The Project Gutenberg eBook of Jesuit education
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Jesuit education
its history and principles viewed in the light of modern educational problems
Author: Robert Schwickerath
Release date: December 15, 2025 [eBook #77466]
Language: English
Original publication: St. Louis: B. Herder, 1903
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/77466
Credits: Peter Becker, Terry Jeffress, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JESUIT EDUCATION ***
JESUIT EDUCATION
ITS
HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF
MODERN EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS
BY
ROBERT SCHWICKERATH, S. J.,
WOODSTOCK COLLEGE, MD.
SECOND EDITION.
_ST. LOUIS, MO._
B. HERDER
17 South Broadway.
1904.
COPYRIGHT
1903
BY JOSEPH GUMMERSBACH.
--BECKTOLD--
PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO.
ST. LOUIS, MO.
PREFACE.
Mr. Quick, the English educationist, asserts that “since the Revival
of Learning, no body of men has played so important a part in education
as the Jesuits.” And yet, as the same author says, “about these Jesuit
schools there does not seem to be much information accessible to the
English reader.” (_Educational Reformers_, pp. 33-34.) It is true,
indeed, that during the past few years much has been said and written
about the Jesuit schools; in fact, they have occupied the attention of
the public more, perhaps, than ever before. However, with the exception
of the excellent book of Father Thomas Hughes, S. J. (_Loyola and
the Educational System of the Jesuits_, 1892), most of what has been
offered to American and English readers is entirely untrustworthy.
The account given of the Jesuit system in Histories of Education used
in this country, as those of Compayré, Painter, and Seeley, is a
mere caricature. Instead of drawing from the original sources, these
authors have been content to repeat the biased assertions of unreliable
secondary authorities. Some observations on American Histories of
Education will be found at the end of this book (p. 649 _sqq._). The
publication of a new work on the educational system of the Jesuits may
be justified at the present day. During the last decade, educational
circles in this country have been greatly agitated about various
questions of the utmost importance: the elective system, the value
of the study of the classics, the function of the college and its
relation to the high school and university, and the problem of moral
and religious training. It has been the author’s intention to view the
Jesuit system chiefly in the light of these modern problems. These
important educational questions have been treated at some length, and
it is hoped that on this account the work may engage the attention of
all who are interested in education.
I feel almost obliged to apologize for one feature of the book,
_viz._, the numerous quotations and references. Though aware that there
is among American and English readers a sort of antipathy against
many references, I have yet deemed it necessary to quote freely from
various sources. This course I am forced to adopt, as I do not wish
to lay before the reader my own opinions about the educational system
of the Jesuits, but I want to show what this system is according to
the original sources. These are, above all, the _Constitutions_ of
the Society of Jesus, and the _Ratio Studiorum_, which, however,
must be supplemented by other documents. For, many points of the
Ratio Studiorum are intelligible only in the light of the decrees
of the Legislative Assemblies of the Order, the regulations of the
General and Provincial Superiors, and the commentaries of prominent
Jesuit educators. A great deal of this material has been published by
Father Pachtler, in four volumes of the great collection _Monumenta
Germaniae Paedagogica_ (Berlin 1887-1894); other valuable information
has been published within the last few years, in the _Monumenta
Historica Societatis Jesu_, especially in the part entitled _Monumenta
Paedagogica_, which appeared in 1901 and 1902. An account of these
works is given in the Bibliographical Appendix, under the heading:
_Primary Sources_.
Another reason which moved me to make use of numerous quotations was
the desire to show what distinguished historians and educators outside
the Society, particularly non-Catholics, both in America and Europe,
have said on the educational system of the Jesuits. I wished also to
call attention to points of contact between the Ratio Studiorum and
other famous educational systems. As so many features of the Jesuit
system have been misrepresented, a work of this kind must, at times,
assume a polemical attitude. Painful as controversy is, the unfair
criticism of many writers has compelled me to contest their positions.
The style of the book may not always be as smooth as is desirable.
In partial extenuation of this defect, it should be stated that a
considerable amount of the material had to be translated, chiefly
from the Latin, German, and French. It has been my principal aim to
be faithful to the original, and in general, to write in the simplest
possible language, so as to let the facts speak without attempt at
literary embellishment.
I desire to acknowledge my obligation to several friends of Woodstock
College, who rendered kind assistance in revising the manuscript and
reading the proofs. In particular I wish to thank the Rev. Samuel Hanna
Frisbee, S. J., editor of the _Woodstock Letters_, who allowed me the
freest use of the _Letters_ and furnished other valuable material.
R. S.
WOODSTOCK COLLEGE, MARYLAND,
March 12, 1903.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
Modern Criticism of Jesuit Education 5
_PART FIRST._
History of the Educational System of the Society of Jesus.
CHAPTER II.
Education before the Foundation of the Society of Jesus.
The Jesuit System and Early Protestant Schools 17
§ 1. _Schools at the Close of the Middle Ages._
The Catholic Church and Medieval Education 21
Primary Schools 23
Secondary Schools 25
Schools in Italy 26
Schools in Scotland and England 28
Schools in Germany, France, and the Netherlands 31
The Older Humanists in Germany 34
Universities 38
§ 2. _Character of Medieval Education._
Trivium and Quadrivium 44
Scholasticism 45
Renaissance 47
Two Schools of Humanists 49
Condition of Education on the Eve of the Reformation 55
§ 3. _Education under the Influence of the Reformation._
Luther’s Alliance with the Humanists 57
Decline of the Schools 60
Luther’s Endeavor to Prevent the Total Ruin of the Schools 65
Effects of the English Reformation on the Schools 69
Catholic Counter-Reformation 71
CHAPTER III.
The Society of Jesus.--Religious as Educators.
Ignatius of Loyola, his Character and Aims 73
The Society of Jesus 76
Religious as Educators 80
The Society of Jesus the First Order that Made Education of
Youth a Special Ministry 87
Opposition to the Educational Labors of Religious 98
Constitutions of the Society 101
The Fourth Part of the Constitutions Treating of Studies 103
The Society and Primary Education 104
CHAPTER IV.
The Ratio Studiorum of 1599.
Plans of Studies in Jesuit Colleges Previous to the Ratio
Studiorum 107
Care in Drawing up the Plan of Studies 109
Peculiar Character of the Ratio Studiorum 114
Officers of Jesuit Colleges 115
The Literary Curriculum: Ancient Languages 118
The Study of History 124
Geography 127
Study of the Mother-Tongue 129
The Philosophical Course 131
Mathematics and Sciences 133
Sources of the Ratio Studiorum 136
CHAPTER V.
Jesuit Colleges and Their Work before the Suppression of the
Society (1540-1773).
Rapid Spread of Jesuit Colleges 144
Superiority of the Jesuit Schools according to the Testimony
of Protestants 145
Literary and Scientific Activity of Jesuit Colleges 148
Languages 149
Mathematics and Natural Sciences 155
Geography 158
History 160
Literature 161
School Drama of the Jesuits 164
Growing Opposition to the Society 173
Suppression of the Order 175
Protection of Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catharine II
of Russia 176
Efficiency of Jesuit Colleges at the Time of the Suppression 178
Effects of the Suppression on Education in Catholic Countries 184
CHAPTER VI.
The Revised Ratio of 1832 and Later Regulations.
Restoration of the Society 189
Revision of the Ratio Studiorum 191
Philosophy Preserved as Completion of College Training 195
The Ratio of 1832 not Final 197
Later Educational Regulations 198
CHAPTER VII.
The Educational Work of the Jesuits in the Nineteenth Century.
New Growth of Jesuit Colleges 200
Jesuit Colleges in the United States 201
Colleges in Other Countries 206
Efficiency of Jesuit Schools 209
President Eliot’s Charges 223
Literary and Scientific Work of the Jesuits during
the Last Twenty-five Years 225
CHAPTER VIII.
Opposition to Jesuit Education.
Laws against Jesuit Schools 239
General Charges against the Jesuit Schools 241
Contradictory Statements of Opponents 243
Special Charges: “The Jesuits Educate only the Rich and Those
Who Pay” 247
“Estrange Children from the Family” 250
“Cripple the Intellect and Teach Corrupt Morality” 251
“Seek Their Own Interest in Educational Labors” 254
“Their Education Antinational and Unpatriotic” 255
Causes of Opposition among Protestants 264
Causes of Antipathy of Some Catholics 269
_PART SECOND._
The Principles of the Ratio Studiorum. Its Theory and Practice
Viewed in the Light of Modern Educational Problems.
CHAPTER IX.
Adaptability of the Ratio Studiorum.--Prudent Conservatism.
Adaptability and Adaptation 280
Necessity of Wise Conservatism 288
Lesson from Germany 289
Lesson from American Schools 292
CHAPTER X.
The Intellectual Scope.
Scope of Education: Harmonious Training of the Mind 297
Cramming in Modern Systems 300
Premature Specialization 302
Function of the College 306
CHAPTER XI.
Prescribed Courses or Elective Studies.
Electivism in the United States 310
President Eliot Censures the Jesuit Colleges for Adhering to
Prescribed Courses 311
Criticism of the Elective System 313
Dangers for the Moral Training 316
Dangers for the Intellectual Training 322
Wise Election almost Impossible 325
CHAPTER XII.
Classical Studies.
Modern Discussions about the Value of the Study of the Classics 330
Distinguished Men Defend Their Value 333
Advantages Derived from the Study of the Classics for the
Logical, Historical, Literary, Aesthetic, and Ethical Training 346
Beneficial Results for the Mother-Tongue 356
Objections against the Jesuit Method of Teaching the Classics 361
The Gaume Controversy and the Jesuits 366
CHAPTER XIII.
Syllabus of School Authors.
§ 1. _General Remarks._
The Study of Grammar 370
Choice of Authors in Jesuit Colleges 372
§ 2. _Latin Prose Writers_ 377
§ 3. _Latin Poets_ 385
§ 4. _Greek Prose Writers_ 392
§ 5. _Greek Poets_ 399
CHAPTER XIV.
Scholarship and Teaching.
Scholarship in Relation to Practical Teaching 402
Decline of Teaching 404
American Scholarship 411
CHAPTER XV.
Training of the Jesuit Teacher.
The Candidate for the Order 415
Noviceship and Religious Training 417
Study of Languages and Philosophy after the Noviceship 422
Influence of Uniform Training on Individuality 425
Immediate Preparation of the Jesuit for Teaching 432
Permanent Teachers 435
Work Assigned according to Ability 439
Class Teachers, not Branch Teachers 443
Continued Self-Training of the Teacher 446
CHAPTER XVI.
The Method of Teaching in Practice.
§ 1. _The Prelection or Explanation of the Authors._
Characteristic Feature of the Jesuit Method 457
Accurate Pronunciation 458
Translation and Explanation 461
Repetition 466
Specimens of Interpretation 468
Soundness of the Method of the Ratio 475
Amount of Reading 482
Subject and Antiquarian Explanation 485
Explanation of Authors in the Vernacular 491
§ 2. _Memory Lessons._
Importance of Memory Lessons 493
Manner of Committing to Memory 496
§ 3. _Written Exercises._
Importance and Value of Compositions 498
Subjects to be Taken from Authors Studied 499
Correction 503
Speaking Latin 506
A Lesson from Germany 509
§ 4. _Contests_ (_Emulation_).
Emulation in School Work 511
Various Kinds of Contests, Class Matches 515
Academies 518
CHAPTER XVII.
The Moral Scope.
The Moral Training Neglected by Many Teachers of Our Age 522
Importance Attached to the Moral Training in Jesuit Schools 527
Means Employed 531
Supervision 537
Private Talks with Pupils 548
Educational Influence of Confession 550
Communion 557
Devotions 558
The Sodalities 560
Watchfulness in Regard to Reading 564
Good and Evil Results of Sports 569
CHAPTER XVIII.
Religious Instruction.
Religious Instruction the Basis of Solid Moral Training 574
Correctness of the Catholic Position in Regard to Religion
and Education 577
Undenominational Religion an Absurdity 582
The Reading of the Bible not Sufficient for Religious Instruction 583
Catholic Position 587
Religious Instruction in the Jesuit System 590
Catechisms Written by Jesuits 592
Peter Canisius, the Model Jesuit Catechist 594
Correlation of All Branches with Religious Instruction 599
Religious Instruction Necessary also in Higher Schools 605
CHAPTER XIX.
School-Management.
Trials in Teaching 608
Particular Points of School-Management:
§ 1. _Authority_ 610
§ 2. _Punishments_ 614
§ 3. _Impartiality_ 619
§ 4. _Discipline in the Classroom_ 623
§ 5. _Politeness and Truthfulness_ 626
§ 6. _Some Special Helps_ 631
CHAPTER XX.
The Teacher’s Motives and Ideals.
The Chief Motive: Utility and Dignity of the Work of Education 636
Illustrated by Analogies 638
The Ideal and Model of the Teacher: Christ, the Great Master 641
Conclusion 647
Appendix I: Additions and Corrections 649
Appendix II: Bibliography 662
Index 671
CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
We are living in an age of school reforms and pedagogical experiments.
The question of higher education in particular is warmly debated in
England, France, Germany, and the United States. The respective merits
of rival educational systems are topics of lively discussion and
comment in numberless books and articles. New “curricula” are planned
on all sides, and new courses are offered in the various seats of
learning. Not long ago it was stated that “the American College was
passing.” Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania,
and other leading schools, now accept the studies of the professional
schools as meeting the requirements of the last year in college.
Yale University was also reported as making ready to follow in the
wake of Harvard and abolish the study of Greek as a requisite for
admission. The University of Michigan, abandoning the attempt to
distinguish between forms of admission or courses of study pursued in
the college, will give up degrees like bachelor of letters or bachelor
of philosophy, and confer on all its students indiscriminately at
graduation the degree of bachelor of arts, in this respect following
what is substantially the procedure of Harvard. Harvard, with its
system of election, election in the preparatory schools, in the
college, and in the professional schools, is the forerunner in the
revolution, and to the course it has laid down the other colleges and
universities either have adapted themselves or are preparing so to do.
