temperaments into two sharply contrasted groups. The introduction of girls into boys’ secondary schools may remove or mitigate coarse traditions of speech and conduct where such persist. But it would be unfortunate if stiff and pedantic traditions of secondary education were now fixed upon girls instead of being reconsidered and modified in the interests of boys also. In any case, if co-education in secondary schools is to yield the benefits which some anticipate from it, great vigilance, careful selection of pupils and very liberal staffing will be necessary. Without these securities the results of co-education in secondary schools might be disappointing, disquieting or even disastrous.
Bibliography.—Plato in the Republic (v. 452-456) and Laws (vii. 804-805) argues that women should share as far as possible in education with men. Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), contends that “both sexes ought, not only in private families but in public schools, to be educated together.” J. G. Spurzheim, Principles of Education, pp. 272-288 (Edinburgh, 1821), replies to this argument. In the Board of Education Special Reports on Educational Subjects, vol. vi. (Wyman & Sons, 1900), J. H. Badley, writing on The Possibility of Co-education in English Preparatory and other Secondary Schools, is strongly in favour. “In co-education . . . half-heartedness means failure. The more completely both sexes can be brought together upon an equal and natural footing the less the difficulties grow.” In the Board of Education Special Reports, vol. xi. (Wyman & Sons, 1902), Rev. Cecil Grant, writing on Can American Education be grafted upon the English Public School System? answers strongly in the affirmative; co-education is recommended on eight grounds:—(1) Vast economy of expenditure; (2) return to the natural system; (3) discipline made easier; (4) intellectual stimulus; (5) a better balance in instruction; (6) improved manners; (7) prevention of extremes of masculinity or femininity; (8) a safeguard against the moral danger.
Co-education: a series of Essays (London, 1903), edited by Alice Woods, is in favour of co-education, nine practical workers recording their experience; this is one of the best books on the subject. J. H. Badley’s Co-education after Fifteen: its Value and Difficulties. Child Life (London, January, 1906), is candid, judicious and practical. M. E. Sadler in Reports on Secondary Education in Hampshire, Derbyshire and Essex (1904, 1905 and 1906 respectively) gives details of the curriculum of many co-educational secondary schools. In the U.S. Commissioner of Education Report for 1903, vol. i. pp. 1047-1078, Anna Tolman Smith, writing on Co-education in the Schools and Colleges of the United States, gives an historical review of the subject with bibliography (compare bibliography in Report of U.S. Commissioner of Education for 1900–1901, pp. 1310-1325). G. Stanley Hall on Adolescence, its Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, vol. ii. chap. xvii., on Adolescent Girls and their education (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1904), is strongly against co-education during adolescence. In W. Rein’s Encyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik (Langensalza, Beyer), art. “Gemeinsame Erziehung für Knaben und Mädchen,” K. E. Palmgren is in favour of co-education (vol. iii. of 2nd ed. 1905). See also W. Rein, Über gemeinsame Erziehung von Knaben und Mädchen (Freiburg, 1903), and Bericht über den I. Internationalen Kongress für Schulhygiene (Nürnberg, 1904), vol. ii. pp. 140 ff., “Co-education in der höheren Schulen.” (M. E. S.)
COEFFETEAU, NICOLAS (1574–1623), French theologian,
poet and historian, was born at Saint-Calais. He entered the
Dominican order and lectured on philosophy at Paris, being also
“ordinary preacher” to Henry IV., and afterwards ambassador
at Rome. In 1606 he was vicar-general of the congregation of
France, and received from Marie de’ Medici the revenues of the
sees of Lombez and Saintes. He also administered the diocese of
Metz, and was nominated to that of Marseilles in 1621, but ill-health
obliged him here to take a coadjutor. Coeffeteau won
considerable distinction in the controversy against the Protestant
reformers and also wrote a History of Rome from Augustus to
Constantine. Many of his theological writings were collected in
one volume (Paris, 1622), and at the time of his death in 1623 he
was engaged on a translation of the New Testament which is
still in manuscript.
COEHOORN, MENNO, Baron van (1641–1704), Dutch
soldier and military engineer, of Swedish extraction, was born at
Leeuwarden in Friesland. He received an excellent military
and general education, and at the age of sixteen became a captain
in the Dutch army. He took part in the defence of Maastricht
in 1673 and in the siege of Grave in the same year, where the small
mortars (called coehorns) invented by him caused the French
garrison considerable trouble (Seydel, Nachrichten über Festungskriege,
Leipzig, 1818). He was made a colonel for his gallant
conduct at the battle of Seneff (1674), and was present also at
the battles of Cassel (1677) and Saint Denis (1678).
