour, so that she would not be a tool to destroy the simplicity of our nation‘ (VI Folk School Meeting 1884, 50-51). In the folk school meeting in 1884 handicrafts was still discussed. The question was: ‘How should handicrafts education in the folk schools be at best organised and what wishes should still be made in that?’ (VII FSM 1887, 50). In his introduction inspector Berner found out that just at that time in most European countries this subject was under vivid discussion (up to 1882 Finland was the only country where handicrafts was an independent subject). Especially inspector Berner emphasized the

great share, which Finland had in the development of the principles of handicrafts education. Instead realisation of this subject in practice had made him a pessimist. He continued: ‘Considering the development of the basics, which are the basis for handicrafts, our country undeniably has the place in the first row but in realisation of the basics we have already been retarded. The thought is appropriate that in handicrafts education should be practised according the same didactic basics than in all the other education. In practice this has nit been happening. Handicrafts education has missed a detailed plan, rational model collection’ (VII FSM 1887, 50-51). At the end of his introduction inspector Berner hoped that the government would soon constitute a Committee, and so it then happened. It should create a full plan for organisation of handicrafts. This plan should not according to him forget to organise also a reasonable model collection to be used by the schools. It was also the time to start the effective activity. ‘Noblesse oblige’, he finalised, ‘and we really have in handicrafts a tradition, which will challenge us to strain’ (VII FSM 1887, 50-51). The prize judges of the 1887 FSM said having ‘after the last meeting’ seen more or less progress in the products. This progress they considered becoming from most of the schools had followed some ‘certain’ model collection. In girls’ products still the decorative products were criticized (The judges were: in girls’ handicrafts: female teachers A. Tommola, A. Kastegren and O.A. Ahllöf; in boys’ handicrafts: lecturer E. Makinen, handicrafts teacher I. Wihlman and folk school teacher J. Nikko. VII FSM 1887, 51). ‘Is girls handicrafts in the folk schools already as good as is possible to wish; if that is not the case, what could be done to develop it (VII FSM, 187, 51)?’ That was the theme in the Folk School Meeting in 1887. Boys’ handicrafts had been thought over just in a Committee thoroughly and the government had started the measures for development. Now the teachers wanted to give attention to this part of handicrafts and bring it to the actual standard. Unanimously the lack of work materials was complained: the teacher had to be satisfied with the materials, which the pupils brought from home. For those pupils who for one or other reasons could not get enough materials from home, the teacher had to purchase the materials himself. When there were not enough materials, the schools had to let the pupils make artefacts ordered by outsiders for low prices. So the teacher could not plan education according to didactically developing organisation, and furthermore that lack of appropriate working rooms for handicrafts was complained. It was also found out that in many schools girls’ handicrafts was taught by a person with no pedagogic training. This is why there was a wish to get soon a Committee to develop also girls’ handicrafts education. That should give an appropriate direction for girls’ handicrafts. That should also find funds for materials, spinning wheels, looms, etc. needed handicraft equipment and show, how the schools could construct the working rooms with the needed cabinets, etc. There were also wishes to get assistants to the schools for girls’ handicrafts teachers. The remark about the actual situation found out that the schools had to much worked on ‘knitting’ and sewing linen. Main emphasizes should according to the participants be, however, on sewing dresses, patching, mending, spinning and weaving. At the end the meeting decided to present a wish that the government should constitute a Committee for organising female schools (VII FSM 1887, 51-52). Teacher A. Tommola appealed to Uno Cygnaeus, that he would use his influence handicrafts in the folk to found that kind of a Committee (Tommola to UC 7.10.1887). The teacher corps had very keenly followed the development of handicrafts education, similarly its theory and its practice, and tried to find out the means to reach better results in the subject.

e) Handicrafts exhibition in 1885

In 1885 there was in Helsinki a big exhibition showing handicrafts education in the folk school. Situating at the end of the timing of this research, a closer scrutinizing of its products might be here possible. According to the printed catalogue the products to the exhibition were sent from:

4 seminaries, 19 city schools,

282 rural schools and Institutes for Blinds in Helsinki and Kuopio. There were altogether 13 295 products in the exhibition. In the brochure the organisers explained that ‘it has been taken care of ---, that in the first place are chosen and exhibited such artefacts, which are able to help to develop handicrafts education from easy to difficult, to describe the progress, and also the exhibition has, as much as possible, happened the same way’ (The catalogue of the exhibition 1885). To get an idea of the artefacts in the exhibition from different schools here are selected at random 28 mailing lists and picked up from them all the artefact titles (293). These can be classified e.g. as follows:

Artefacts made by girls: Accessories 148Linen 13Different home equipment 28Other 4TOTAL 193

Artefacts made by boys:Dining and kitchen equipment 40Tools 17Pieces of furniture 4Different home equipment 33Other 6TOTAL 100

That above shows clearly that the artefacts made by as well girls and boys were mostly useful everyday equipment. (Girls: 46 shirts, 38 pairs of socks, 12 pairs of mitten, 12 aprons, 9 night gowns, 9 pillowcases, 8 skirts, 7 coils woollen yarn, 5 gloves, 5 scarves, 4 straw hats, 4 straw mats, 4 straw bags, 2 hot pads, 2 handkerchiefs, 2 suspenders, 2 crocheted tablecloths, 2 basket nets and 1 of each: crocheting, coil of linen thread, straw tray, cuttings, pad marked with letters, patch work, under shirt, blanket, bread tray, crocheted table cloth, tray cover, crocheted head scarf, woman’s ruffle, dress, under skirt, rocking chair mat, woollen socks, mat, table cloth. Boys: 7 brushes, 5 big spoons, 4 small spoons, 4 paper knives, 4 cutting boards, 3 right angles, 3 salt boxes, 2 butter knives, 2 butter spoons, 2 shuttles, 2 lure reels, 4 butter spades, 2 key hangers, 2 graters, 2 faucets, 2 sharpeners, 2 bailers, 2 reels for coiling threads, 2 ?, 2 clubs and 1 of each: ?, box, plane head, meat club, distance measure, butter box, boot plank, root basket, measure drawer, head of a hand saw, small chair, sofa, ?, ?, chair, carriage, ?, small basket, flower stick, name pad for flower, key pad, flower foot, pointer, head of a chisel, cloth pin, ?, miniature spade, butter spoon, miniature rake, measuring stick, vice, potato club, hand saw, fabric wheels, cheese form, ?, ?, cabinet, measuring stick, spice ?, ?. {Catalogue of the handicraft exhibition of the Seminaries and folk schools in Helsinki 1885}).