“Faculties and Presidents are trying to tear down the old order which
they no longer honor.”[1]
For two or three decades various attempts and experiments have
been made to establish a “new order.” But the dissatisfaction seems
rather to grow than to diminish. The man who has kept in touch
with pedagogical publications knows right well that there exists
in our high schools and colleges an unsettled state of affairs
and a wide-spread discontent with present methods. Thus, in the
_Educational Review_, we find the following statements: “It is not
without reason that one so often hears the state of the educational
world described as chaotic.”[2] The first sentence of an article on
“Latin in the High School” informs us that “even to the superficial
observer it must be apparent that our secondary Latin teaching is
in a state of unrest.” “Further proof of this wide-spread feeling
of insecurity lies in the susceptibility of our Latin teachers to
fashions or ‘fads’, in a surprising readiness to adopt innovations
and carry them to an extreme.”[3] Many will not care much for the
“dead” languages, if only the “sciences” are taught well. What is said
about the sciences? The same volume contains an article entitled:
“The Disappointing Results of Science Teaching.” Therein it is stated
that “the results of the teaching of science in schools of all kinds
have been very disappointing to the friends and advocates of science
teaching.... The work is unsatisfactory when the best opportunities
are provided and skilled teachers devote all their time to it, indeed
where they practically have everything their own way.... This has
given the advocates of the older literary studies a chance to look
over their spectacles and say: ‘I told you so.’ It is plain that
class-room science-teaching has no history to be proud of, but the
reverse. Something is radically wrong when, after a generation of
science-teaching, those who have had the best available teaching in it
do not show some of the superiority which is claimed for it in insight,
tact, skill, judgment, and affairs in general.”[4] Complaints of a
similar nature can be found in more recent publications.
It is evident, then, that final judgment on the modern system is
reserved for the future. If we consider the results obtained within
the last ten years, it appears unintelligible that many writers on
education are so unreserved in denouncing systems of the past, which
have a “history to be proud of.” Indeed, it may be said that the
present educational movement is characterized by a morbid craving
for novelties, but still more by contempt of old traditions. Modern
pedagogy has rightly been called a Proteus. It daily assumes new forms
so that even its most ardent followers seem not to know what they are
really grappling with. In very truth, pedagogists of to-day appear to
be quite certain of only one point, that “the old is worthless and that
something new must be produced at any price.”[5]
We do not deny that our age demands “something” new in education.
Growth and development are necessary in educational systems. Every
age and every nation has its own spirit, its peculiar ways and means
to meet a given end, and these very ways and means inevitably exert a
great influence on educational methods and call for modifications and
adaptations of what has met the purpose of the past. An educational
system, fitted in every detail to all times and all nations, is an
impossibility. For the majority of cases it would be a Procrustean
bed. It would be folly, therefore, to claim that even the best system
of education in all its details were as fit for the twentieth century
as for the sixteenth, or that the same system in its entirety might be
introduced into Japan or China as well as into Germany, England and the
United States.
For an educational system must aim not at educating men in general,
but at educating the youth of a certain age in a certain country.
Hence the necessity of changes, of development. Education is something
living and must grow, otherwise it will soon wither and decay. There
are, however, certain fundamental principles, certain broad outlines of
education, based on sound philosophy and the experience of centuries,
which suffer no change. Unfortunately, it is some of these principles
which have been abandoned by modern pedagogists, and it is for this
reason that many “school reforms” of these days have proved mere
“school changes” or, as Professor Münsterberg of Harvard University
styles them, “school deteriorations.”[6] This important distinction
between what is essential and what is accidental in education, has
too frequently been disregarded by those advocates of the new system
who claim that the old principles and methods must be given up,
because they are not suited to cope with modern conditions. What is
but secondary in education, as for instance the election of courses
and branches, has been proclaimed to be of vital importance, and its
absence in the older systems has been considered as the strongest proof
that these systems are entirely antiquated. This mistake has more than
once been made by those who attack one of the celebrated old systems,
the _Ratio Studiorum_ of the Jesuits.
Only three years ago, President Eliot of Harvard University, in
a paper read before the American Institute of Instruction, July
10, 1899, advocated the extension of _electivism_ to secondary or
high schools.[7] As opposed to his favorite system, President Eliot
mentioned “the method followed in Moslem countries, where the Koran
prescribes the perfect education to be administered to all children
alike. Another instance of uniform prescribed education may be found in
the curriculum of Jesuit colleges, which has remained almost unchanged
for four hundred years, disregarding some trifling concessions made to
natural sciences.” The President further declared that “the immense
deepening and expanding of human knowledge in the nineteenth century
and the increasing sense of the sanctity of the individual’s gifts
and will-power have made uniform prescriptions of study in secondary
schools impossible and absurd.”
As the Jesuits, together with the Moslems, are said to uphold
prescribed courses, they are implicitly charged with attempting
what is “absurd,” nay “impossible.” In our days of critical and
fair-minded research, such sweeping condemnations are beyond excuse;
they show forth no careful and impartial examination of the system
censured. But we have reasons to suspect that _lack of sympathy_ and
of _knowledge_ impairs the judgment of most opponents of the Jesuits.
“True criticism,” writes a distinguished English historian, “must be
sympathetic;”[8] where there is antipathy a false appreciation is
inevitable. That lack of sympathy has led many critics into unfair
discriminations in regard to the educational system of the Jesuits, can
be proved by numerous instances. In the sixteenth century, Protestant
as well as Catholic schools made Latin the principal subject matter
of instruction, and the study of the mother tongue was well nigh
neglected. In many Protestant schools the use of the Latin language
in conversation, school exercises and dramatic performances was more
strictly enforced than in Jesuit colleges, and those who spoke the
vernacular were punished.[9] Should we not suppose that in Protestant
and Jesuit schools the same reasons suggested the use of the Latin
tongue? Some Protestant critics assign quite different reasons, but
without proof. In a work published by order of the Prussian Ministry
for Instruction,[10] we find the following: “The School System of
Saxony of 1528 provided Latin schools pure and simple. Why? Because it
demanded an extraordinary amount of time to make Latinists of German
boys, so that little time and energy were left for other subjects.
Melanchthon, for this reason, excluded even Greek from his plan of
studies. As Latin, at that time, was the universal language of all
Western Christendom, the official language of the Roman Church and of
diplomatic intercourse, the language of the most celebrated code of
laws, the only language of learning, mastery of this language was the
first and indispensable condition for a career in Church and State, and
for every participation in the higher intellectual life.” However, when
speaking of the great stress laid on Latin in the Jesuit schools, the
same author does not hesitate to assert: “A more zealous cultivation
of the mother tongue would have opposed the Romish-international
tendencies of the Order.”[11] Here we must ask: Was not the Latin
language, for Catholics as well as for Protestants, the language of
learning, of diplomatic intercourse, of the most celebrated code
of laws? And was not the mastery of this language, equally for the
Catholics, the indispensable condition for a career in Church and
State, and for every participation in the higher intellectual life?
Consequently, the Jesuits had to insist on this language as well as the
Protestants, and that for the very same reasons. Why, then, impute to
them other motives of rather a suspicious character?
Nor are scholarly works of prominent American writers free from
similar misstatements. Dr. Russell, Dean of Teachers’ College, Columbia
University, writes: “Catholic and Protestant schools alike at the
beginning of the seventeenth century, gave little heed to the substance
of the ancient civilization. Both alike were earnestly devoted to
the study of the Latin language--the Jesuits, because it was the
universal speech of their Order; the Protestants, because it was the
first step towards a knowledge of Holy Writ.”[12] No proof is given
to substantiate the discrimination between Protestants and Catholics.
Latin was, as Dr. Rethwisch affirms, “the universal language of all
Western Christendom,” not only the universal speech of the Order of
Jesuits. Besides, as the Catholics used extensively the Latin Vulgate
of the Bible, the study of Latin was for them much more than for the
Protestants “the first step towards a knowledge of Holy Writ.”
Lack of sympathy is the least unworthy reason assignable for President
Eliot’s grouping of only Jesuits and Moslems as the upholders of
prescribed courses. Have not all European countries prescribed
courses that resemble the system of the Jesuits incomparably more
than President Eliot’s electivism? Germany, for instance, although
it offers various schools: classical (_Gymnasium_), Latin-scientific
(_Real-Gymnasium_), scientific (_Real-Schule_), has within these
schools strictly uniform curricula.[13] And yet American educators do
not hesitate to say that “the organization of the higher school system,
especially in Prussia, is worthy of general imitation;” that “for many
years American educators have drawn professional inspiration from
German sources;” that “the experience of Germany can teach us much, if
we will but learn to consider it aright;” and that “_a uniform course
of study for all schools of a particular grade_, and a common standard
for promotion and graduation, _can be made most serviceable_ in a
national scheme of education.”[14] Why then mention only Jesuits and
Moslems? Considering the esteem in which German schools and scholarship
are held by many, it would evidently have produced little effect to
have said: “Moslems, the Jesuits and the Germans have prescribed
courses.”
Many writers on education have been misled in their estimate of the
Jesuit system by blindly accepting and uncritically repeating the
censures of a few authors who, deservedly or not, have acquired a
reputation as pedagogical writers. Thus Quick, in numerous passages
of his _Educational Reformers_, pays a high tribute to the Jesuit
system. In a few places, especially in one paragraph, he finds fault
with it. In some American works[15] we find this one paragraph quoted
as Quick’s judgment on the Jesuit system, and not a word is said of
his hearty approbation of most points of that system. It is also most
unfortunate that American teachers and writers on education place so
much confidence in the productions of M. Compayré, especially his
_History of Pedagogy_. For many reasons this work must be called a most
unreliable source of information.[16] In the chapter on the Jesuits
in particular, there are not many sentences which do not contain some
misstatement. Whereas nearly all writers, even those most hostile to
the Society, acknowledge at least a few good points in its educational
system, Compayré cannot admit therein a single redeeming feature. The
Jesuits are blamed alike in their failures and in their successes. It
is sad to think that from such untrustworthy sources American teachers
largely derive their information about the educational labors of
the Jesuits and of Catholics in general. Can we wonder that so many
prejudices prevail against Jesuit education, of which many know only an
ugly caricature?
Indeed, lack of sufficient knowledge is at the root of most censures
of the educational principles and methods of the Society. In nearly
every case of adverse criticism, it is apparent that a scholarly
examination of the official documents has been dispensed with, and
that the oft-refuted calumnies of virulent partisan pamphlets have
simply been repeated. Or have the assailants of the educational system
of the Jesuits carefully studied the original sources: the _Fourth
Part of the Constitutions_, the _Ratio Studiorum_, and the numerous
other documents of the Society, treating of its educational system? Or
have they themselves studied in Jesuit colleges? Have their children,
relatives or friends been Jesuit pupils? Have they been sufficiently
acquainted with Jesuit teachers? If not, is it fair and conscientious
criticism to condemn a system about which they possess no reliable
information whatever? If now-a-days one writes on the philosophy of
India, on the doctrine of Zoroaster, or on the education of the Greeks
and Romans, he adorns his books with an elaborate scientific apparatus.
He studies the original languages or consults the best translations
and commentaries, and spares no pains to let the reader know that he
has drawn from trustworthy sources. How much more care should be taken
if, not philosophic systems or nations of a far-off past, but a living
institution is concerned? No matter how much opposed it may be to the
critic’s views, fair treatment and justice should never be denied, even
if all sympathy is withheld. But a few years ago a Protestant writer
in Germany, reviewing Father Duhr’s work on the educational system of
the Society, recommended the work most earnestly to the Protestant
educators; for, as he said, “even our scholarly works on education
betray a shocking ignorance in regard to everything pertaining to the
Jesuits.”[17] It is needless to say that this remark has an application
for America and England.
The study of this system cannot be without interest to those who devote
themselves to educating youth. During the two centuries preceding the
suppression of the Order, this system exerted a world-wide influence
on hundreds of thousands of pupils, and, although in a lesser degree,
does so at present.[18] In 1901 the Jesuits imparted a higher education
to more than fifty-two thousand youths, of which number seven thousand
two hundred belong to this country. The educational work of the Jesuits
produced most brilliant results in former centuries and received most
flattering commendations from Protestant scholars and rulers, and from
atheistic philosophers.
However, the study of the Ratio Studiorum is not only of historical
interest. Protestant writers admit that a close examination of the
Jesuit system may teach the educators of our age many valuable lessons.
According to Quick “it _is_ a system, a system built up by the united
efforts of many astute intellects and showing marvellous skill in
selecting means to attain a clearly conceived end. There is then in
the history of education little that should be more interesting or
might be more instructive to the master of an English public school
than the chapter about the Jesuits.”[19] Davidson, in spite of some
severe strictures, is not less convinced of the advantages which may be
derived from the study of Jesuit education: “While it is impossible for
lovers of truth and freedom to have any sympathy with either the aim or
matter of Jesuit education, there is one point connected with it that
well deserves our most serious consideration, and that is its success.