The circumstances of the time and the country turned Coehoorn’s attention to the art of fortification, and the events of the late war showed him that existing methods could no longer be relied upon. His first published work, Versterckinge de Vijfhoeks met alle syne Buytenwerken (Leeuwarden, 1682), at once aroused attention, and involved the author in a lively controversy with a rival engineer, Louys Paan (Leeuwarden, 1682, 1683; copies are in the library of the Dutch ministry of war). The military authorities were much interested in this, and entrusted Coehoorn with the reconstruction of several fortresses in the Netherlands. This task he continued throughout his career; and his experience in the work made him the worthy rival of his great contemporary Vauban. He formulated his ideas a little later in his chief work, Nieuwe Vestingbouw op en natte of lage horizont, &c. (Leeuwarden, 1685), in which he laid down three “systems,” the characteristic feature of which was the multiplicity and great saliency of the works, which were calculated and in principle are still eminently suited for flat and almost marshy sites such as those of the Low Countries. He borrowed many of the details from the works of his Dutch predecessor Freytag, of Albrecht Dürer, and of the German engineer Speckle, and in general he aimed rather at the adaptation of his principles to the requirements of individual sites than at producing a geometrically and theoretically perfect fortress; and throughout his career he never hesitated to depart from his own rules in dealing with exceptional cases, such as that of Groningen. Subsequent editions of Nieuwe Vestingbouw appeared in Dutch (1702, and frequently afterwards), English (London, 1705), French (Wesel, 1705), and German (Düsseldorf, 1709).
From 1688 to the treaty of Ryswick Coehoorn served as a brigadier. At the battle of Fleurus he greatly distinguished himself, and in 1692 he defended Namur, a fortress of his own creation. Namur was taken by Vauban; but the Dutch engineer had his revenge three years later, when the place, on which in the meantime Vauban had lavished his skill, fell to his attack. Coehoorn became lieutenant-general and inspector-general of the Netherlands fortresses, and the high-German peoples as well as his own countrymen honoured him. He commanded a corps in the army of the duke of Marlborough from 1701 to 1703, and in the constant siege warfare of these campaigns in the Low Countries his technical skill was of the highest value. The swift reduction of the fortress of Bonn and the siege of Huy in 1703 were his crowning successes. At the opening of his following campaign he was on his way to confer with Marlborough when he died of apoplexy at Wijkel on the 17th of March 1704.
His “first system” was applied to numerous places in Holland, notably Nijmwegen, Breda and Bergen-op-Zoom. Mannheim in Germany was also fortified in this way, while the “secondsystem” was applied to Belgrade and Temesvár in eastern Europe.
His son, Gosewijn Theodor van Coehoorn, wrote his life (re-edited Syperstein, Leeuwarden, 1860). See also v. Zastrow, Geschichte der beständigen Befestigung (Leipzig, 1828); von Brese-Winiari, Über Entstehen und Wesen der neueren Befestigungsmethode (1844); Cosseran de Villenoisy, Essai historique sur la fortification (1869); Mandar, Architecture des forteresses (1801); Krayenhoff, Verhandeling over de erste versterkingsmanier van Coehoorn (Hague, 1823); Bosscha, Nederlandsche heldend te Land (Amsterdam, 1838); Dewez, Histoire de Belgique (Brussels, 1823); Ypey, Narratio de rebus gestis Mennonis Cohorni (1771); Hennert, Dissertation sur la fortification permanente (1795); Böhms, Gründliche Anleitung zur Kriegsbaukunst (1776); Axiomatas of allgemeene bekentnisse over de Vestinghbouw door Menno Baron van Coehoorn, Uytgewerkt door E. W. Berg (MS. in Dutch Ministry of War); Bousmard, Essai général de fortification (1797); also the article Fortification and Siegecraft.
COELENTERA, a group or grade of the animal kingdom, the
zoological importance of which has risen considerably since the
time (1887) of the publication of the first article under that
heading in the Ency. Brit. (9th edit.), even though their numbers
have been reduced by the elevation of the Sponges or Porifera to
the rank of an independent Phylum under the title Parazoa
(W. J. Sollas, 1884). For the Coelentera thus restricted, the
term Enterocoela, in contrast to Coelomocoela (the old Coelomata),
was suggested by E. R. Lankester (1900).