The catalogues of the schools are mostly quite clear. The teachers have shown their opinions about handicraft education, their methods, lack of work rooms and tools, etc. E.g. a teacher in Rymattyla J. Manner reported, that ‘if we see the artefacts in numerical order, we will see at least in some sense the work plan’. At least he had a clear grasp and aim when teaching handicrafts. His

catalogue is here:

Teacher Hintikka from Joroinen complained that because of the bad condition of his school – e.g. there were no model artefacts – the products he had lat the pupils make may not be equivalent to the demands, which were given for handicrafts bringing really useful results. Teacher Linderoos told that in 1883 his school had got some handicraft models organised by priest from the Imperial Finnish Economic Society. On help of these he thought handicrafts could become more effective in his school. However, he complained the lack of rooms. Woodwork had been taught in a classroom and the teaching equipments had been modest and primitive. The chairman of Kerimaki folk school told that the school could not send artefacts to the exhibition ‘when the school could not up to now have more organised handicraft education because of the lack of models and tools, which had just now been decided to be ordered from Sortavala Seminary.’ The school board of Kiikala folk school told that handicrafts education had problems with lack of tools, but according to the board that was replaced by the hard work of the teacher. Now the tools had come and the board announced to believe that handicrafts education of the pupils and through them among the nation would start to be fruitful. When sending the artefacts the Kiikala school board added to it a report on handicraft education in the school. Because it is an illuminating description in the field work and at the same time tells about the difficulties in the school and also about softening or removing them that letter deserves to be copied here: ‘A report of handicrafts education in Kiikala municipality higher folk school. a) Boys’ handicrafts. Folk school here is working only the third term, so that is why also handicrafts education has not proceeded so much, especially when the tools were in order only at the last part of the first term handicrafts has been done actually a little bit on another term. In the spring term 1884 there were even no models, which the writer of this report purchased from here and there. Even now there was no actual model collection. With the funds, which the National Board at the end of the

pupil’s age school year

‘1. Garden stick 9 12. Key pad 11 13. Pan cake slice 11 14. Horse ? button 9 15. Butter spade 10 16. Paper knife 12 17. Butter knife 10 18. Washing club 11 19. Fluor bailer 12 110. Flower foot 9 111. Right angle 9 112. Spice box 12 113. Spice cabinet 14 314. Boot plank 13 215. Ruler 11 216. Meat club 13 317. Miniature table 14 318. Sugar club 14 319. Bread roll20. Cloth hanger 17 3’

last term through the regional Inspector gave this municipality in order to promote handicrafts, were bought some best artefact as models made by pupils according to the Teijo factory folk school. Most of the projects sent to the National Board have been made copying those models. There are also other projects made without any model. When making handicrafts the principle has been followed, that at first the simple and easy is made and that every pupils will begin from that and will make so far he reaches a proper result; after that will be taken another a little bit more difficult artefact to be made, etc. In this way there are not so many results, because many of the projects will be destroyed before the proper one is ready and it is good to acquaint pupils with cautious and exactness and to find out, what should be done and when. In all the tasks, where it is possible has to be drawn the form of the artefact on the wood at first, which in most cases when drawing is not yet taught, has been the task of the teacher, but otherwise the pupils have had to do it themselves without teachers help except the necessary advice and guiding the use of the tools. --- The form of the models used have not been followed slavish but also made also different forms than the models because so that the pupils would be accustomed to have the model only as such, according to which could also be formed many types of the artefacts. This way will be developed the imagination and accustom the eye to find out beauty and to seek more convenient and appropriate form. This has been very important because there were not so many models. When painting the handicrafts no efforts for staining was done because it belongs already to a special professional skill but simply the artefact has been varnished twice and painted on that with lacquer. --- Actual colours in painting were not used because the woodwork, which is the main thing, should better be seen. Added to that has been started as well to make like bi-artefacts bags of cardboard even if they should not belong to the handicraft program of the folk school. This is partly been done because by selling these product would be collected funds. With those funds and the sale of children’s handicrafts will be purchased an appropriate chair for the lathe and model collection partly also because giving information about the impact of the school to the people. That information is important, not by compromising the pedagogical principles but when the people does not yet fully understand, so it will be allowed to make also a little bi-products for the people also outside the system. At the end would be said that tool collection has been on the favourable sacrifice of the municipality made in satisfying order. b) Girls’ handicrafts. Also in girls’ handicrafts have the same principle followed as boys and the effort is that the girls would learn to make clothes for themselves, even if the teacher of handicrafts had to cut the fabric so far. For those handicrafts, which are sent now to the National Board, the School Board has the paid the materials, otherwise the pupils has made the artefacts from their own materials, and so they have got to own the ready made things. At the end I want to remark that in the collection sent now, there are products of every pupil in order to let the National Board find out the whole understanding of handicrafts education in this school.

In Kiikala the 9th of December 1884

Exhibited artefacts were sold quite many. E.g. a Russian statesman, member of the folk civilisation Committee, Wishnegradski bought from this exhibition as follows:

Artefacts made in Jyvaskyla Seminary 86Made in Sortavala Seminary 111Made in the folk schools 160TOTAL 357

He was pleased with the artefacts made in Uusi Kaarlepyy Seminary but they were already sold out. In the archives of the 1885 exhibition you can find out e.g. the following:

- the produced artefacts were mostly everyday utensils; - in the schools there was a lack of models; - handicraft rooms and tools were in many cases inadequate; - after 1880 the schools were getting more models; - the teacher corps was in quite many cases aware about the aims and methods and - fund raising activities were done by selling the artefacts pupils made.

f) Working rooms, materials and tools

The same confusion and variation in handicraft education, which might have become clear from the already told examples, is reflected also in working rooms, materials and tools. The most important factor affecting that in so many schools teaching in handicrafts was not given to the boys, was the lack of working rooms. Organising girls’ handicrafts concerning the rooms did not give

such difficulties as that for boys. That is why it is surprising that in the beginning many schools did not begin handicrafts education also for girls and for that leaving out it is not possible to accuse the lacking rooms. When no reasons were told, it is not clear, why as many schools did not teach handicrafts for girls. Could it anyway be some kind of attitude question? When also Jyvaskyla Seminary had lack for rooms, maybe the efforts to have more room were just intentionally forgotten. From 1880 on there is a slow betterment going on: the government began economically significantly support handicrafts education. Girls had as materials for handicraft education often fabrics, threads and straws brought from home. As can be read in the yearly reports of the rural schools the artefacts made by the pupils were sold and so there were funds for materials and especially for tools. Boys’ material was usually wood. In some schools, even if they were exceptions, some metal artefacts were made. Brush work and straw twisting were made n some amount. Boys’ tools were lacking. In order to make things better there were efforts to sell in the springtime the artefacts boys had made and then buy for the schools little by little more and versatile tools and models.