This was due to three causes, _first_, to the single-minded devotion
of the members of the Society; _second_, to their clear insight into
the needs of their times; _third_, to the completeness with which they
systematized their entire course, in view of a simple, well-defined
aim. In all these matters we can well afford to imitate them. Indeed,
the education of the present day demands just the three conditions
which they realize.”[20]
For many the study of one of the old systems may be the greatest
novelty. So much is said now-a-days about the new pedagogy and modern
psychology, that it might appear as if the past had been utterly
ignorant of the true nature of the child and of the rational methods of
education. Still the writer hopes to establish that, what the ablest
educators, even of our own age, have pronounced _essential_ for the
training of the young, is contained in the educational system of the
Jesuits. It is not claimed that this system is perfect. No educational
system can be found which, both in plan and execution, is without
defects. The Society of Jesus has never denied the possibility and
necessity of improvements in its educational system; nor has it ever
claimed that the Ratio Studiorum, in every detail was to be applied to
all countries and to all ages. Changes were made in the course of time;
and in many passages of the Ratio Studiorum it is expressly stated
that the Superiors are empowered to make these changes, according to
the demands of time and place. Thus the teaching of the Jesuits varies
considerably in different countries, without necessitating any change
in the Order’s legislation on education.
A biographer of the founder of the Society says with reference to
the educational system of the Order: “_It is a plan which admits of
every legitimate progress and perfection_, and what Ignatius said of
the Society in general, may be applied to its system of studies in
particular, namely, that it _ought to suit itself to the times and
comply with them_, and not make the times suit themselves to it.”[21]
The advice of St. Ignatius is undoubtedly of vital importance to the
Order, if now and in future it wants to do the work for which it
was instituted. In fact, the versatility of the Jesuits has become
proverbial and a reproach to the Order; they are said to be so shrewd
and cunning that, among those hostile to the Order, the very word
“Jesuit” has come to mean the incarnation of craft and subtlety. Is
it probable that the Jesuits on a sudden have utterly forgotten the
all-important injunction of their founder? Is it probable that they
who are said to be most ambitious and most anxious of success, have
so little suited themselves to the times, as to leave their method of
teaching unchanged for centuries? Is it possible that the men who,
as Davidson says, had such “a clear insight into the needs of their
times” do not adapt their system to the needs of our age? Or is their
system not capable of being suited to modern times? This indeed is
the favorite objection raised now-a-days. “The Ratio Studiorum is
antiquated and difficult to reform.... For nearly three centuries
they [the Jesuits] were the best schoolmasters of Europe; they
revolutionized instruction as completely as Frederick the Great modern
warfare, and have thus acted, whether they meant it or not, as pioneers
of human progress.... Whatever may have been the service of the Jesuits
in past times, we have little to hope for them in the improvement of
education at present. Governments have, on the whole, acted wisely by
checking and suppressing their colleges.”[22] At any rate, the study
of a system which for “centuries furnished the best schoolmasters of
Europe and completely revolutionized instruction”, must be interesting
for the student of the history of education. For this reason we first
present the history, or the development, of this system. In the second
part we shall explain its principles, its theory and practice, with
special reference to modern educational views.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] New York _Sun_, March 3, 1901.--However, at the last Commencement,
President Hadley of Yale declared that a careful inquiry made among
the masters of the secondary schools had furnished abundant evidence
decidedly unfavorable to this change, and he allowed it to be
understood that Greek would be required at Yale for a good while to
come. The _Yale Alumni Weekly_, July 31st, 1902, pp. 430-32.
[2] _Educational Review_, 1894, p. 62.
[3] _Ib._, p. 25.
[4] _Ib._, p. 485.
[5] See Dr. Dittes, in _Report of the Commissioner of Education_,
1894-95, vol. I, p. 332.--From different sides complaints are heard
that many educationists of to-day are conspicuous for their contempt
of all that was venerated formerly. Dr. Matthias of Berlin, one of the
most distinguished schoolmen of Germany, wrote recently: “Men of sound
judgment point with alarm to a sort of pedagogical pride and arrogance
of the younger teachers, which was unknown to the older generation.”
_Monatschrift für höhere Schulen_, January 1902, p. 9.--Similarly
Professor Willmann of the University of Prague: “A morbid hunting
after novelties and a haughty contempt of all traditions are the
characteristics of the modern educational agitation.” In _Vigilate_, I,
p. 31.
[6] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1900.
[7] The paper was printed in the _Atlantic Monthly_, October 1899.
[8] Professor Ramsay in _The Church in the Roman Empire before A. D.
170_. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893, p. VIII.
[9] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen
Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur
Gegenwart_, p. 239. (2. ed. vol. I, p. 352.)
[10] _Deutschlands höheres Schulwesen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert_, von
Professor Dr. Conrad Rethwisch. Berlin, 1893, p. 12.
[11] _Ib._, p. 2. There it is also stated that “the greatest Greek
authors were all excluded from the Jesuit schools, and that the mother
tongue and its literature received some attention for the first time
in the Revised Ratio of 1832.” How utterly false these assertions are
will appear from later chapters of this book. Suffice it to state here
that among the Greek authors studied in Jesuit schools were Homer,
Sophocles, Euripides, Demosthenes, etc. See below chapter XIII, § 1,
4-5. On the study of the mother tongue see chapter IV.
[12] _German Higher Schools_, New York, 1899, p. 50.
[13] It is only since 1901 that, in the three middle classes of the
Gymnasium, English may be taken as an alternative for Greek; in the
three highest classes Greek remains obligatory. Besides in these three
classes English or French may be taken (just as in many Jesuit Colleges
in this country French or German is obligatory).
[14] Dr. Russell, _l. c._, pp. V, 409, 422. (Italics are ours.)--See
also _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1888-1889, Vol. I,
pp. 32-74, especially pp. 70 foll. where it is stated that “the
superiority of German public schools over those of other nations has
been acknowledged repeatedly.” In another place of the same Report
(1891-92), Vol. I, p. 140, the words of Dr. Joynes of the University
of S. C. are quoted: “Germany has now become the schoolmistress of the
world.”
[15] So in the histories of education by Painter and Seeley.--I wish
to state here that of all American text-books on the history of
education the latest, the _History of Education_, by Professor Kemp,
(Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1902) is the most impartial. The chapter on
the Jesuits (XVIII.) is singularly free from the misrepresentations
which are so numerous in other text-books. In one point, however,
regarding “emulation,” the author is mistaken. See below, ch. XVI, § 4.
[16] Br. Azarias calls this work a “condensation of all virulence
and hatred against everything Catholic, but ill concealed beneath a
tone of philosophic moderation.” _American Ecclesiastical Review_,
1890, p. 80. foll.--Another critic said recently of M. Compayré:
“He misquotes and suppresses, blinded, I suppose, by a bad form of
Anti-Jesuit disease. You can certainly learn from his book the fury of
that malady. In France, one may fairly say, M. Compayré is recognized
as meaning to attack the beliefs of Christian pupils, and as ranging
himself essentially on the side of those who wish ‘to eliminate the
hypothesis of God’ from the education of children.” (This opinion was
expressed in a resolution of five hundred teachers in a meeting at
Bordeaux in 1901.) Mr. Stockley, of the University of New Brunswick, in
the _American Ecclesiastical Review_, July 1902, p. 44.--See also the
criticism of Father Poland, S. J., in the _American Catholic Quarterly
Review_, January 1902.
[17] _Central-Organ für die Interessen des Realschulwesens_, Berlin.
[18] Quick prefers to speak of the Jesuit schools as “things of the
past.” Compayré thinks otherwise: “They are more powerful than is
believed; and it would be an error to think that the last word is
spoken with them.” Quick, _Educ. Ref._, p. 35, note 2.
[19] _Educational Reformers_, p. 59.
[20] _A History of Education_ (New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1900), p. 187.
[21] Genelli, _Life of St. Ignatius_, part II, ch. VII.
[22] Oscar Browning in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article:
“_Education_”.
PART FIRST.
History of the Educational System of the Society of Jesus.
CHAPTER II.
Education before the Foundation of the Society of Jesus.
The following remarkable passage is taken from the work of one who
cannot be charged with partiality to the Jesuits,--I mean Frederick
Paulsen, a professor of the University of Berlin, the author of the
great “History of Higher Education.”[23] In this work, after having
described the marvellous success which the Jesuits achieved in the
sixteenth century, the author asks: “What was the secret source of the
power of these men? Was it that they were ‘men filled with wickedness’,
as Raumer styles them? Or was it that they were more cunning, more
unscrupulous than the rest? No, this would ascribe to lying and deceit
more than it can do.... There is in the activity of the Order something
of the quiet, yet irresistible, manner of working which we find in
the forces of nature. Certainty and superiority characterize every
movement.... Whence does the Order derive this power? I think it can
arise only from a great idea, not from base and selfish desires. Now
the root idea which animated all the members of this Society, and
which inspired them with enthusiasm, was that their Order was the
chosen instrument for saving the Church; that they were the knights,
the champions, of the ruler of the Church, ready, if God should so
will it, to fall as first victims in the great battle against a
heathen and heretical world.... Lasting results cannot be achieved by
an idea unless it is embodied in some external system. The system of
the Society of Jesus, from the fundamental principles to the minutest
details of discipline, is admirably fitted and adapted to its ends.
The greatest possible power of the individual is preserved without
derangement of the organism of the Order; spontaneous activity and
perfect submission of the will, contrasts almost irreconcilable, seem
to have been harmoniously united in a higher degree by the Society than
by any other body.”
These remarks of the Berlin Professor were made with special reference
to the educational system of the Society, as laid down in the Ratio
Studiorum. Years before another German Protestant had spoken similarly
on the same subject. Ranke, in his _History of the Popes_, admits that
the Jesuits were very successful in the education of youth, but he
claims that this success can scarcely be credited to their learning or
their piety, but rather to the exactness and nicety of their methods.
He finds in their system a combination of learning with untiring zeal,
of exterior pomp with strict asceticism, of unity of aim with unity of
government, such as the world has never witnessed before or since.
Now-a-days a great interest is taken in the historical aspects of
educational systems. The first question, then, which presents itself
is: From what sources did the Jesuits derive the principles and methods
by which they were enabled to obtain such success? It is evident
that the Jesuit system was not altogether the original work of a few
clever men who produced a system with methods previously unheard of;
their Ratio Studiorum was, to a great extent, a prudent adaptation and
development of methods which had existed before the foundation of the
Order. It has frequently been maintained that all, or at least much, of
what is good in the Ratio Studiorum, was drawn from the famous _Plan of
Studies_ of John Sturm, the zealous Protestant reformer and schoolman
of Strasburg. Dr. Russell is convinced of this fact, when he writes:
“Sturm could have received no greater compliment than was paid him by
the Society of Jesus in incorporating so many of his methods into the
new Catholic schools.”[24] Indeed, Sturm himself expressed in 1565 the
suspicion that the Jesuits had drawn from his sources.[25] As we shall
see in the next chapters, both Sturm and Ignatius of Loyola drew, in
all likelihood, from the same sources, namely, the traditions of the
great University of Paris and the humanistic schools of the Netherlands.
It is a very common error to argue: _post hoc, ergo propter hoc_.
Anything good found after the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth
century, is by many writers directly ascribed to its influence. Thus it
is said that, after the Protestants had awakened a zeal for learning,
the Jesuits determined to avail themselves of this zeal in the interest
of the Catholic Church, and to combat the Reformation with its own
weapon.[26] To the same purpose Dr. Russell writes: “The Jesuits in
employing schools to check the growth of heresy and to win back to
the Church apostate Germany, merely borrowed the devil’s artillery
to fight the devil with. And they used it to good effect.”[27] Two
serious errors are at the root of such statements: First, it is taken
for granted that the Society of Jesus was instituted directly against
Protestantism, and that it used schools and learning only to counteract
this movement. In the next chapter we shall prove that this view of
the Society is entirely unhistorical. The second error underlying this
view is the implicit belief that, before the Protestant Reformation,
education was at a very low ebb, and that there existed little, if any,
zeal for learning. In order to understand the rise and progress of the
educational system of the Jesuits and its dependence on other schools,
it will be necessary to sketch the status of education in Western
Christendom before the foundation of the Society of Jesus. This sketch
must be very imperfect and fragmentary in a work like the present.
Besides, there exists as yet no history of education in the Middle
Ages which can be considered as satisfactory, although some valuable
monographs on the subject have appeared within the past few years.[28]
§ 1. Schools at the Close of the Middle Ages.
The intellectual darkness of the Middle Ages has been long a favorite
theme for popular writing. Many have had the fixed notion that the
Church, afraid of progress, ever set her face against the enlightenment
of the people, but that at length her opposition was beaten down by the
craving for knowledge aroused by the principles of the Reformation,
and that, in consequence of the break with Rome, various schools at
once arose in Protestant countries. Such popular declamations have
been disavowed by all honest Protestant historians.[29] They admit
that, what may be called the darkness of these centuries, was owing to
the political and social conditions of the nations after the Northern
barbarians had nearly annihilated ancient civilization, but not to any
hostility of the Church against learning and education. “The grossest
ignorance of the Dark Ages,” says an English historian, “was not due
to the strength of the ecclesiastical system, but to its weakness.
The improvement of education formed a prominent object with every
zealous churchman and every ecclesiastical reformer from the days of
Gregory the Great to the days when the darkness passed away under the
influence of the ecclesiastical revival of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries.”[30]
In another passage of his great work the same author says of education
before the Reformation: “It may be stated with some confidence that,
at least in the later middle age, the smallest towns and even the
larger villages possessed schools where a boy might learn to read and
to acquire the first rudiments of ecclesiastical Latin, while, except
in very remote and thinly populated regions, he would never have to
go far to find a regular grammar school. That the means of reading,
writing and the elements of Latin were far more widely diffused than
has sometimes been supposed, is coming to be generally recognized by
students of medieval life.”[31]
It is now not only acknowledged that much was done for the education
of the people, but also that all education during the Middle Ages
proceeded from the Church.[32] Nothing but prejudice or ignorance
of the past can raise any doubts about the merits of the Church
in the field of education. We cannot narrate what the Church has
done to advance popular education in the earlier Middle Ages.
