That is why， outside of France， the French internat， so artificial， so forced， so exaggerated， is almost unknown. In Germany， out of one hundred pupils in the gymnases， which correspond to our lycées， there are scarcely ten boarders lodged and fed in the gymnase； the rest， even when their parents do not live near by， remain day-scholars， private guests in the families that harbor them， often at a very low price and which take the place of the absent family. No boarders are found in them except in a few gymnases like Pforta and by virtue of an ancient endowment. The number， however， by virtue of the same endowment， is limited； they dine， in groups of eight or ten，[51] at the same table with the professors lodged like themselves in the establishment， while they enjoy for a playground a vast domain of woods， fields and meadow. - The same in England， at Harrow， Eton and Rugby. Each professor， here， is keeper of a boarding-house； he has ten， twenty and thirty boys under his roof， eating at his table or at a table the head of which is some lady of the house. Thus， the youth goes from the family into the school， without painful or sudden contrast， and remains under a system of things which suits his age and which is a continuation， only enlarged， of domestic life.[52]
The French college or lycée is quite the opposite. It operates against the true spirit of the school， and has done so for eighty years being an enterprise of the State， a local extension of a central enterprise， one of the hundred branches of the great State university trunk， possessing no roots of its own and with a directing or teaching staff composed of functionaries similar to others， that is to say transferable，[53] restless and preoccupied with promotion， their principal motive for doing well being the hope of a higher rank and of getting a better situation. This almost separate them in advance from the establishment in which they labor and，[54] besides that， they are led， pushed on， and restrained from above， each in his own particular sphere and in his limited duty. The principal (proviseur) is confined to his administrative position and the professor to his class， expressly forbidden to leave it. No professor is "under any pretext to receive in his house as boarders or day-scholars more than ten pupils."[55] No woman is allowed to lodge inside the lycée or college walls， all， - proviseur， censor， cashier， chaplain， head-masters and assistants， fitted by art or force to each other like cog-wheels， with no deep sympathy， with no moral tie， without collective interests， a cleverly designed machine which， in general， works accurately and smoothly， but with no soul because， to have a soul， it is of prime necessity to have a living body. As a machine constructed at Paris according to a unique pattern and superposed on people and things from Perpignan to Douai and from Rochelle to Besan？on， it does not adapt itself to the requirements of the public； it subjects its public to the exigencies， rigidity and uniformity of its play and structure.
Now， as it acts mechanically only， through outward pressure， the human material on which it operates must be passive， composed， not of diverse persons， but of units all alike； its pupils must be for it merely numbers and names. - Owing to this our internats， those huge stone boxes set up and isolated in each large town， those lycées parceled out to hold three hundred， four hundred， even eight hundred boarders， with immense dormitories， refectories and playgrounds， recitation-rooms full to overflowing， and， for eight or ten years， for one half of our children and youths， an anti-social unnatural system apart， strict confinement， no going out except to march in couples under the eyes of a sub-teacher who maintains order in the ranks， promiscuity and life in common， exact and minute regularity under equal discipline and constant constraint in order to eat， sleep， study， play， promenade and the rest， - in short， COMMUNISM.
From the University this system is propagated among its rivals. In conferring grades and passing examinations， it arranges and overburdens the school program of study； hence， it incites in others what it practices at home， the over-training of youth， and a factitious， hot-house education. On the other hand， the internat is， for those who decide on that， less troublesome than the day-school；[56] also， the more numerous the boarders in any one establishment， the less the expense； thus， in order to exist in the face of the university establishments， there must be internats and internats that are full. Ecclesiastical establishments willingly resign themselves to all this； they are even inclined that way； the Jesuits were the first ones， under the old monarchy， who introduced cloistered and crowded boarding-houses. In its essence， the Catholic church， like the French State， is a Roman institution， still more exclusive and more governmental， resolved to seize， hold on to， direct and control man entirely， and， first of all， the child， head and heart， opinions and impressions， in order to stamp in him and lastingly the definitive and salutary forms which are for him the first condition of salvation. Consequently， the ecclesiastical cage is more strict in its confinement than the secular cage； if the bars are not so strong and not so rough， the grating， finer and more yielding， is more secure， closer and better maintained； they do not allow any holes or relaxation of the meshes； the precautions against worldly and family interference， against the mistakes and caprices of individual effort， are innumerable， and form a double or even triple network.