g) Correspondence of Cygnaeus and the Press

When guidance organising handicrafts education in the folk schools were nearly not existing in the Folk School Decree the development of the subject was in each case separately on the school board and the teacher. When general, actual rules were missing the teachers came to may kinds of problems. It has been already noticed in many connections that handicrafts education in our schools was not uniform. Maybe because of that it is understandable that the pupils did not always know where the handicrafts education was aiming for. This is referred e.g. in a letter of teacher Hanna Phaler to Uno Cygnaeus. The writer of the letter has found out a good order and discipline to be born in her school, but complained, that she did not manage to get the pupils understand handicrafts lessons as school lessons. One of the reasons she considered to be that handicrafts was not taught by teachers and there was not enough work during the lessons and so the idleness had made the children restless (Phaler to UC 14.9.1867). Cygnaeuks was lacking the will to get the school folks to understand that he had meant handicrafts education to be a seriously taken subject. Teacher Jaakko Wuorinen tells an example on that. It was the leaving ceremony on Jyvaskyla Seminary in 1868. Cygnaeus had earlier ordered that every pupil should make a handicraft product ‘what ever she/he wants without any help of the work master’ (J.W. to A. Salo 4.7.1937) before the time in the Seminary would be ended. Many students had, however, according to the teacher regarded that as a joke and did not make that kind of artefact. The situation became them embarrassing when Cygnaeus did not give them the certificate but urged them to take it when they had the demanded project ready made (JW to A.Salo 4.7.1937). There were circles, which did not understand handicrafts education or did not want to understand. An anonymous and undated letter tells a good example on that. Ilmajoki school wanted to have from the government funds 600 mk for organising school work. The judge of the jurisdictional district K.B. Roschier opposed the idea. He saw in government aid the danger that (if it would be taken) the government would affect on the organisation of the school work. Finally he, however, agreed with the idea, but on the condition, that the school in question needed not to do handicrafts and spend pupils’ time for that. The Senate finally approved the request of the school. Later on Cygnaeus had met Roschier in Jyvaskyla FSM, come to talk with him and told to be sorry ‘hiw awful and very nasty decision the Senate had made on your school. And you are guilty for that, because you have prevented handicrafts there’ (Letter to A. Salo. It is surprising, that the Senate would not approve the application above. If the things were like that, however, one could assume that the government did not consider handicrafts very important.

As a precedent that could have followers. These were anyway not found now. In any case the claim above reflects one vision, which was not the only one. There is a report from Tyrvaa school in 1878 as follows: ‘Folk school proposals: Tyrvaa municipality. – Handicrafts are not done in Tyrvaa school at all and there is no need to do it in the future either, for there people can do all kinds of work and except they have there the handicrafts school’ (Journal Kansakoulu 22/1878). Newspaper Keski-Suomi wrote in the article ‘About the folk school business’ in 1872. ‘Mother tongue, Literature and Handicrafts in the Folk School’:--- handicrafts education in the folk school was important but people thought that in the folk school could be done also other things than only preparatory practices, which mainly would be drawings. Advisable would also be that the school board would purchase suitable simple handicraft models, according to which the children at home would get practice’ (Keski-Suomi 31/1872). Journal ‘Kansakoulu’ (Folk school) discussed handicrafts education under the title ‘About Handicrafts Education in the Folk School’ in 1876. Pseudonym S H-n (Sofia Hagman) asked at first if handicrafts education in the folk school is in appropriate order and replied strongly ‘NO’. As reasons for the bad position of handicrafts education at that time the writer named the lack of necessary tools and models and lack of skill of the teachers. Lack of tools became according to him from the poorness and sometimes also because after the Seminary one becomes too much gentry. When physical work does not interest the teacher either it is not possible to talk about it to the pupils. Lack if tools he said to lead to apathy of the pupils. With a bad tool it is not fun to work with (Kansakoulu 3/1876, 20-21). Newspaper ‘Morgonbladet’ blamed in 1878 especially the school boards because they did not mind purchasing the woodwork room or even the tools, but the teachers had to teach woodwork in very tight spaces. The only tools the pupils had their own knives. ‘What could the teacher – even if he should want – to do in the woodwork lessons?’ asked the newspaper (Morgonbladet 147-148/1878). Before mentioned Mr. Hertzberg, the head of the Norwegian school system, emphasized kin his statement about handicrafts education in our country to the government of Norway that Finland had as the first one of the Nordic countries taken handicrafts education in the school program. He gave anyway attention to the fact that in Finland the municipalities did not get such obligations for taking care of the schools than in three other Scandinavian countries. He had the idea that quite many children got guidance in handicrafts in folk school. With that order that handicrafts were in rural schools an obligatory subject he believed to have a great importance in development of handicrafts education. He also knew and told in his country about the funds given to our handicrafts education by the estates and about the Furuhjelm fund and its aims. Mr. Hertzberg mentioned further that the measures, which the agriculture societies had done for handicraft education, were not meaningless. The societies organised ambulatory handicrafts teachers in the rural areas. Added to that he found out how in many places in our country there was fund raising by selling the artefacts made in schools in order to collect funds for the schools. He specially mentions Helsinki as such place: in the capital only the best artefacts were sold. From Helsinki Mr. Hertzberg had bought to his country a lot of well made artefacts, which he believed to be suitable as models in Norwegian schools (Newspaper Helsingfors Dagbladet 351/1879). We still remember that around 1880 handicraft education in our country was not yet effective: sooner only now there is a slow development n government aid after no development before. No wonder if Cygnaeus in his letter to K.G. Leinberg wished that now there might be possible to ‘get speed’ for handicraft education so that we would not be behind Sweden and Norway in this regard. That should be unfortunate, said Cygnaeus, because the thought of handicraft education as a formal method of civilisation originated from Finland (UC to Leinberg 12.1.1889). As one ‘speeding power’ in the development of handicrafts education can be regarded the measure of the National Board to demand the students in the seminaries to send their own artefact samples to the National Board before they could be certified. This way there could be find out, how