Numerous councils,--for instance, those of Orange in France (529),
Constantinople (680), Aix-la-Chapelle (802),[33] Mentz (813), Rome (826
and 1179),--exhorted the clergy to instruct the children, “without
accepting anything beyond a compensation the parents should offer
freely,” as Bishop Arbyton of Basle (died in 821) writes. From the
twelfth century on the number of schools increased considerably.[34]
Much more evidence is available about the schools of the closing
Middle Ages. A great deal of it is published in the well-known _History
of the German People_ by Janssen.[35] Although compulsory education was
unknown, we learn from many records, preserved in towns and villages,
that the schools were well attended. In the little town of Wesel there
were, in 1444, five teachers employed to instruct the children in
reading, writing, arithmetic, and choir-singing. In the district of the
Middle Rhine, in the year 1500, there were whole stretches of country
where a “people’s school” was to be found within a circuit of every
six miles. Small parishes even of five or six hundred souls were not
without their village schools.[36] The Protestant historian Palacky
stated that, while examining documents in the archives of Bohemia, he
took note of all the teachers whose names he happened to come across,
and found that about the year 1400 the diocese of Prague must have had
at least 640 schools. Taking this for the average, the 63 dioceses then
existing in Germany would have possessed the respectable number of over
40,000 elementary or primary schools.[37]
This conjecture may not be very accurate, but the evidence furnished
by contemporary documents at least goes a great way to show that
the number of schools was very large. The latter part of the Middle
Ages was the time in which the burning zeal for learning led to the
invention of the art of printing, and this art in turn still further
increased the desire to learn and facilitated the work of education.
In a pamphlet printed in Mentz, in 1498, it was said: “Everybody now
wants to read and to write.” In the light of such facts, who does not
see the absurdity of the assertion of Compayré and other writers that
the primary school, whether Catholic or Protestant, is the child of
the Reformation?[38] Towards the end of the fifteenth century good
and respectable parents, at least in Germany, began to consider it
their duty to let their children acquire an education. This interest
in education naturally led to the establishment of many new schools.
Complaints are even made in some cities that too many schools are
opened. The facts given so far prove also that it is not correct to say
that the German “people’s school” did not assume the shape of a school
for the masses until the Reformation,[39] or that medieval culture was
but for the few, and that it was Luther who brought the schoolmaster
into the cottage.[40] Otherwise who frequented the numerous schools in
towns and villages, where “everybody wanted to read and to write”?
What is now called “secondary education” was not as strictly
distinguished from elementary and university training as it is
now-a-days. From very early times higher education was cared for
in numerous schools connected with monasteries and cathedrals. The
merits of the Order of St. Benedict in preserving the treasures of
classical literature are universally acknowledged. Its monks were not
only the great clearers of land in Europe, at once missionaries and
laborers, but also the teachers of the nations rising from barbarism to
civilization.
Benedictine monasticism gave the world almost its only houses of
learning and education, and constituted by far the most powerful
civilizing agency in Europe, until it was superseded as an educational
instrument by the growth of the universities. The period that
intervenes between the time of Charlemagne and the eleventh century
has been well styled the Benedictine age. And before that period the
numerous monastic schools of Ireland had been frequented by so many
holy and learned men as justly to win for that country the title of
_Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum_, the Island of Saints and Scholars.[41]
In general, careful historical research by modern scholars presents a
picture of the medieval monks quite different from that given by the
author of Ivanhoe and by other imaginative “mis-describers”, according
to whom the monk was, if not a hypocritical debauchee, at the least a
very ignorant and very indolent person.
We have to sketch chiefly the condition of education at the close of
the Middle Ages. It is scarcely necessary to speak of Italy which, in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was the intellectual centre
of Europe and at that time exhibited a literary activity such as
no other period of history has ever witnessed. For it was in Italy
that the _renaissance_ began. This mighty movement, which marks the
transition of the Middle Ages to modern times, effected a revolution
in literature, science, art, life and education. From Italy it swept
on over Europe and caused similar changes everywhere. What is called
the classical education is the immediate outcome of the Italian
Renaissance. During the first half of the fifteenth century there lived
in Northern Italy one of the ablest and most amiable educators in the
history of all ages: Vittorino da Feltre.[42] He modified considerably
the medieval school system of the _Trivium_ and _Quadrivium_. Although
the classics, carefully selected, formed the groundwork of his course,
other branches, as mathematics and philosophy, were not neglected. Due
attention was devoted to the physical development of the pupils, and
riding, fencing, and other gymnastic exercises were greatly encouraged.
Vittorino lived among his pupils like a father in his family, revered
and beloved. Poor scholars were not only instructed, but also fed,
lodged, and clothed gratuitously. The secret of his wonderful influence
lay in his lofty moral principles and his deeply religious spirit. In
his calling he recognized a noble mission to which he devoted himself
zealously and exclusively, without seeking anything for himself. His
contemporaries called him the “Saintly Master”. His virginal purity
charmed all who came into contact with him. Although not a priest, he
daily recited the Divine office, frequently approached the sacraments
and accustomed his pupils to receive holy communion monthly and to
hear mass daily. This great educator’s fame spread far and wide,
and eager youths flocked to him even from France, Germany and other
countries. Many customs and practices found in humanistic schools north
of the Alps may have been copied from Vittorino’s famous school. It is
certain that his influence was felt in England, for one of his pupils,
Antonio Beccaria, was secretary and “translator” of Duke Humphrey of
Gloucester, the first patron of the new learning in England,[43] and
the celebrated school of Winchester, founded by Bishop Langdon, was, in
all probability, modeled after that of Vittorino.[44]
It is almost superfluous to mention the keen interest in learning
manifested by the Italian ecclesiastics of this period. They raised
to the papacy the book-lover and enthusiastic student, Parentucelli;
and he, as Nicholas V. (1447-1455), placed himself at the head of
the great movement of the renaissance, and won immortal renown by
founding the Vatican Library, where the glorious monuments of Greek
and Roman intellect were collected under the protection of the Holy
See. The second successor of Nicholas V. was Aeneas Sylvius (Pius
II.), famous as a humanist scholar and author. But it is impossible
here to enumerate all the ardent promoters of learning among the
popes, cardinals and other church dignitaries of this time. So large
a part of a churchman’s life did learning occupy in Italy, that
no prelate considered his household complete without a retinue of
scholars.[45]--We cannot here trace the gradual spread of this mighty
movement into other countries, but must confine ourselves to the bare
mention of a few facts regarding the educational conditions.
What has often been said respecting the ignorance prevailing in
Scotland before the Reformation, has been repudiated by the researches
of Protestant historians, such as Burton, Lawson, Edgar, and others. It
has been proved that this country, throughout the latter part of the
Middle Ages, possessed an abundance of educational facilities. We find
here even an interesting example of _compulsory higher education_. At
the instance of the clergy, in 1470, an act of parliament was passed
providing that all barons and freeholders should, under penalty of
twenty pounds, send their sons at the age of nine or ten years to the
schools, to remain there until they had acquired a competent knowledge
of Latin. They were then to attend the schools of art and law.[46]
As regards secondary schools in England, it used to be commonly
asserted that Edward VI., the first monarch of the Reformed Faith, was
the great founder and reformer.[47] Upwards of thirty free grammar
schools founded at this time have permanently associated the reign of
Edward VI. with popular education. The Schools Inquiring Commission
in 1886 went further, and set down fifty-one schools to the credit
of Edward. Modern historical research has broken, stick by stick,
the whole bundle of old misrepresentations. “The fact is that the
whole theory about the dearth of grammar schools and other schools
still more elementary is a mere delusion. The immense prestige that
Edward VI. has acquired as a patron of education is simply due to the
fact that he refounded out of confiscated Church property some small
percentage of schools which he and his rapacious father had destroyed.
The probability is that England was far better provided with grammar
schools before the Reformation than it has ever been since.”[48]
This startling statement has been confirmed by a careful study of
the records of the time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., from which it
is clear that at least two hundred grammar schools must have been in
existence before Edward came to the throne. Mr. Leach raises the number
by the addition of another hundred, and says that three hundred is a
moderate estimate for the year 1535;[49] and this number is exclusive
of elementary schools and universities. It will suffice to mention a
few names of famous schools: Canterbury, Lincoln, Wells, York, Beverly,
Chester, Southwell, Winchester, Eton, the school of Dean Colet in
London, and the numerous schools attached to the monasteries. In regard
to the great number of foundation schools established just after the
Reformation, Professor Thorold Rogers maintains that it was not a new
zeal for learning, but a very inadequate supply of that which had been
so suddenly and disastrously destroyed.[50]
During the period immediately preceding the Reformation, England
possessed a great number of distinguished scholars, most of whom were
ecclesiastics. The revival of letters was heartily welcomed by the
clergy. The chief ecclesiastics of the day, as Wolsey, Warham, Fisher,
Tunstall, Langton, Stokesley, Fox, Selling, Grocyn, Whitford, Linacre,
Colet, Pace, William Latimer, and numerous others, were not only ardent
humanists, but thorough and practical churchmen.[51]
Similar conditions existed on the European continent. The Latin City
Schools towards the close of the Middle Ages were numerous throughout
Germany.[52] About this time, the intellectual condition of the
people in Germany, the Netherlands and France was most beneficially
influenced by the “Brethren of the Common Life”. Founded by Gerard
Groot of Deventer, this fraternity at first was employed in the
transcription of books, all profane studies being prohibited. They
were supposed to restrict themselves exclusively to the reading of the
Scriptures and the Fathers, not wasting their time over “such vanities
as geometry, arithmetic, rhetoric, logic, grammar, lyric poetry, and
judicial astrology.”[53] These principles were extreme, and it is some
consolation to find that the founder admitted the “wiser of the Gentile
philosophers,” such as Plato, Aristotle, and Seneca. In 1393, a little
scholar, Thomas Hammerken of Kempen, Rhineland, entered the school
of Deventer; he was no other than the famous Thomas a Kempis, most
probably the author of the _Following of Christ_.
Shortly after the death of Gerard Groot (1384), the labors of
the Brethren were made to embrace a wider sphere, and especially
to include the education of youth. The prohibition against profane
learning disappeared, Deventer became a most celebrated institution,
and numerous schools were founded all over Flanders, France and
Northern Germany. The settlements of the Brethren spread gradually
along the Rhine as far as Suabia, and by the end of the fifteenth
century they reached from the Scheldt to the Vistula, from Cambrai,
through the whole of Northern Germany, to Culm in Prussia. In these
schools, Christian education was placed high above mere learning, and
the training of the young in practical religion and active piety was
considered the most important duty. The whole system of instruction
was permeated by a Christian spirit; the pupils learned to look upon
religion as the basis of all human existence and culture, while at the
same time they had a good supply of secular knowledge imparted to them,
and they gained a genuine love for learning and study.[54] The Brethren
had been established by John Standonch, doctor of the Sorbonne, in the
_Collège de Montaigue_ in the University of Paris.[55] The founder of
the Society of Jesus studied in this college, and some suppose that the
rules of the Poor Clerks, as they were often called, furnished Ignatius
some ideas for his rules.[56] This much is certain, that Ignatius
had imbibed the spirit of those Brethren from the study of the works
of Thomas a Kempis. It is related that at the time when he wrote the
Constitutions of his Order, he had no other books in his room except
the New Testament and the Following of Christ.
Youth eager for knowledge flocked from all parts to the schools of the
Brethren. The number of scholars at Zwolle often rose to eight hundred
or ten hundred; at Alkmaar to nine hundred; at Herzogenbusch to twelve
hundred; and at Deventer, in the year 1500, actually to twenty-two
hundred. Other celebrated Schools were at Liège and Louvain. The
instruction being free in all these schools, they were open to students
of the smallest means. In many of the towns also, where they had not
started actual schools, the Brethren supplied teachers for the town
schools, not unfrequently paid the expenses of the poorer scholars and
supplied them with books, stationery and other school materials. In
1431 Pope Eugene sent orders to the bishops that they should prevent
any interference with the beneficial work of these zealous educators.
Pius II. and Sixtus IV. went even further in their support and
encouragement. One of their most active patrons was Cardinal Nicholas
of Cusa, renowned as a mathematician and the precursor of Copernicus.
Nicholas himself had been educated at Deventer, and had given this
school material support by a liberal endowment for the maintenance of
twenty poor students.[57]
The schools of the Brethren had been among the first of those north of
the Alps which introduced the revived study of classical literature.
It was in these schools that Rudolphus Agricola, Alexander Hegius,
Rudolph von Langen and Ludwig Dringenberg studied the revivers of the
classical studies on German soil,--the fathers of the older German
humanism.[58] Hegius, one of the greatest scholars of the century, was
rector of the schools at Wesel, Emmerich and Deventer. Erasmus, a pupil
of Deventer, ranks him among the restorers of pure Latin scholarship.
Hegius enjoys the undisputed credit of having purged and simplified the
school curriculum, improved the method of teaching, corrected the old
text-books or replaced them by better ones. He also made the classics
the staple of instruction of youth.[59] Together with Agricola, Erasmus
and Reuchlin, he was foremost in propagating enthusiasm for Greek in
Germany. Hegius emphasized the necessity of a knowledge of Greek for
all sciences:
_Qui Graece nescit, nescit quoque doctus haberi.
In summa: Grajis debentur singula doctis._[60]
In Alsace flourished the school of Schlettstadt, more important even
than those on the Lower Rhine. It was one of the first of the German
schools in which the history of the Fatherland was zealously studied
side by side with the classics. Among its most distinguished pupils
were Johannes von Dalberg, Geiler von Kaisersberg and Wimpheling.
Dalberg was bishop of Worms and curator of the Heidelberg University,
a liberal patron of all learned men, especially of Reuchlin, the
great Greek and Hebrew scholar. This noble bishop was also the leader
and director of the “Rhenish Literary Society,” founded in 1491, to
which belonged a host of learned men,--theologians, lawyers, doctors,
philosophers, mathematicians, linguists, historians and poets, from the
Rhinelands and the Middle and Southwest of Germany. The object of this
society, as of many similar ones existing at that time in Germany, was
the encouragement and spread of science and the fine arts generally,
and of classical learning in particular, as also the furthering of
national historical research.[61]
Another great pupil of Schlettstadt was Geiler von Kaisersberg
(died 1510), the Cathedral preacher of Strasburg, great not only
as theologian and pulpit orator, but also as an ardent promoter of
humanistic studies, a friend of the learned Benedictine Johannes
Trithemius and of Gabriel Biel of Tübingen, and the leading spirit of a
circle of highly gifted men on the Upper Rhine. The third great scholar
of Schlettstadt was Wimpheling, called the “Teacher of Germany.”
As Hegius was the greatest German schoolmaster of his century, so
Wimpheling was the most distinguished writer on matters educational,
one of the most famous restorers of an enlightened system of education
from a Christian point of view. In one of his writings, the _Guide
for German Youth_, (1497), he forcefully points out the defects of
the earlier system of education and lays down some golden rules for
improvements, especially for mastering the ancient languages. It is the
first work published on rational pedagogy and methodics in Germany, a
truly national work. According to Wimpheling and other schoolmen of
this time, the study of Latin and Greek should not be confined to the
learning of the languages, but should be the means of strengthening and
disciplining thought, true gymnastics of independent judgment.[62]
There are many names of great educators and scholars of this time which
deserve at least to be mentioned: Pirkheimer in Nuremberg, Cochlaeus,
professor of classics and director of the school of poetry in the same
city, Murmellius, co-rector of the Cathedral school in Münster, Count
Moritz von Spiegelberg, provost at Emmerich.
But we must leave this interesting subject, however reluctantly, and
refer the reader to Janssen’s first volume. From contemporary sources
this author has drawn the following conclusions: “Outside the Mark
of Brandenburg, there was scarcely a single large town in Germany in
which, at the end of the fifteenth century, in addition to the already
existing elementary national schools, new schools of higher grade were
not built or old ones improved.”[63] The control of these schools was
in the hands of the Church, and most of the masters were clerics.
School rates were unknown. The schools were kept up by frequent
legacies; for the education of the young was counted among the works
of mercy, to which money was liberally given in loyal obedience to the
Church’s doctrine of good works. Libraries were also founded in the
same spirit.[64]
All over Europe we find, therefore, a great, yea enthusiastic,
activity in the field of learning and education. The foremost promoters
and patrons of this intellectual movement are everywhere ecclesiastics.
This fact is so patent that an impartial American scholar wrote quite
recently: “The patronage of learning which has always been one of
the proudest boasts of the Catholic Church existed especially in the
Renaissance, when a genuine love for it on the part of churchmen atoned
for many other shortcomings. The higher clergy, moreover, were mostly
university men whose scholarly interests had been awakened early in
life, and who later were placed in a position to show their gratitude.
A zeal for learning and the patronage of scholars became almost an
affectation on the part of the higher clergy.... In all ranks of the
Church an interest in the new learning was shown, even by those who
were to leave the Roman faith, but who in their zeal for letters
continued former traditions.”[65]
It may be said, in general, that nowadays all scholarly and
fair-minded Protestants, on the strength of incontestable historical
evidence, repudiate the traditional views of the pre-Reformation
period. Professor Hartfelder of Heidelberg unhesitatingly affirms that
“from 1500-1520 Roman Catholic Europe presented the aspect of one large
learned community.”[66] Numerous similar statements can be quoted, but
we must refer the reader to special works on this subject.[67] In the
face of such undeniable facts it is unintelligible how certain writers
can describe the close of the Middle Ages as an age of intellectual
stagnation and degeneracy, or how Mr. Painter can say that shortly
before the Reformation learning had died out among the clergy, the
schools were neglected, superstition and ignorance characterized the
masses.[68] Is not the ignorance rather on the part of the so-called
historians who make such sweeping indictments?
The greatest and most glorious achievement of the medieval Church in
the intellectual sphere are the universities. These institutions have
been bequeathed to us by the Middle Ages, and they are of greater and
more imperishable value even than its cathedrals.[69] The universities
were, to a great extent, ecclesiastical institutions,[70] they were,
at least, endowed with privileges from the Holy See. They were meant
to be the highest schools not only of secular, but also of religious
learning, and stood under the jurisdiction of the Church, as well as
under her special protection.[71] It was through the privileges of
the Church that the universities were raised from merely local into
ecumenical organizations. The doctorate became an order of intellectual
nobility, with as distinct and definite a place in the hierarchical
system of medieval Christendom, as the priesthood and the knighthood.
In fact the _Sacerdotium_, _Imperium_, and _Studium_ are the three
great forces which energized those times and built up and maintained
the mighty fabric of medieval Christendom. The University of Paris, the
first school of the Church, with its four Nations, possessed something
of the international character of the Church.[72] “It may with truth
be said that in the history of human things there is to be found no
grander conception than that of the Church in the fifteenth century,
when it resolved, in the shape of the universities, to cast the light
of knowledge abroad over the Christian world.”[73] These are the
testimonies of Protestant historians.
As the Benedictines in the earlier ages had been the most zealous
educators, so, from the twelfth century on, the _friars_ or
_mendicants_ took the most prominent part in university education. The
greatest professors in philosophy and theology were friars; to the
order of St. Francis belonged Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure,
Roger Bacon, and Duns Scotus. The last mentioned was one of the
profoundest and most original thinkers that the world has ever seen,
and deservedly was styled the _Doctor subtilis_. Blessed Albertus
Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas, “the Angelic Doctor and Prince of the
Schools,” were Dominicans. Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon were far
in advance of their time in the knowledge of mathematics and natural
sciences. Mr. Rashdall compares Roger Bacon with his great namesake,
Francis Bacon, and the comparison is decidedly in favor of the monk.[74]
There existed a considerable number of universities before the year
1400, chief among them were those of Paris, Bologna, Oxford and
Cambridge, Salamanca, Prague, Vienna, Heidelberg, etc. From 1400
to the Reformation many new universities were founded in Western
Christendom.[75] Twenty-six of those founded between 1400 and 1500 are
still existing,[76] among them Würzburg, Leipsic, Munich, Tübingen,
etc., in Germany; St. Andrew’s, Glasgow, Aberdeen in Scotland; Upsala
in Sweden; Copenhagen in Denmark, etc. In Germany alone nine were
founded between 1456 and 1506.[77] But we need not dwell further on
these universities, as any information that is sought can be easily
gathered from the many books that are available on this subject.[78]
The intellectual activity of the universities of the Southern
European countries was nowise inferior to that of Central and Northern
Europe. In Portugal there was the University of Coimbra; in Spain,
there were at least twelve universities before 1500,[79] the chief
among them at Salamanca. Here flourished, shortly before the outbreak
of the Reformation, the famous classical scholar, Peter Martyr, Prior
of the Church of Granada. He and other scholars labored with such
success for the higher education of the nobility, that no Spaniard was
considered noble who showed any indifference to learning. Erasmus also
declares that “the Spaniards had attained such eminence in literature,
that they not only excited the admiration of the most polished nations
of Europe, but served likewise as models for them.”[80] Many belonging
to the first houses of the nobility--once so high and proud--now made
no hesitation to occupy chairs in the universities. Among others Don
Gutierre de Toledo, son of the Duke of Alva and cousin of the King,
lectured at Salamanca. Noble dames likewise vied with illustrious
grandees for the prize of literary pre-eminence; while many even held
chairs in the universities, and gave public lectures on eloquence and
classical learning. Some of the names of these literary ladies have
been preserved: the Marchioness of Monteagudo, Doña Maria Pacheco, and
Queen Isabella’s instructor in Latin, Doña Beatriz de Galindo, and
others.[81] With such a zeal for knowledge the old schools began to
be filled, and the newly endowed Salamanca excelled them all. It was
called the “Spanish Athens”, and was said at one time to have seven
thousand students. It was there that Peter Martyr gave lessons on
Juvenal (1488), before such an immense audience that the entrance to
the hall was completely blocked up and the lecturer had to be carried
in on the shoulders of the students.[82] It should be mentioned to
the credit of Salamanca that her Doctors encouraged the designs of
Columbus, and that the Copernican system found early acceptance in its
lecture rooms.[83]
In the beginning of the sixteenth century other schools for higher
education were established at Toledo, Seville, Granada, Ognate,
Ossuna, and Valencia. But all these schools were far excelled by
the new university of Alcala, founded by Ximenez in 1500. It was so
magnificent an establishment that the Spaniards called it the “eighth
wonder of the world.” The college of San Ildefonso was the head of the
new university. Moreover, Ximenez founded several other institutions,
adapted to all kinds of wants. Most renowned was the “College of
Three Languages” for the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. For poor
young students in the classics, Ximenez endowed two boarding schools,
where forty-two scholars were supported three years free of expense.
The students attended the lectures given by the six professors of
languages, who were attached to the university; at their houses,
however, special exercises were given and disputations held for
fourteen days. Strict examinations were required before any one could
be admitted to a higher class, or to a particular course of lectures on
any science. All the regulations were followed by such great results
that, according to Erasmus, Alcala was especially distinguished by
its able philologists.[84]--The most splendid production of the
philological and biblical activity of this university is the celebrated
Complutensian Polyglot of the Bible. In 1526 Ignatius of Loyola, the
future founder of the Society of Jesus, attended the University of
Alcala; in 1527 we find him in Salamanca.
In connection with Alcala we must mention the greatest school of the
Netherlands, the University of Louvain. Especially distinguished was
its _Collegium Trilingue_, founded in 1516 by Busleiden, the friend of
Erasmus and Thomas More. Busleiden had visited Alcala and wished to
have in Louvain a college like that of the “Three Languages” at Alcala
for the study of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. _The famous universities
of Alcala, Salamanca, Paris, and Louvain furnish the connecting link
between the educational system of the Jesuits and that previous to
the foundation of the Society._ But the great University of Paris was
really the _Alma Mater_ of St. Ignatius of Loyola. There also he won
his first companions, chief among them Peter Faber, and St. Francis
Xavier. In 1529 and 1530 Ignatius visited the Netherlands. During its
infancy several distinguished members of the Order were scholars from
that country, as Peter Canisius, Francis Coster, Peter Busaeus, John
Theodore Macherentius, and others. The traditions of the University
of Paris and of the humanistic schools of the Netherlands undoubtedly
exerted a considerable influence on the Jesuit system of education.
Before narrating the foundation of the Society and the development
of its educational system, it is necessary to speak of two great
movements, the _Renaissance_ and the _Reformation_.
§ 2. Character of Medieval Education. The Renaissance.
Higher education in the Middle Ages followed the course known as the
study of the “Seven Liberal Arts,” divided into the _Trivium_: Grammar,
Rhetoric, and Logic; and the _Quadrivium_: Arithmetic, Music, Geometry,
and Astronomy.[85] If we read that “grammar” was studied for several
years and that many confined their studies to this part of the course,
we ought well to understand the meaning of this term. By grammar was
not meant, as now, the mere study of the rules of a language, its
etymology and syntax, but rather a scholarly acquaintance with the
literature of that language, together with the power of writing and
speaking it.[86] Rabanus Maurus, the greatest pupil of Alcuin and later
on Archbishop of Mentz, defined grammar as “the science of interpreting
poets and historians, as well as the science of the rules of speaking
and writing.” Latin was the principal subject of instruction, the
favorite authors were Virgil and Ovid. Hugo of Trimberg, the master
of a school at Bamberg, about 1250, enumerates the following authors
whom he read with his pupils: Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Persius,
Statius, Homerus Latinus, Boethius, Claudian, Sedulius, Prudentius, and
others.[87] Of prose authors are mentioned: Cicero, Seneca, Sallust,
and others. The study of Greek is met with only very exceptionally
before the Renaissance. Mathematics were taught, but it is difficult to
say to what extent.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries there was a revival of literary
studies, which, however, was soon replaced by another movement,
_scholasticism_. Through the Arabs and the Jews, Western Europe
became acquainted with the entire _Logic of Aristotle_--hitherto
only his _Organon_ was known, and that in the Latin translation of
Boethius,--with his _Dialectics_, _Physics_, _Metaphysics_, and
_Ethics_.[88] Scientific inquiry in the universities began to move
in another direction than heretofore. The methods of Aristotle were
introduced into the schools; henceforth there was a more rigorous
form of reasoning, a dialectic tendency, and a closer adherence to
the syllogism; disputations were very common. A renewed study of the
Fathers of the Church, and a more correct understanding of Aristotle
inaugurated the most brilliant period of scholasticism (1230-1330).[89]
It cannot and need not be denied that the education imparted by the
medieval scholastics was in many regards defective. It was at once too
dogmatic and disputatious.[90] Literary studies were comparatively
neglected; frequently too much importance was attached to purely
dialectical subtleties. This education was one-sided, and a few great
men of the age, as Roger Bacon, the great medieval scientist, and John
of Salisbury, complained that scholasticism was too narrow.[91] The
defects of scholasticism became especially manifest in the course of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when much time and energy was
wasted in discussing useless refinements of thought.
Another serious defect of medieval education was the lack of
philological and historical criticism. This uncritical spirit has been
well pointed out in the International Catholic Scientific Congress at
Munich, 1900, by the distinguished Jesuit historian, Father Grisar.
Speaking of the unwarranted traditions and pious legends that grew up
during the Middle Ages, he says: “The age was really in infancy, so far
as regular historical scientific instinct was concerned. As in other
branches of knowledge, people lived on the good or bad tradition of
former days, just as they had received it.... The scientific work of
the whole epoch was devoted to those branches of knowledge that are
most sublime in their matter and stand in closest relation to religion
and Church. The age produced great and exceedingly acute theologians,
philosophers and canonists, but in these very men the general absence
of the historical sense, and of the criticism of facts, is remarkable.