they would be familiarized with handicraft education. Cygnaeus wanted this measure to be in the future the yearly situation for supervision (UC to Sundwall 13.1.1881 and Kauppinen 4.10.1882). When C. then soon received these samples he was not satisfied. Among them were products, which were not suited to the folk school. With many artefacts he was really disappointed (UC to Sundwall 30.12.1881). Newspaper Uusi Suometar sacrificed plenty of text space for handicraft education in our country in 6.3.1883. Because there is the matter presented in quite versatile way, its most important points can be attached here as such: ‘--- In the beautiful workshops in every seminary the students work generally iron and wood work and wood turning lead by skilful masters and teachers. In the beginning there is the production of more simple artefacts like rulers, right angles, different kitchen tools, etc., and when some kind of skill has been reached will be made classroom equipment, tools and different other artefacts and machines. In the fourth grade the students don’t make anymore handicrafts but lead the practice of model school students. --- Every student must in one year make some exhibited sample resembling the tradition of the professional institutions when every craftsman had to make as an exhibition sample the so called master artefact before he was declared to be master. In the model schools connected with the Seminaries the children are taught also different handicrafts according to the obligatory program of the Seminary suited with students’ strength and age. In the higher folk schools the course of study is the same as in the model school. When the rural schools do not have a special workshop but only a special working room, teaching in cottage crafts cannot be made so much. In the working room there are one or two woodwork benches, as many wood turning benches and some machines for other work. --- In the schools in greater towns there are no special working rooms in the school but one common workshop for all the schools in town. We should no forget that handicrafts education (for boys) is not compulsory in the urban schools. --- in the schools of the smaller towns there is also a combined workshop. In the urban girls’ folk schools handicfa99rafts are nearly the same as in the countryside, however, in the former ones there is not instructed spinning or weaving. --- Up to 1877cottage crafts education was supposed to be like a test. Tools for that were purchased either by the municipality or private persons, or they were bought with the rest of money for other purposes; the costs were paid partly by sale of products of the pupils of higher grades. But the test was successful, so that the parliament ordered yearly 6000 mk in the following five years for education of cottage crafts in the folk schools. Added to that 300 mk was ordered to be given to those schools, which did that education best on the condition that the funds would be used developing education still further to buy the tools and models, constructing a special workshop, where there was none so far, and as a salary for such male or female teachers who with their diligence and eager lead cottage crafts education and promoted it especially in those schools where the municipality did not manage to pay it. About all what has been said about cottage crafts education in the schools we have made a consideration that it will nowhere be a danger for general education even if that should be done (not clear number in the original text) weekly periods 2 – 6, which is 1/15 – 1/6 of the whole school program. We will not teach the institution any certain handicrafts profession and we even want to avoid using the whole term to be used for hand work. These are made partly really in educational purposes, partly in these is seen a reason to keep the child longer time in the school and achieve some kind of readiness in the becoming practical doing. --- Boys’ handicrafts is not compulsory in the towns; in ambulatory schools it is out of the question; in the lower folk schools it is not done everywhere or is done only as so called Fröbelian work, small spoon work or female handicrafts. Therefore we do not give greater value for those practices of 9 or 10 year old children and push education of minor children to be done by other children and model schools. Only after the age of 9 – 10 will handicrafts be taken batter care of and periods for it are 2 – 6 in a week. Also in Finland is seen that the teachers are given liberty to adapt handicrafts in the local circumstances so that there will be a close connection between the school and the needs of the people, people, which is pleased to take on them new outcomes in order to increase the number of school’ (Newspaper Uusi Suometar 54/1883). At the same time in the FSM in Ylistaro were complains about lack of workshops, tools and models. Government was not supposed to be guilty alone for the situation. Generally agreed was that the municipalities should be have more positive attitude to handicrafts education. When many municipalities did not consider handicrafts as a subject they felt dreadful the costs it caused and did not be willing to sacrifice funds for it. There was an idea that landlords and mistresses, especially the members of the school board should be given information. The school boards should be made to understand the importance of handicrafts. The Chief Inspector and the folk school inspectors were wished to remind the school boards that they would more than before taking care of betterments for handicrafts (Journal Kansakoulun lehti 4/1884, 48-49).

As a person to continue his job for practical organisation of handicrafts education C. wanted to be handicrafts lecturer E. Makinen from Sortavala Seminary. In him C. saw a person who could get handicrafts education in the channels, which he himself had made. (Later on Makinen drafted a model series for boys’ handicrafts.) In 1883 C. in a letter to Makinen warned him not to start in ‘many activities’. Makinen had one noble idea to realize: how to organise handicrafts education so that it would become a formal civilisation medium, that is at the same time would develop sense of form and add general dexterity in the pupils. At the same time he acknowledged that he had could not make it such as he had really wanted. The idea was said in Finland the first time but realized badly; that is why it was not understood. C. warned that the task would be difficult; Makinen should at first collect a program how handicrafts education should be organised in the folk schools. Then he should produce suitable models, which should be disseminated throughout the country; so would the ideas according to C. progress. This task would really need both knowledge and skill from Makinen’ (Newspaper Uusi Suometar 54/1883). C. himself wanted not to resign and not to give his power for handicrafts education even if he prepared Makinen to be his follower. In 1884 he wrote to inspector Oskar Hynninen that he had thought to ask funds for a Committee to prepare a program for organising handicrafts education in the folk school (the Committee was founded in 1886). He wanted that this subject would become a developing and educating subject and at the same time it would develop skills and ability in pupils to successful home handicrafts. He tells in his letter further that he was ¨promised the funds already. As members he planned to propose Makinen, Hedstrom and Hårdh from the Seminaries, Berner and Hanninen from the inspectors and two or three teachers, which he did not nominate. Himself, if he now still would be good enough or somebody else he would propose to be the chairman. About this kind would the members of the Committee then be (UC to Hynninen 25.5.1884). When the information of constituting the committee spread in the same year, e.g. K. Kunelius congratulated C. warmly for that and accredited C. with the constitution (Kunelius to UC 16.11.1886). In many of his letters from this time C. is emphasizing that the thought of educating handicrafts education in the formal method of civilization came from Finland – from himself. Already in 1873 C. wrote to A.G. Hovilainen: ‘Even in Sweden and in Denmark they have been following our pointing fingers, let us not then let them overtake us (e.g. UC toHedlund 25.1.1878). Five years after that letter he remarked to Hedlund that the idea of handicrafts was originally Finnish. He said, however, that this matter had promoted in other places also, fore mostly in the Nordic countries, where it been owned with a warm interest. This promised a good future, as generally the whole folk school business, which was proceeding in god speed (UC to Hedlund 25.1.1878). But already in 1882 C. had to say: ‘We have to confess again that we have become behind the Swedes in agriculture of handicrafts in the folk schools’ (UC to Kauppinen 4.10.1882). In seems that when C. was the father of educating handicrafts he should anyway want the idea succeed in practice in our country. In 1883 he wrote in e letter: ‘Handicrafts as a formal civilisation method has made me hopeless in 30 years’ (UC to Sundwall 18.4.1883). And he still added that the idea was not succeeded to be realized in the country. As a reference that when especially handicrafts was in following wind in Sweden from Otto Salomon’s work, C. might have been afraid that his ideas on the importance of handicrafts would be covered by the good success in Sweden and be forgotten. This was really the direction of his thoughts and the following a little bitter letter tells about is: ‘--- it is becoming hot when Otto Salomon has a presentation in Germany and in the Netherlands about ‘handicrafts as a formal educational method’, giving that principle as his own, like a Swedish invention, without saying further a word that he had got this idea from ‘this country of darkness’. The already passed away friend Wichard Lange said to him and Clausen Car (…gave them on the nose…) … - … who had before done it, my friend OS did not like it and wrote to me and… - But then OS found out that W. Lange belongs to the German pedagogues, and he took the spoon in the right hand and published in Germany in his writing ‘Folk School and Slojd school’ how handicrafts should be done as a formal education method, and added also that the principle was presented the first time in Finland and my short life story was also there. But this seems to be forgotten and maybe will we in the future experience how some lecturer from Sweden comes here to have a presentation about handicrafts as a formal education method and then collect pedagogues