It never occurs to them to question the heritage of traditions or the
wonderful narratives that spring up. Rather in general they endeavor
to find in their systems a place for the most incongruous statements
without any question as to their foundation in fact.”[92] This lack
of criticism explains the general acceptance of such forgeries as the
“Decretals of Pseudo-Isidorus”, of the “Donation of Constantine”,
and of the works of “Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita”. The knowledge of
antiquity was exceedingly vague and defective. Even such writers as
Vincent of Beauvais, who wrote a cyclopedia of all branches of learning
then known (the _Speculum Majus_), makes the most curious blunders.
Thus Caesar’s _Commentaries_ he ascribes to Julius Celsus; Marcus
Tullius Cicero he confounds with his brother Quintus, in saying that
the great orator was a lieutenant of Caesar. Spurious works abound
in his lists of ancient authors, whilst important works, as Cicero’s
_Epistles_, _De Oratore_, _Brutus_, etc., were unknown to him.[93]
Undoubtedly a reaction was inevitable and, at the same time, needed.
It came in the _Renaissance_, or the _Revival of Learning_. However,
this movement soon went to another extreme, to an enthusiasm for the
ancient authors which was beyond the limits of reason. Thus humanism
became not less one-sided than Scholasticism had been. We shall see
further on that the educational system of the Society is a combination
of humanism and scholasticism. A thorough education in the classics
is followed by a solid course of philosophy, mathematics, and natural
sciences. Thus the shortcomings of both systems are effectively
obviated.
Both terms: “renaissance” and “humanism”, are apt to be misunderstood.
If “humanism” means the true perception of man’s nature and destiny,
or truly humane feelings towards fellow-man and active humanitarian
interest in his welfare, then the Middle Ages knew and practised
humanism. Thus understood it is in no way different from the sublime
principles laid down by the most humane of all teachers, the God-man
Jesus Christ. If, however, it signifies a view of life and mankind
which recognizes nothing but the purely natural man, which finds in the
purely human its highest ideals and rejects the relation to the vision
of a future beyond this life, then it was foreign to the medieval mind,
as it is foreign to Christianity. For the religious, supernatural
element was central in medieval life.[94] If “Revival of Learning”
is meant to imply that the ancient classics were altogether unknown
during the Middle Ages, it is a wrong conception. But should the word
designate a more extensive study, and, above all, a more enthusiastic
interest in classical learning which developed even into excessive
admiration for antiquity, it is correctly applied to the period closing
the Middle Ages.
At the time when scholasticism flourished most, Dante in his grand
poem, which has been styled a “Poetical Summa Theologiae”, represents
the harmonious combination of scholastic and classic learning.[95]
In this immortal work classical antiquity and Christianity go hand
in hand. Virgil is no less his teacher than is Thomas Aquinas, and
his poetry is the beautiful expression of the union between faith
and reason.[96] The whole humanistic movement which began soon after
Dante, was not so much a change of the subject of learning as a change
in the mental attitude towards these subjects.[97] This attitude
assumed different shapes in various schools of humanists. Some of them,
particularly the earlier humanists in Germany, combined enthusiasm for
the classics with faithful allegiance to the Church; others assumed
an attitude of indifference or scepticism towards Christianity;
others again showed open hostility, not only against scholasticism,
but against Christian dogma and morality. The one party, the more
conservative humanists, admired the Greek and Roman writers, but
looked upon the Sacred Scriptures as higher than all the wisdom of the
ancients. Listen to Petrarch! “Let no subtlety of argument, no grace of
speech, no renown ensnare us; they [the ancients] were but men, learned
so far as mere human erudition can go, but deserving of pity, inasmuch
as they lacked the highest and ineffable gift.--Let us study philosophy
so as to love wisdom. The real wisdom of God is Christ.--We must first
be Christians. We must read philosophical, poetical, and historical
works in such a manner that the Gospel of Christ shall ever find an
echo in our hearts. Through it alone can we become wise and happy;
without it, the more we have learned, the more ignorant and unhappy we
shall be. On the Gospel alone, as upon the one immovable foundation,
can human diligence build all true learning.”[98]
Though Petrarch himself did not escape the influence of the dangerous
elements contained in the writings of antiquity, still he never went so
far as did his friend Boccaccio, whose writings breathe an atmosphere
of pagan corruption. And yet not even this writer was an unbeliever, or
an enemy to the Church.
As knowledge is good in itself and as its abuse never justifies its
suppression, the Church considered the study of classical literature
as a legitimate movement, productive of great fruit for spiritual
and secular science. Thus we find so many ardent patrons of the new
learning among the Popes and other ecclesiastical dignitaries. But
there is a great danger in the one-sided enthusiasm for heathen
literature. Everything depends on the manner in which the ancient
authors are read and employed in education. They must be read and
interpreted in the spirit of the Christian religion. This was not done
by the radical humanists. They not only praised and admired the elegant
style, the brilliant eloquence and poetry of the ancients, but wanted
to effect a radical return to pagan thought and manners. They imitated,
or even outdid, some of the most licentious writers of antiquity in
vile and obscene productions. They endeavored to resuscitate ancient
life, and not in its best forms. The horrible crimes which are the
worst blot on the history of antiquity, of Greece in particular, were
made the subject of elegant verses. And the vices which were the curse
of Greece and one of the causes of its downfall, began to rage like a
dreadful plague in the cities of Italy, especially among the higher
class of society.[99]
One has only to recall the names of such humanists as Valla, Poggio,
Becadelli and others, to understand how justly this class of writers
is censured. Their writings have been called “an abyss of iniquity
wreathed with the most beautiful flowers of poetry.” It was against
this flood of abomination that the zealous, but unfortunately impetuous
and stubborn Savonarola directed his thundering eloquence, with only
a temporary result. It can easily be imagined what influence this
new paganism exerted on youth. What kind of moral safeguard could be
expected from teachers of the stamp of Valla? No attempt was made to
keep from the hands of the young books which in all ages have been
proscribed as disastrous to morality. In the light of such facts the
anxiety which Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus,
felt about dangers arising from the indiscriminate reading of the
classics, is fully justified.[100] Not a few of the humanists had lost
all faith. Other defects of the majority of the humanists, especially
their exorbitant vanity and self conceit, have been deservedly
chastised by various authors.[101]
It became especially the fashion among humanists to sneer at the
“metaphysical juggleries” and the “barbarous Latin” of the scholastics.
It is true, the all absorbing interest in philosophical and theological
questions had caused a retrogression in the study of the classical
authors. But this loss was counteracted by a considerable gain. At any
rate, the sweeping condemnations of the humanists were not justified.
Modern scholars begin to see the service rendered to science by
scholasticism, and not a few defend the schoolmen against the “arrogant
accusations of the humanists” as Professor Paulsen calls them. “We
might just as well accept the judgments of socialists on our present
conditions as reliable criticisms. It is the task of the historians
to judge the past from what it was in and for itself, a task which in
most cases means to defend it against that which immediately succeeded.
For it is the lot of all historical institutions to be thrown aside
with hatred and contempt by that which follows. Will not a time come
when the philological and historical, physical and other inquiries
of the present appear as dreary and barren, as to us scholastic and
speculative philosophy appear?”[102]
Not only Leibnitz, but modern philosophers as Hegel, Edward von
Hartmann, and the rationalistic Professor Harnack, have respected
the schoolmen as the leaders in a great movement and defended them
against their calumniators. Hartmann admits that “scholasticism was
an intellectual system wonderfully coherent and consistent in itself,
of which only those judge slightingly who have not yet overcome their
hostility to it and have not yet arrived at the objective view of
history.”[103]
From Italy the literary renaissance spread to Spain, France, England
and Germany. The flourishing condition of the schools in England and
Germany, described on previous pages, was chiefly due to this movement.
The radical school of humanism, hostile to Christianity, did not enter
England. The most distinguished English humanists were thorough and
practical churchmen,[104] or laymen, most loyal to the Church. Two of
them, Bishop Fisher and Thomas More, have been raised by the Church to
the honor of the altar. In Germany, matters developed very differently.
The humanistic movement began to be felt in the German universities
after 1450. Its gradual entrance into the various seats of learning
is well traced by Professor Paulsen.[105] However, it is the inner
development of humanism in Germany which is of greater importance.[106]
The earlier humanists, as Hegius and his friends, had contemplated
classical antiquity from the point of view of absolute faith in
Christianity. Wimpheling expressed their sentiments in these words: “It
is not the study of the heathen writers in itself which is dangerous to
Christian culture, but the false apprehension and handling of them, as
is often done in Italy, where, by means of the classics, pagan ways of
thought and life are spread prejudicial to Christian morality and the
patriotic spirit.”[107]
Fundamentally different from this conservative school were the
_younger_ or _radical_ humanists. Wanton attacks upon the Holy See,
the religious orders, Catholic doctrines and practices, contempt for
the whole learning of the Middle Ages and for their own mother tongue,
or even a worse than pagan immorality in their writings characterize
the great majority of this school of “Poets” in Germany as in Italy.
The chief representative of humanism in Germany was Erasmus of
Rotterdam, who exercised an enormous influence on his times. The extent
and variety of his knowledge in almost every branch of contemporary
learning, his untiring activity in all directions, his consummate
mastery and artistic treatment of the Latin tongue, and the variety
and richness of his style were equalled by few. He brought forth
fresh editions of the Bible, of the Greek classics and Fathers, and
original treatises in every branch of literature. But he was altogether
wanting in intellectual depth. He traveled through England, Italy, and
France as a mere book-worm without eye or understanding for national
life and character. His freedom in the use of calumny, his talent for
fulsome flattery to obtain money and presents, matched only by his
malignant spite against adversaries, destroyed all proportions between
his literary achievements and his character.[108] The leaders among
the younger humanists who, when not fighting the theologians, devoted
their energies to the composition of vapid verses and lewd poems, were
Conrad Celtes, Eobanus Hessus, Crotus Rubianus, Conrad Rufus, Mutian,
the dissolute Ulric of Hutten, the knight-errant of humanism, and a
host of minor scribblers. In their school work they read the most
profligate pagan poetry with their young pupils, and introduced a reign
of unrestrained license at Erfurt and other universities and schools.
In Germany, as well as in Italy, this reaction in the renaissance took
a special coloring from the circumstances of the melancholy period
in which it occurred. From the beginning of the fourteenth century
deplorable effects had been manifesting themselves in the Church. The
authority of the Pope had been weakened, a great part of the clergy was
steeped in worldliness; scholastic philosophy and theology had declined
and terrible disorders were rife in political and civil life. The
dangerous elements, which no doubt ancient literature contained, were
presented to a generation intellectually and physically overwrought and
in many ways unhealthy. It is no wonder, therefore, that some of the
adherents of the new tendency turned aside into perilous paths.[109]
In particular the nepotism, worldly life, unscrupulous state policy,
and scandalous appointments to high places, for which some of the Popes
were responsible, and the scandals connected with the name of Alexander
VI., furnished welcome weapons to diets, to princes and agitators,
who, under the guise of “reform in head and members,” pursued their
own selfish ends and aimed at nothing less than the secularization
of ecclesiastical property and the usurpation of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction.[110]
Besides these abuses, affecting the Church at large, there were others
threatening Germany in particular. It is true there existed a great
love of learning among all classes, and piety and active charity were
found among a great number of clergy and laity. As we have seen, in
the lower elementary and the advanced middle schools a sound basis of
popular education was established; the universities attained a height
of distinction never dreamt of in former times. And art developed
more rapidly than learning. But there were many dangerous symptoms
in religious, social and political life.[111] In all departments
perplexity and confusion were visible. A mass of inflammable material
was ready everywhere, and it needed but a spark to set the whole mass
ablaze. This spark came from Wittenberg.
§ 3. Education under the Influence of the Reformation.
Luther was undoubtedly a man endowed with the highest natural gifts.
Still he was not what Protestant tradition has made him.[112] “On
the part of the Protestants,” writes one of Germany’s historians,
the Protestant K. A. Menzel, “it is an accepted maxim to represent
to oneself the Reformers as lords and half saints. This prejudice is
indeed broken in circles that are conversant with history, but among
the large mass of the evangelical population it is still maintained,
not, however, to the preservation of truth. It passes current as
‘cultured’, and is paraded as a mark of ‘scientific investigation’ to
undermine with criticism and negation even the fundamental doctrines of
Christianity. But woe to him who with the torch of science invades the
vestibule of the temple in which prejudice and tradition have erected
the throne of the ‘heroes of the Reformation’ and their works. The
historical investigator who possesses such a foolhardiness is sure to
be decried as a Crypto-Catholic.”[113] Not a few Protestant historians
frankly confess that the whole structure of Reformation history must
undergo a change from its very foundation. One of them says: “Too great
is the rubbish and garbage which, intentionally or unintentionally,
the prevailing theological standpoint concerning the Reformation
period has inaugurated.”[114] From original documents a picture of the
Reformers, very different from the traditional one, has been presented
by the “fear-inspiring book of Döllinger” and by “Janssen’s crushing
examination of the Luther myth which produced a tremendous uproar in
Germany.”[115] A great deal of “rubbish and garbage” has also hidden
the truth in regard to the influence of Luther and the Reformation on
education.
It is a fact of no little significance that Luther’s first
confederates were the radical humanists. In their hatred against
scholastic learning and ecclesiastical authority they welcomed Luther’s
audacious attacks on the Church. Luther himself had tried at an early
date to ingratiate himself with the humanistic confederacy.[116]
After the example of Luther the younger humanists, these inveterate
enemies of all religion, now accustomed themselves to a Biblical style
of language; they even became of a sudden scholars of divinity and
delivered lectures on theological subjects. Luther did not shrink
from a formal alliance with the most violent of these enemies of the
existing order, the gifted but utterly corrupt Ulrich von Hutten, who
at that time together with Franz von Sickingen planned a revolution
against the Emperor.[117]
This was indeed a remarkable alliance. Prof. Paulsen’s comment on
it is worth quoting: “The humanists offered their assistance to
the monk whose controversies they had shortly before despised as a
monkish quarrel. ‘Evangelical liberty’ became their war-cry instead of
‘learning and humanity’. It is only through this alliance that Luther’s
cause, which had begun as a ‘monkish quarrel’, became that tremendous
revolutionary movement which unhinged the gates of the Church. A
reminder of humanism is that naturalism contained in the pure gospel,
that addition which appears so strange in Luther’s writings, when now
and then he represents the works of the flesh as divine commandments
and continence as well nigh a rebellion against God’s word and will:
almost as if the emancipation of the flesh was to be realized through
the gospel of Christ. Of course this must not be understood as though
these elements had not existed in Luther’s nature, in his views and
sentiments, but it was only under the influence of humanism that they
developed. Under different circumstances they might have remained
latent.”[118] Luther and Loyola have often been contrasted, the one
as the leader of the Protestant Revolution, the other as prominent in
the counter-reformation. Luther tried to reform by a _revolution_, by
a complete break with the past[119]; Loyola by a real _reformation_.
Luther changed the doctrine, Loyola saw, as his first companion, Peter
Faber, has it, that “not the head, but the heart, not the doctrine,
but the life needed a change.” Luther allied himself with the radical
humanists, Loyola imitated the earlier conservative humanists.
That a Christian reformer followed the earlier humanists, who were
thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Christianity, as Vittorino da
Feltre, Hegius, Agricola, Wimpheling, is natural. But, as Paulsen
remarks, “it is a strange phenomenon that a man (Luther) who seemed
to be made to fight with Savonarola against the worldliness of the
Church introduced by humanism, had to unite himself with Hutten for
the extirpation of monasticism. True, it is stranger still that
Hutten could make common cause with Luther against the Papacy whose
representative was a Medici, against a Church which raised such patrons
of learning as Cardinal Albrecht of Mentz to the highest dignities.
Well might one have warned Hutten not to cut the branch on which he was
sitting.”[120]
The humanists had, indeed, cut the branch.--Humanism was ruined by
its alliance with the Reformation, and as early as 1524 the eyes of
the humanists were opened. The universities and schools were almost
annihilated in the storms of religious strife. Professor Paulsen shows
this in detail in regard to the various German universities,[121] as
Wittenberg, Erfurt, Leipsic, Frankfurt, Rostock, Greifswald, Cologne,
Vienna, Heidelberg, etc. Ingolstadt, of all German universities, was
least affected by the Reformation. Under the leadership of Dr. Eck the
Lutheran invasion was energetically combated. The number of students
declined somewhat, but not considerably, so that this university shows
the most favorable conditions of all universities.[122] The same
decline was visible in the lower schools. Döllinger has collected a
long list of complaints that could be easily enlarged, about the ruin
of the schools consequent upon the religious revolution.[123]
The humanist Eobanus Hessus writes from Erfurt in the year 1523:
“Under the cloak of the Gospel the escaped monks here are suppressing
all liberal studies. Our university is quite deserted; we are utterly
despised.” In the same year the Dean of the Erfurt philosophical
faculty complains: “Nobody would have believed it, if it had been
predicted that in a short time our university would have fallen so low
that scarcely a shadow of its former lustre would remain.” In the same
strain lament Melanchthon from Wittenberg, and others from all seats of
learning throughout Germany.
Erasmus, an eye-witness of the first scenes in the great drama of the
Reformation, the intimate friend of Melanchthon and other Reformers,
writes in 1528: “Wherever Lutheranism reigns, there literature
perishes. I dislike these gospellers on many accounts, but chiefly,
because through their agency literature everywhere languishes,
disappears, lies drooping and perishes: and yet, without learning, what
is a man’s life? They love good cheer and a wife; for other things they
care not a straw.”[124] In a letter to Melanchthon he states that at
Strasburg the Protestant party had publicly taught, in 1524, that it
was not right to cultivate any science, and that no language should be
studied except the Hebrew. In fact, who was to be blamed for this rapid
decay of schools but the Reformers themselves? Carlstadt was not only
a fanatic in his hatred of Catholic doctrines and customs, but also
spoke with contempt of all human learning. He advised the students to
return to their homes and resume the spade or follow the plough, and
cultivate the earth, because man was to eat bread in the sweat of his
brow. George Mohr, master of the boys’ school at Wittenberg, carried
away by a similar madness, called from his window to the burghers
outside to come and remove their children. Where, indeed, was the use
of continuing their studies, since a mechanic was just as well, nay,
perhaps better qualified than all the divines in the world, to preach
the Gospel.[125]
The Anabaptists in Münster decided that there was only one book
necessary to salvation, the Bible, all others should be burned as
useless or dangerous. This decision was carried out, and whole
libraries with numerous precious manuscripts of Latin and Greek authors
perished in the flames. Popes, bishops, and councils during the Middle
Ages, had enforced the obligation of establishing schools throughout
Christendom. The vandalism of some Reformers destroyed innumerable
monasteries and with them schools without number. The funds for the
support of these schools had been accumulated by the piety, zeal and
liberality of previous ages.
No one is more responsible for this sad change than Luther himself.
If, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, Scripture could be interpreted
by “a miller’s maid and a boy of nine years better than by all the
popes and cardinals,”--these are Luther’s words,--of what value
could human learning be in religion? Nay more, according to Luther’s
early teaching, higher learning was not only useless, but positively
dangerous. He spoke with a fierce hatred against higher schools and
human learning. Professor Paulsen admits that the vehemence of tone
in which Luther spoke of the universities as the real bulwarks of the
devil on earth, has perhaps never been rivalled before or after by any
attack on these institutions.[126] A few specimens of these invectives
may suffice.
According to Luther, everything instituted by the papacy was only
intended to augment sin and error, so also were the universities. It is
the devil himself who has introduced study; there reigns the damned,
haughty and wicked Aristotle, from whose works Christian youth is
instructed.[127] And yet “a man who boasts the title of philosopher
cannot be called a Christian.” “The Moloch to which the Jews offered
up their children, are the higher schools (_hohen Schulen_ =
universities), in which the best part of youth is sacrificed as a burnt
offering. There they are instructed in false heathen art and godless
human knowledge: this is the fire of Moloch which no one can weep over
enough, through which the most pious and most clever boys are miserably
ruined.”[128] “The higher schools all deserve to be ground to dust;
nothing more hellish, nothing more devilish has appeared on earth, nor
will ever appear. These schools have been invented by no one else than
the devil.”[129] Luther hated the universities because they exalted
reason, “the light of nature”, too much. To Luther reason is only “the
devil’s bride, a beautiful prostitute of the devil.”[130] “Human reason
is sheer darkness.” The faithful strangle reason and say: “Hearest
thou, a mad blind fool thou art, understandest not a bit of the things
that are God’s. Thus the believers throttle this beast.”[131]
It is surprising to see that Melanchthon fell in with the tone of
Luther.[132] He denounced universities, philosophy, and ethics, almost
as violently as his master, but only for a time; he soon abated the
violence of his sentiments, whereas Luther to the end of his life
preserved his bitterness against natural reason. Innumerable other
preachers began to vie with each other in pouring forth virulent abuse
against all enlightened knowledge and secular learning.
Can we then wonder that the parents, prejudiced by such inflammatory
declamations, became averse not only to higher learning, as it had
existed before the religious disturbances, but to schools in general?
No wonder that the lower schools also began to be neglected, so that
contemporary writers say: “About the year 1525 schools began to
decline, and no one wanted to send his children to school, as people
had heard so much from Luther’s writings of how the priests and the
learned had so pitiably seduced mankind.” The official report of the
inspectors of the district of Wittenberg, the centre and starting point
of Luther’s “reform”, informs us in the year 1533: “The city schools
which, in addition to the instruction they imparted, had given the
children a material maintenance, are alarmingly decreasing.”[133]
Luther himself was appalled at this desolation, for he knew full well
the importance of the school. With bitter invective and reproach he
lashes the indifference of the people and the avarice of the princes
who, after having squandered the property of the Church and the funds
of the schools, refused to do anything for establishing new schools
or even for maintaining those in existence. “Formerly”, he says,
“when we were the slaves of Satan, and profaned the blood of Christ,
all purses were open; then nothing was spared to put children in the
cloister or to send them to school. But now when we must establish good
schools (_rechte Schulen_)--establish, did I say, no, but only preserve
the buildings in good condition--the purses are closed with iron
chains. The children are neglected, no one teaches them to serve God,
while they are joyfully immolated to Mammon.” But herein Luther was
inconsistent. Had he not taught people again and again that good works
were useless? Why should they make any sacrifice of money for a pious
work like that of education? And was it a good and pious work at all?
This might have been asked by those who remembered Luther’s reckless
invectives against higher schools.
Luther was absolutely powerless to remedy the evil which grew worse
daily. Therefore he appealed earnestly to the Protestant princes and
magistrates to found and support schools. He told them that it was
their right, nay, their duty to oblige their subjects to send their
children to school. As is evident, Luther had been forced to this step
because his voice, always “omnipotent when it preached destruction and
spoliation, now fell powerless when it was at length raised to enforce
the necessity of liberal contribution for the rearing of institutions
to replace those which had been wantonly destroyed.”[134] _Compulsory
education_, accordingly, is a child of the Reformation; so is also the
_state-monopoly_ which gradually developed in European countries.[135]
The princes and magistrates to whom Luther appealed for establishing
new schools, were slow in following these admonitions, whereas they
had been most docile when told to confiscate the rich abbeys and
monasteries which had maintained many educational institutions. Luther
himself complained that so little heed was paid to his words. In 1528
a new “Order” for the cities of Saxony was prepared by Melanchthon.
In 1559 appeared the “Church and School Order of Württemberg.”[136]
Very different from the attitude of Luther was that of Melanchthon
towards higher studies. Luther saw in humanistic studies only a weapon
for theological purposes; but Melanchthon was himself a humanist and
believed that study of the ancient languages and literature offered
immediate educational benefit to the student.[137] Melanchthon has
been called _Praeceptor Germaniae_, and this he was for the Protestant
part of that country. His system was an adaptation of the humanistic
principles of Erasmus, and especially of Rudolph Agricola,[138] who was
prominent among the earlier conservative humanists.
It is evident that Luther’s merits in regard to education have
been exaggerated. The words of the Protestant Hallam deserve to be
more universally known: “Whatever may be the ideas of our minds as
to the truth of Luther’s doctrines, we should be careful ... not to
be misled by the superficial and ungrounded representations which we
sometimes find in modern writers. Such is this that Luther, struck
by the absurdity of the prevailing superstitions, was desirous of
introducing a more rational system of religion ..., or, what others
have been pleased to suggest, that his zeal for learning and ancient
philosophy led him to attack the ignorance of the monks and the
crafty policy of the Church, which withstood all liberal studies.
These notions are merely fallacious refinements, as every man of
plain understanding who is acquainted with the writings of the early
reformers, or has considered their history, must acknowledge. The
doctrines of Luther, taken altogether, are not more rational than
those of the Church of Rome; nor did he even pretend that they were
so ... nor, again, is there any foundation for imagining that Luther
was concerned for the interests of literature. None had he himself,
save theological; nor are there, as I apprehend, many allusions to
profane studies, or any proof of his regard to them, in all his works.
_On the contrary_, it is probable that both the principles of this
great founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so
intense an application to theological controversy, checked for a time
the progress of philological and philosophical literature on this
side of the Alps.”[139] As regards the much vaunted intellectual and
religious liberty of the Reformers, it is well known that they very
soon exercised an unbearable tyranny. Hallam was honest enough to admit
this, however reluctantly.[140]
On the eve of the Reformation, England possessed a great number of
secondary schools. Both these and the universities suffered greatly
from the Reformation and the events connected with it. When by the
order of Henry VIII. the monasteries were suppressed, numberless
precious manuscripts and other contents of monastic libraries
disappeared, and are now lost to the world beyond recovery. Grocers and
soap-sellers bought them for their business purposes.[141] Learning,
both secular and religious, rapidly declined, and deterioration was
felt in all grades of education. Most of the schools at this time were
closed, without provision for a substitute. Moreover, the monasteries
and convents had supported scholars at the universities, or provided
for young clerics until their ordination, when they supplied them
with a title. This change was felt immediately. From 1506 to 1535
the average number of yearly degrees granted at Oxford had been 127.
In 1535 the number was 108. In that year the operations against the
monasteries were commenced. In the following year the number of
graduates fell to only 44; the average number till 1548 was less than
57, from 1548 till 1553 not more than 33, but it rose again under Queen
Mary to 70.[142] The University of Cambridge suffered not less than
Oxford.
The scholars of Cambridge, in 1545, petitioned King Henry for
privileges, as they feared the destruction of the monasteries would
altogether annihilate learning.[143] For a time these great homes
of learning were threatened with nothing less than ruin. Thus it is
undeniable that the dissolution of monasteries, in 1536 and the next
two years, gave a great temporary check to the general state of letters
in England.
Hallam attempts to palliate this charge, but in vain. Let us
contemplate the picture which Latimer, the fanatic opponent of
Catholicism, drew in 1550 of the state of education in England. His
words are almost identical with those of Luther.[144] “In those days
(before the suppression of monasteries), what did they when they
helped the scholars? Marry! They maintained and gave them livings that
were very Papists and professed the Pope’s doctrine; and now that the
knowledge of God’s word is brought to light, and many earnestly study
and labour to set it forth, now almost no man helpeth to maintain
them.”... “Truly it is a pitiable thing to see schools so neglected;
every true Christian ought to lament the same; to consider what has
been plucked from abbeys, colleges and chantries, it is a marvel no
more to be bestowed upon this holy office of salvation. Schools are
not maintained, scholars have no exhibitions.... I think there be at
this day twenty thousand students less than within these twenty years
and fewer preachers.” Anthony Wood, in his History and Antiquities of
the University of Oxford, writes: “Most of the halls and hostels in
Oxford were left empty. Arts declined and ignorance began to take place
again.”[145]
This sketch of the status of education previous to the foundation of
the Society of Jesus warrants us to draw the following conclusions.