and ‘non-pedagogues’ to hear the brand new fact that nobody has heard before, but what comes from Sweden, will be understood rapidly. So has it gone and so it will happen with us in long time…’ (UC to Sundwall 7.5.1884). C. really had reasons for the fear that Sweden would have reputation in handicraft development. Teachers from the Finnish Seminaries had left for Sweden to Naas, a handicraft school founded by Otto Salmon to develop their handicraft skills (e.g. UC to Björk 11.9.1884). Interest for these courses was not so small. E.g. in 1886 the Finnish Economic Society had published the grants to be applied just for the courses at Naas. There were even 67 applicants, and 5 of them were given the study tour, all of them being teachers (Journal Kansakoulun lehti 4/1886. The Journal was sorry for people leaving for Naas for 6 week courses. The idea was that in our own Seminaries handicraft education for 4 years was more effective than these courses. There was also an idea that for them wanting to develop their skills would be organised courses in some of our own Seminaries. Kansakoulun lehti 11-12/1885, 145). In the same and the following year one could find in the journal a couple of J. Holgers’ announcements from Pietarsaari waking also interest to Naas handicrafts school. Another one of those announcements was like follows: ‘Folk school teachers and friends of school handicrafts. In folk school teacher J. Holger’s house in Pietarsaari town there are produced handicrafts models according to the praised Naas method at a price of 5 mk per collection and will be as well transported to the Pietarsaari railway station. Because of too many orders the delivery according to the order can be done only after two weeks; questions will be answered soon but only if the 2 pence stamp will be included. There are 50 different models, they are ordered methodically and in educational sense best that other ones. Today they are produced for Luoto, Haapajarvi and Tuusula folk schools. During the long spring term t would be an entertainment for the pupils if they would be given to make some of them, which they could take home to be seen and used (Journal Kansakoulun lehti 1/1887, 8). ‘Systematically ordered’ handicraft collections were donated by the Finnish Economic Society for many schools (e.g Pamppala, Kaarina, Karjaa, Pornees, Luumaki, Ruokolahti, Hailuoto, Honkilahti and Messukyla folk schools) in 1886. At the same time it delivered pictures of Naas handicrafts (collections of 100 pictures) to different schools (Journal Kansakoulun lehti 9/1886, 75). Desire for developing handicrafts education was also in privately, above all the Finnish Economic Society was interested on that. All the teachers seemed not to like that kind of model collections. In a meeting of Hame region teachers in 12.1.1883 the model collections of Naas, the Economic Society and Sortavala (Makinen) were blamed. Anyway there was also said that these domestic models were better than the ‘foreigners’. The idea was that every teacher in his / her own school could easily make the collection little by little so that copies would be made also of models brought from home by the pupils. Also the participants of that meeting complained the lack of workshops and tools and considered not proper to let pupils make boys’ handicrafts in the classrooms and lat the planks dry there (Journal Kansakoulun lehti 2/1887). Strange winds were blowing also from other directions than only from Naas. At that time especially in Germany was used a teaching method, which used rhythm, pacing, as adding the effect of teaching. This method was especially adapted in girls’ handicrafts lady Schallenfeld. The method was known also in France and in England. Then it had been used also in Sweden. In 1884 in journal Kansakoulun lehti there was a piece of News, which told that Miss Hulda Lundin had come from Sweden to Turku. He was on a leave of absence from her job for six weeks. Now she had an idea to teach in Turku the female teachers this method, which was called ‘Schallenfeld Method’. What kind of reception Miss Lundin had got and what kind of success she had, was not written later on about (Kansakoulun lehti 10/1884, 127). In many letters of Cygnaeus from his later years we find out marks of his depression and disbelief and bitterness. When e.g. he waited for the Handicrafts’ Committee Memo and as a matter of fact there was a small delay when publishing it, he wrote to Aug. Bergman in 1886: ‘---The whole history might become a pancake and so I feel is going with everything, at least with my efforts today’ (UC to Bergman 2.8.1886). --- In some education history books (e.g. Halila II, 284-285; Salola 1909, 12-13, 32, 41) there have been references how handicrafts education was moved from the direction of C. to the vocational

‘social politically’ more exciting direction. Even if the education importance of handicrafts was agreed with, teaching was anyway on vocational position. It is true that the Cottage Crafts Committee in 1873 had quite great wishes on folk school handicrafts for because it wanted the rural proletariat not to become alienated from physical work. About handling that in the Parliament 1877-78 historian Halila mentions that Agathon Meurman saw value in folk school handicrafts if is should be vocational, guiding to the cottage industry. The peasantry class was positive for the funds but only with a condition that education should be the same than Meurman proposed (Halila II, 285). According to the documents scrutinized in this paper seems that not at least two first decades school handicrafts in this regard could not have a greater meaning. In many connections it has been found out that especially in the beginning the quality of the folk school handicrafts was very modest. In many places the necessary conditions for especially boys’ handicrafts were totally lacking: there were no workshops and no tools. Even where those existed they often were not equivalent with the demands of real handicraft education. E.g. the school inspectors’ reports told already how the teachers gave even their private homes for handicraft education. It was not rear that unqualified persons worked as handicraft teachers. There were no models. Handicraft periods were used in other purposes. The number of periods varied remarkably in different schools even if it seemed to be stabilised in 3 – 5 periods. In then beginning not the government or the municipalities gave funds but many schools tried to organise funds themselves for promoting handicrafts education by selling the pupils’ products in the springtime but these funds were supposed to be used more or less for the basic needs. There is no information in the letters of the Imperial Senate to the National board the 11.12.1879 or the letter of the National Board to the school inspectors the 16.1.1880 that as a precondition for using the given funds for handicraft education in the schools would be such conditions as Halila mentions the peasantry class had been demanded: that the schools should be vocational and promoting cottage crafts. Little by little there has been progress but actually only after 1880. Especially that comes out just in 1884 – 85 yearly reports. These tell that the schools had purchased models and tools for handicrafts. Historian Aurola’s opinion about the general development of the folk schools at that time was hat the years 1866 – 81 were time for ‘constructing the folk school’ (handicrafts model courses in 1881!). Then there was done generally supplements for equipment and as a matter of fact education institution was touched op on self collected funds (Aurola, 184-185). Because constricting the handicrafts workshops took considerably funds it is understandably why it was not always done easily. Furthermore we have to remember that in 1866 – 88 especially from the church the school was given many demands for changing its nature and also its administrative form (ambulatory schools, small schools). That is why the feeling is that in this choppy sea the effective organisation of handicrafts education has been suffered.

V. FINAL SURVEY

The Folk School Decree 11.5.1866 confirmed the guidelines for the becoming Folk School. The Decree also mentioned the subjects, which would form the program of the folk school. In this group of subjects there was also handicrafts as an equal subject with the other ones, with the exception that boys’ handicrafts was not compulsory in the urban schools. Taking handicrafts as a subject in the folk school was above all credit for UC. His idea was based remarkably on work of Pestalozzi and Fröbel. C. understood handicrafts education in the folk school mostly as educational formal civilisation method, which at the same time would develop general dexterity and senses of form and beauty. This subject was not supposed to be taught by professionally but it should be guided by a folk school teacher who also generally in all his / her school work should try to educate children through work for work. Such had the concept of C. developed on handicrafts education and such they would remain p to his death. Without tiring he presented them to different persons, most largely to the founder of handicraft school in Sweden Otto

Salomon. Similar his principles were understood also among the teachers and the official documents of the National Board presented them as well similar. In some newspapers there were statements how the main emphasis of handicrafts education should be on the usefulness but these opinions were a clear minority. When the practical school work then began in the country according to the Decree – at first only in 20 folk schools – handicrafts seemed not to get the position, which should belong to it; it should have been equal to the other subjects. In school year 1869 – 70 on which there are the first reports of the folk schools, nearly half of the rural folk schools left handicraft totally out from the school program and no urban school organised it for boys. Little by little handicrafts was increased in the folk schools but it was very slow up to 1880 after which the government began to finance handicrafts education in schools. We have to emphasize, however, that it was not a quick recovery decisive change but a slow recovery when more and more schools started handicrafts education. However, still in 1884 – 85 there were still schools, where handicrafts education had not yet even started nearly 20 years after the folk school decree. Handicraft in the school program did not guarantee that it should have been done as it was ordered in the official guidance: already in the numbers of the weekly periods there were great differences in different schools. Some schools gave for handicrafts only one weekly period, other ones used for it even 9 periods. It was neither unusual that in handicrafts lessons the schools worked on other subjects. Gardening seemed to get in many schools – like in some seminaries – the needed periods from handicrafts. This all becomes understandable by the general guidance being defective but fore mostly because most schools lacked the boys’ handicraft workshops and the needed tools. Therefore it was natural that this subject could not be done effectively. Handicrafts seem because of that been varied and scattered. Only after 1886 Handicraft Committee created a clear direction for handicraft education but scrutinizing its results is mostly outside this paper. From the private sector also was made some efforts for developing handicrafts education. From statesman Furuhjelm’s fund grants were given for pupils who made good results in handicrafts. The Finnish Economic Society gave schools both model collections and drawings and delivered grants for teachers to develop their handicraft skills in the famous Naas handicraft school in Sweden. These measures did not, however, have any greater influence for the development of handicraft education. The artefacts made in the handicraft lessons were mostly different everyday useful equipment. Boys made pieces if furniture and household equipment and girls were busy with clothes and linen. The judges of the handicraft exhibitions in the connection of the Folk School Meetings seemed to consider these too showy decorations and many times they started to disapprove them but mostly without any results. On the basis of all that above it might be shown that handicrafts education in 1866 – 88 was in its quality and results modest and surely it did not have that meaning, which some supporters of the practical direction of the folk school waited from it and on the other hand also Uno Cygnaeus clearly told to have been disappointed with he achievements of handicrafts education.

At the end of the article there are five large appendices as follows: APP. 1. The artefacts chosen by the 1886 Handicrafts Committee to the exhibition collection. APP. 2. The drawings of artefacts of 1886 Committee for folk schools working in good circumstances. APP. 3. Proposal for tools for handicrafts of 1886 Committee APP. 4. Handicrafts in the programs of Kuopio and Uusimaa regions’ schools in 1874 – 75. APP. 5. Handicrafts in the program of schools of App. 4 in 1884 – 85.

All these appendices are not translated / published here.

VI. APPENDICES

App. 1

The artefacts, which the year 1886 handicraft committee selected to the exhibition:

1. Pyöreä osotuspuikko2. Avainlippu3. Kalvoin4. Pyöreä kukkakeppi5. Puukon pää6. Puikkari7. Verkon käpy8. Kynänvarsi9. Kukkas-astian jalka10. Kukkas-astian alustin11. Sä1ejakkara12. Vaatepihti13. Kalalauta14. Viivotin15. Suorakulmio16. Kirjahylly17. Jakkara18. Salkkari19. Kuurnitettu voilasta20. Ruokalusikka21. Voilusikka22. Kauha23. Suuntapiirrin24. Kirvesvarsi25. Karttu eli kurikka26. Kyökkikaukalo27. Jauhokauha28. Ayskäri29. Sahan puitteet30. Ruuvipuristin31. Ohennushöylä32. Veitsilaatikko ynnä saumannäyte33. Lipas « «34. Taikinakaukalo35. Piirustuslauta36. Piirustusviivotin kulmion kanssa37. Pitkähöylä38. Metrimitta39. Litramitta ja desimetrikuutio40. Vipu jalustoineen ja painoineen41. Voipytty42. Peilin puitteet43. Valokuvan puitteet44. Taltan pää45. Perunapetkele46. Sahannuppi47. Viilan pää48. Yaatenaulakko49. Ta1ttanuija50. Tynnyrinhana51. Voin painnin mittausopillisilla koristeilla52. Säästölaatikko53. Koristerasia54. Kauha55. Kerinpuut56. Pesuharja57. Hiusharja 58. Pärevakka a) ja b) 59. Leipävasu pajusta 60. Käsikori samoista aineista 61. Rimavasu

62. Tuohirasia 63. Sama 64. Pahviset kirjankannet 65. Pahvirasia a ) ja b)66. Pahvinen kynäkotelo 67. Nelisänniö metallilangasta 68. Kuutio samasta aineesta 69. Vasu samasta aineesta 70. Litranmitta läkistä. (Käsityökomitean mietintö vuodelta 1886 (1887:6), s. 4-6)

App. 2

Titles of the drawings of the artefacts of the year 1886 handicrafts committee for the folk schools in positive conditions:

1. Neliskulmainen kukkakeppi2. Kaareva vaate-naulakko3. Sukkalauta4. Vasaranvarsi5. Puusepän-kurikka6. Munan-alusta7. Veitsen-puhdistus8. Pesulaatikko9. Saapaspihti10. Porrashäkki11. Yoilasta12. Leipälasta13. Hakkuri14. Paperiveitsiä, neljää eri muotoa15. Leikkuulautoja, kolmea eri lajia16. Sukkuloita, kahdenmuotoisia17. Kauhoja, kahdenmuotoisia18. Kalalusikka19. Kauha20. Munalusikka21. Jauhokauha22. Leipäkampa23. Silannappula24. Parsinlesti25 Leipäpistin26. Uistinkela27. Munakuppi28. Ruokaliinanrenkaita, kolmea lajia29. Puusepän kurikoita, kahta lajia30. Leipäkaulin31. Musteenkuivaaja, kahta lajia32. Väkipyörän teline33. Sorvattu jakkara a) ja b)34. Kääntökulmio35. Vinokulmio36. Simsihöylä37. Silityshöylä38. Sarvihöylä39. Suuntapiirrin40. Harava41. Sukset42. Keikka43. Tolppakelkka44. Telttatuoli45. Porrastuoli46. Tavallinen tuoli47. Pöytä48. Ristijalkapöytä49. Yöpöytä, jossa on liikkuvat jalat50. Hyllyllinen vaatenaulakko51. Sorvattu pyyheliinan naula52. Työkalukaappi53. Kottikärryt

54. Kukkasruukunpöytä55. Sälepöytä56. Sälesohva57. Säletuoli58. Harjoja, kahta lajia59. Lyhty60. Jyvälapio61. Puuliitoksia62. Hyllypöytä (etagere)63. Valokuva alus64. Höyläpenkki65. Piironki66. Yirsikannel67. Metallilankainen käsikori68. Paperikori samasta aineesta69. Konsoli70. Portti (Käsityökomitean mietintö vuodelta 1886 (1887:6 ), s. 6 – 7).

App. 3

Proposal of the 1886 handicraft committee for necessary tool collections for the folk schools:

The number of the tools Price in marks or Pi

For 6 pupils 12 24 mk Pi

1. Knife 6 12 24 - 432. ’Carver’ 1 2 4 - 603. ’Carving knife’ 2 4 6 - 804. Whittle 0 1 1 1 505. Axe 3 6 8 2 90 etc.6. Hammer, bigger 17. Hammer, smaller 18. Hohtimet 8" 19. Näpsimet, pyöreä1eukaiset 110. Samat, tasaleukaiset 111. Katkaisunäpsimet 112. Poranvarsi ynnä 12 terää 113. Kierovarsipora ynnä 6 terää 114. Amerikkalainen kieropora 1/2" 115. Paksutaltta 5/16" 116. Sama 1/8" 117. Tasataltta 1218. Kourutaltta 619. Sama 2" 120. Pitkähöylä terineen 421. Silityshöylä samoin 222. Ohennushöylä samoin 223. Simsihöylä samoin 124. Pienahöylä samoin 125. Uurrehöylä samoin 126. Silitysrauta 227. Piirtopuikko 128. Rautaharppi 129. Koukkuharppi 130. Jännesaha, leveämpi 231. Sama, kaidempi 132. Puukkosaha 133. Piensaha 134. Sahaviila 6" 235. Nikkarinviila 10" 4-36. Tuurmapuikko, jossa myöskin on sentimetrit 237. Ruuvipuristin 438. Suuntapiirrin 239. Suorakulmio, isompi 240. Suorakulmio, pienempi 241. Vinokulmio 142. Kääntökulmio 143. Satsi (12 kpl) puunleikkausrautoja 1

44. Puuruuvikone 1" 145. Sama 1/2" 146. Rottinkihöylä 047. Sorvirautoja, tasaisia 648. Samoja, kouruja 649. Ruuvimeisseli 150. Viilapenkki 7 1/2 naul. 151. Peltisakset 152. Liimapannu 153. Juotin 154. Valinkauha 155. Höyläpenkki 256. Sorvauskone 1 (Käsityökomitean mietintö vuodelta 1886 (1887:6), s. 8 – 10)

VII. REFERENCES

1. Not Printed

F i n n i s h G o v e r n m e n t a r c h i v e s (VA) A r c h i v e s o f t h e N a t i o n a l B o a r d (KHA) Documents of funds of the Furuhjelm’s funds and the social ranks for promoting handicrafts education in 1877 – 1900 (He 1). Registering to the general handicrafts exhibition of the folk schools in 1885 (He 2) Reports of the Chief Inspector of the activities of the Seminaries in 1877 – 80 (Ha 1) Inspection reports of folk schools and the academic schools and Seminaries in 1870 – 79 (Eh 1, Eh 2) Reports of the folk school inspectors 1885 - 91 (Ek 1). Yearly reports of the urban schools 1869 – 80 (Ej 1, Ej 3, Ej 7). Yearly reports of the urban schools 1884 – 89 (Eo 1). The letter of the Imperial Senate to the National Board of Education 11.12.l879 (Eg.). Reports about the activities of the Folk School Institution 1871 – 82 (Ha 1). Yearly reports of the rural schools 1869 – 80 (Ei 1, Ei 6, Ei 7, Ei 8, Ei 18, Ei 21, Ei 22, Ei 23 ). The reports of the rural folk school inspectors and the statistic summaries 1872 – 74 (Ha 2). Yearly reports of the rural folk school inspectors 1884 – 85 (En 1, En 2, En 3, En 4c, En 5 ). Yearly reports of the Seminaries 1869 – 80 (Ek 1, Ek 2, Ek 3, Ek 4). Yearly reports of the Seminaries 1884 – 85, 1885 – 88 (Ep 1). Documents of the handicrafts exhibition in 1885 (He 3). Cygnaeus, Uno (UC): Short presentation about the basics for handicraft education, which have been the justifications when I was working as the school expert (no date) (UC’s collections VI) UC’s letters to Aug. Bergman ( « « L/ III) UC’s n letter to A. Björk ( « « « ) UC’s letters to A. G. Hovilainen ( « « « ) UC’s letters to Oskar Hynninen ( « « « ) UC’s letters to E. Kauppinen ( « « « ) UC’s letters to Ch. Lydecken ( « « « ) UC’s letter to G. Lönnbeck ( « « «) UC’s letter to E. Mäkinen ( « « «)

UC’s letter to Hanna Phaler ( « « 5b) UC’s letter to K. Raitio ( « « L/III ) UC’s letter to Emil Sipilä ( « « 5b ) UC’s letters to F. W. Sundwall ( « « L/ III ) Letter of K. Kunelius to UC ( « « 5a) Letter of Hanna Phaler to UC ( « « 6 ) Letters of Otto Salomon to UC ( « « 34b ) Letter of Anna Tommila to UC ( « « 5b) Own life story by UC, UC 1

H e l s i n k i U n i v e r s i t y F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n, Helsinki (HYO) (The documents used as references from the collection are photo copies or hand written copies of the original documents).

Letter of UC to Th. Bruhn (date unclear) (A. Salo’s collection). Letter of UC to A. Haapanen (orig. A. Haapanen, Lepaa). Letter of UC to Matti Markkunen (A. Salo’s collection). Letter of UC to K. Moberg (orig. Lempi Mäntyvaara, Jyväskylä). Letter of UC to Wischmeijerradski (A. Salo’s collection). Letter to A. Salo titeled «Old memoir« (Collection of the Finnish Literature Society). Letter of Jaakko Wuorinen (J. W.) 4.7.1937 to A. Salo.Jussila, Juhani: The aims of education for work in the plans concerning organising the Folk School education system in 1856 – 66, (master’s thesis) 1964. Published now in ‘School and the Past XIX (in this issue pp. 32-115).

A. A b r a h a m s S t i f t e l s e, N ä ä s (AAS).Letters of Uno Cygnaeus to Otto Salomon.

J y v ä s k y l ä n Y l i o p i s t o n l i b r a r y, Jyväskylä (JYk ).Letters of Uno Cygnaeus to K. G. Leinbergille.

K u n g l i s k a B i b l i o t e k e t, Stockholm (KB ).Letters of Uno Cygnaeus to C. J. Meijerbergille.

P e r n i ö m u s e u m Letters of Uno Cygnaeus to Abraham Björk.

S t a d s b i b l i o t e k e t, Gothenburg (STADSB).Letters of Uno Cygnaeus to S. A. Hedlund.

2. Printed

A. Newspapers and journals

Borgå Bladet n:o 101/1876.Helsingfors Dagblad n:o 351/1879.Kansakoulu n:ot 5/1875, 3/1876 ja 3/1877.Kansakoulun Lehti n:ot 4/1884, 10/1884, 10/1885, 11-12/1885, 2, 4 ja 10/1886, 1/1887 ja 6/1889.

Keski-Suomi n:o 3/1872.Kirjallinen Kuukausilehti n:o 4/ 1875.Morgonbladet n:ot 147, 148/1878.Satakunta n:o 47/1875.Slöjdundervisningsblad från Nääs 4. 2. 1888.Suomen Wirallinen Lehti n:o 11/1876.Tampereen Sanomat n:o 5/1877.Uusi Suometar n:ot 238/1869, 4, 5/1880, 20/1881 ja 54/1883.Wiborg n:o 57/1857.

B. Literature

Aurola, Eelis, Suomen tehtaankoulut, Historiallisia tutkimuksia LXI. Helsinki / Forssa 1961. Brubacher, John S., A history of the problems of education New York London 1947. Castren, Zachris, Koululaitos ja vapaa sivistystyö, Suomen Kulttuurihistoria IV, Jyväskylä-Helsinki 1931. Cygnaeuksen (Uno) kirjoitukset Suomen kansakoulun perustamisesta ja järjestämisestä, Helsinki 1910. Franzen, J., A Plea for Slöjd, Lontoo 1890. Gavuzzi, Car, Husslöjden inom Norge och Finland, Luleo 1897. Giinther, Karlheinz-Hoffman, Franz-Hohendorf, Gerd-Köning, Herbert, Quellen zur Gesichte der Erziehung, Berlin 196 2. Halila, Aimo, Suomen kansakoululaitoksen historia I ja II, Porvoo-Helsinki 1949. Kansakoulukokousten pöytäkirjat 1-5, yhteisnidos. Kansakoulukokousten pöytäkirjat 6-10, yhteisnidos. Kansakoulun käsityönopetus, komiteamietintö no 10, Helsinki 1912. Komiteamietinnöt vuodelta 1877, nro 6 (Vuoden 1886 käsityökomitea). Kouluylihallituksen kiertokirjeet vv. 1866-1888. KK/KHA. K. M:n ArmoIlinen Asetus kansakoulutoimen järjestämisestä Suomen Suuriruhtinaanmaassa. Annettu Helsingissä 11 päiwänä Toukokuuta 1866. K . M:n ArmoIlinen Ohjesääntö kansakoulunopettaja ja opettajatarseminaareille Suomen Suu1riruhtinaanmaassa. Annettu Helsingissä 11 p:nä Toukokuuta 1866. Kotiteollisuuskomitean mietintö v. 1873. Kuusanmäki, Lauri, Talonpoikaistalo, Suomen Kulttuurihistoria II, Jyväskylä-Helsinki 1934. Mäkinen, Kaarlo, Kansakoulun opetustoiminnan kehitystä. Suomen kansakoulu 1866- 1916. Helsinki 1916. Nohl, Herman und Pollat, Ludvig, Handbuch der Pädagogik 1, Berlin & Leipzig 1928. Nurmi, Veli, Maamme seminaarien varsinaisen opettajakoulutuksen synty ja kehittyminen viime vuosisadalla I ja II mit deutschen referat. Jyväskylä 1964. Pedersen, Viggo, Det pädagogiske slöjdundervisnings-system fra Nääs. Vor Ungdom. Kjöpenhamn 1888. Rajainen, Maija, Tarton yliopiston «jakobiinien« kansanopetusvalmistelut ja niiden vaikutus Vanhan Suomen kouluoloihin. Historiallinen arkisto 57, Turku 1961. Rauhamaa, Onni, Teon periaatteen sovelluttamisesta kansakoulun opetukseen, Helsinki 1911. Rauhamaa, Onni, Toukokuun 11 pnä 1866 annettu kansakouluasetus ja teon periaate. Suomen kansakoulu 1866-1916. Helsinki 1916. Rein, W., Encyklepädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik 111, Langensalza 1897. Ruutu, Koululaitoksen muuttuminen ja sen muuttava vaikutus yhteiskuntaan. Historiallinen aitta XIII, Porvoo 1956.

Salo, Aukusti, Uno Cygnaeus Otto Salomonin aatteellisena herättäjänä ja opastajana. Kasvatus ja Koulu 1940, numerot 1-2. Salokannel, Akseli, Uno Cygnaeus ja nykyaikainen kansanopetuksen uudistus, Helsinki 1918. Salola, Fridolf, A., Kasvatusopillinen veisto-oppi, Helsinki 1909. Sirelius, U. T., Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria II, Helsinki 1921. Somerkivi, Urho, Suomen kansakoululaitoksen kehitys ennen vuotta 1921. Oma Maa IV. Porvoo 1958. Tarjanne, Suomen kansakouluasetuksen synty, Suomen kansakoulu 1866 -1916, Helsinki 1916. Vilkuna, Kustaa, Talonpojan käsityöt, Suomen Kulttuurihistoria II, Jyväskylä-Helsinki 1934.