_First_, a reform was urgently needed, not only in the religious
and moral sphere but also in education. There was a great literary
activity all over Christendom. In the countries most affected by
the Reformation, this activity was checked for a time, in Germany
almost annihilated. In those countries which were less affected by
the religious revolution, the educational work was not formed into
a well balanced system of instruction and discipline. Further, the
teaching of the classics was in many cases carried on in a pagan
spirit. The Catholic reform centres around the Council of Trent. The
members of a Commission preparatory to this Council, mostly refined
humanists and university scholars, pointed out as one of the great
abuses in the Church, that “in the public schools, especially of Italy,
many teach impiety.” This was stated in 1538, two years before the
approbation of the Society of Jesus. In this Society “the Church of
Rome, deeply shaken by open schism and lurking disaffection, was to
find an unexpected strength. The Jesuits were speedily to acquire a
vast influence by the control of education.”[146] In fact, the Jesuits
were to give to Catholic countries a uniform system of education, which
was so sadly needed at the time. They were to purify and elevate the
teaching of the classics, so as to make it a useful means of Christian
education as well as of mental training.
_Secondly_: The foregoing sketch proves that it is false to say: the
Jesuits availed themselves, in the interest of the Catholic Church,
of the zeal for learning which the Protestants had awakened.[147]
It can be proved over and above that a great zeal for learning had
existed before the Reformation,[148] and that this zeal was well-nigh
extinguished by this movement. Melanchthon, Sturm and other reformers
who worked for the establishment of schools, had received their
literary education, their zeal for learning, and the greater part of
their educational principles from the schools flourishing before the
outbreak of the religious revolution. Their efforts were directed
towards re-establishing what the religious disturbances had destroyed.
Of course, we are far from denying that the Reformers introduced many
improvements into the Protestant schools; but they and the Jesuits drew
from the same sources.
The preceding sketch of the condition of education previous to the
foundation of the Society of Jesus may seem disproportionately long.
However, it was necessary to dwell on this point at some length, in
order to expose one of the fundamental errors concerning the origin of
the educational system of the Jesuits. It would not have sufficed to
make a few general assertions--as has been done by some non-Catholic
writers on the history of education--but it was necessary to quote
details, in order to refute this erroneous view.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen
und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart._
Leipzig, 1885, p. 281 foll. (2. ed. I, p. 408.)
[24] _German Higher Schools_, p. 47.
[25] “_Ut a nostris fontibus derivata esse videatur._” See Duhr,
_Studienordnung_, p. 7.
[26] _American Cyclopedia_ (ed. 1881), article: “_Education_”.
[27] _L. c._, p. 47.--So also Seeley, _History of Education_, p. 182.
[28] The following works are the chief ones consulted: Paulsen,
_Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und
Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart_. Leipzig
1885.--Specht, _Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland bis zur
Mitte des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts_. Stuttgart, Cotta, 1885.--Janssen,
_History of the German People_, London, Kegan Paul, 1896, vol.
I.--Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, New York, Putnam’s Sons,
1900.--Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_. 2 vols.
Oxford 1895.--See also West, _Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian
Schools_. New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1892. (The _Great Educators
Series_.)
[29] See Maitland, _The Dark Ages_.
[30] Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. I, p.
27.
[31] _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. II, p. 602.
[32] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 11.--Professor
Harnack of the University of Berlin, speaking of the achievements
of the Roman Church, says: “In the first place it educated the
Romano-Germanic nations, and educated them in a sense other than
that in which the Eastern Church educated the Greeks, Slavs, and
Orientals.... It brought Christian civilization to young nations, and
brought it, not once only, so as to keep them at its first stage--no!
it gave them something which was capable of exercising a progressive
educational influence, and for a period of almost a thousand years it
itself led the advance. Up to the fourteenth century it was a leader
and a mother; it supplied the ideas, set the aims, and disengaged the
forces.” The same author admits that even at present the Catholic
Church has an important share in the movement of thought. _What is
Christianity?_ (Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1901.) Lecture XIV, p.
247.--Well has Cardinal Newman said: “Not a man in Europe now, who
talks bravely against the Church, but owes it to the Church, that he
can talk at all.” _Historical Sketches_, vol. III, p. 109.
[33] On the schools of Charles the Great and of the centuries following
see Specht, _Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens_.--West, _Alcuin and the
Rise of Christian Schools_.
[34] See Specht, _op. cit._--Russell, _German Higher Schools_.
[35] Vol. I. (English translation), pp. 25-60.
[36] _Ib._, pp. 26-27.
[37] At present the number of elementary schools in Germany is less
than 60,000; there were 56,563 in 1892.
[38] “In its origin, the primary school is the child of Protestantism,
and its cradle was the Reformation.” Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_,
p. 112.--Similarly Professor Beyschlag of Halle.
[39] _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1888-89, vol. I, p. 32.
[40] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article: “Education.”
[41] See _Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars_, by the Most Rev.
John Healy, D. D.--Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. III, pp. 116-129.
[42] Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, pp. 44-46.--Woodward,
_Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators_, N. Y., Macmillan.
[43] Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_ (New York, the
Columbia University Press, 1902), p. 4.
[44] _Ib._, p. 53.
[45] _Ib._, p. 20.
[46] Bellesheim, _History of the Catholic Church of Scotland_, vol. II,
pp. 326, 346.
[47] See the article: _Medieval Grammar Schools_, in the _Dublin
Review_, 1899, vol. CXXV, pp. 153-178.
[48] The Rev. Hastings Rashdall, _Harrow School_, chap. II, p. 12.
(_Dublin Review_, _l. c._, p. 156.)
[49] _English Schools at the Reformation_, p. 6; (_l. c._, p. 157).
[50] _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, vol. I, p. 165. (_Dublin
Review_, _l. c._, p. 162.)
[51] Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_, pp.
18-57.--Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, pp. 36-50.
[52] On their character see _Report of the Commissioner of Education_,
1897-98, vol. I, pp. 20-23.
[53] A. T. Drane, _Christian Schools and Scholars_, vol. II, p. 335.
[54] Janssen, _Hist. of the German People_, vol. I, ch. 3.
[55] Drane, _Christian Schools and Scholars_, vol. II, p. 339.
[56] This is for instance the opinion of Boulay, the historian of the
University of Paris.
[57] Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 61-62. In most of these schools the Brethren
had charge only of the religious training of the pupils, while the
classical instruction was given by teachers not belonging to the
Fraternity. Paulsen, _l. c._, I, 158-160.
[58] See Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. V, chapter I:
“Humanism in Germany.”
[59] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 68.
[60] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 42, (vol.
I, p. 67). Further details are given by Janssen, _History of the
German People_: “The Higher Schools and the Older Humanists.” (English
translation, vol. I, pp. 61-85.)
[61] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 107.
[62] _Ib._, p. 80.
[63] _L. c._, pp. 80-81. Erasmus wrote to Luiz Vives: “_In Germania tot
fere sunt academiae quot oppida. Harum nulla paene est, quae non magnis
salariis accersat linguarum professores._” _Opera_, III, 689.
[64] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 81.
[65] Einstein, _l. c._, pp. 51-54.
[66] Schmid, _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. II, 2, p. 140.
[67] See the present work, Appendix I, Additions to chap. II.
[68] _History of Education_, pp. 135-136.
[69] Rashdall, _Universities of the Middle Ages_, vol. I, p. 5.
[70] Of the forty-four universities founded by charters before 1400,
there are thirty-one which possess papal charters. Denifle, O. P., _Die
Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400_, p. 780.
[71] On this subject see: Denifle, _l. c_.; Rashdall, _The
Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, 2 vols.--_Dublin
Review_, July 1898: _The Church and the Universities_, by J. B.
Milburn.--Newman, _Rise and Progress of Universities_, in _Historical
Sketches_, vol. III.--For further literature see Guggenberger, S. J.,
_A General History of the Christian Era_, vol. II, pp. 126-129.
[72] Rashdall, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 546.
[73] Burton, _History of Scotland_, vol. IV, p. 109. (Bellesheim,
_History of the Catholic Church of Scotland_, vol. II, p. 346.)
[74] _L. c._, vol. II, pp. 523-524.
[75] Compayré enumerates 75 universities existing in 1482, the year
before Luther’s birth. “Who could deny,” he says, “after merely
glancing over this long enumeration, the importance of the university
movement in the last three centuries of the Middle Ages?” _Abelard_,
pp. 50-52.
[76] See _Report of Com. of Ed._, 1897-98, vol. II, p. 1741.
[77] Janssen, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 86.
[78] Janssen, vol. I.--Compayré, _Abelard and the Origin and Early
History of Universities_ (Scribner’s Sons, New York).--Rashdall, vol.
II, pp. 211-280; on the universities of Poland, Hungary, Denmark,
Sweden, and Scotland, pp. 283-315.
[79] See Rashdall, vol. II, pp. 65-107.
[80] _Epist._ 977. (Hefele, _Life of Ximenez_, p. 115.)
[81] Hefele, _The Life of Cardinal Ximenez_, translated by the Rev.
Canon Dalton, p. 115.--Rashdall remarks on this fact: “Salamanca
is not perhaps precisely the place where one would look for early
precedents for the higher education of women. Yet it was from Salamanca
that Isabella, the Catholic, is said to have summoned Doña Beatriz
Galindo to teach her Latin long before the Protestant Elizabeth put
herself to school under Ascham.” _Univ. in the M. A._, vol. II, p. 79.
The education of women was not so entirely neglected as is commonly
believed. See Specht, _l. c._, ch. XI, “_Education of Women_.” Further
Janssen’s _History of the German People_, vol. I, pp. 82-85.
[82] Prescott, _Ferdinand and Isabella_, Part I, ch. XIX.--Peter
Martyr’s _Epist._, 57.--Hefele, p. 116.
[83] Rashdall, _l. c._, vol. II, p. 77.
[84] _Epist._ 755. (Hefele, _l. c._, p. 122.)
[85] On the _Trivium_ and _Quadrivium_, see West, _Alcuin and the Rise
of the Christian Schools_, pp. 1-39.
[86] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, p. 460.
[87] On the authors studied or known during the Middle Ages see
Comparetti, _Virgil in the Middle Ages_.--Boutaric, _Vincent de
Beauvais et la connaissance de l’antiquité classique au treizième
siècle_, in _Revue des Questions Historiques_, vol. XVII, pp. 5-57.--An
adequate history of the use of the classics during this period does not
exist. A pretty full bibliography of monographs is given by Taylor,
_The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, pp. 363-365.
[88] Windelband, _A History of Philosophy_, p. 310.
[89] On Scholasticism see also Alzog, _History of the Church_, vol. II,
pp. 728-784.
[90] See _Dublin Review_, 1899, vol. CXXIV, p. 340.
[91] Alzog, _l. c._, vol. II, p. 783.
[92] Translation from _The Review_, St. Louis, May 23, 1901.
[93] See Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la connaissance de
l’antiquité classique au treizième siècle_. (_Revue des Questions
Historiques_; vol. XVII, pp. 5-57.)
[94] Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. I, p. 289.
[95] The Vulgate is quoted or referred to more than 500 times;
Aristotle more than 300; Virgil about 200; Ovid about 100; Cicero and
Lucan about 30 and 40 each, etc. Taylor, _l. c._, p. 365.
[96] Creighton, _History of the Popes_, vol. II, p. 332.--Baumgartner,
_Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, p. 469.
[97] For the history of this movement see Pastor, _History of the
Popes_, vols. I and V.--Burckhardt, _History of the Renaissance
in Italy_; Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_; A. Baumgartner, S.
J., _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, pp. 469-623.--On the
Renaissance in England see Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_,
chapter II, and especially Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in
England_.
[98] _Epist. rer. fam._ VI, 2.--Pastor, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 2.
[99] Pastor, vol. I, p. 25.
[100] See below chapter XVII.
[101] For instance by Paulsen, _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 29-31,
(I, 51 foll.), and _passim_. Baumgartner, vol. IV, pp. 487 foll.--On
Erasmus see Janssen, vol. III, p. 11.
[102] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, p. 20. (I, p. 36).
[103] Quoted by Willmann, _Geschichte des Idealismus_, vol. III, p.
855. For an excellent criticism of scholasticism see vol. II, pp.
321-652.
[104] See above p. 30; cf. Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_,
chapter II, _The Revival of Letters in England_, pp. 14-50.--Einstein,
_The Italian Renaissance in England_, pp. 18-57.
[105] _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 44-127. (I, 74-170).
[106] On this subject see Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. V.
_The German Revolt_, ch. I. “Humanism in Germany,” pp. 1-49.
[107] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 1-2. For the following see the same
volume, pp. 1-79, and Guggenberger, S. J., _A General History of the
Christian Era_, vol. II, p. 133.
[108] A much kindlier view of Erasmus is taken in the highly
interesting chapter on “Erasmus”, in Gasquet’s _The Eve of the
Reformation_, pp. 155-207. There his attitude towards Luther and his
loyalty to the Catholic Church are admirably set forth.
[109] Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, p. 12.
[110] Guggenberger, vol. II, p. 147. However, it is fair to mention
that there were not only deep shadows in this period but also gleams
of sunshine. The pagan tendencies were not absolutely general. The
religious orders gave to the Church a line of saintly, brilliant, and
truly apostolic preachers, who fearlessly raised their voices against
the sins and failings of high and low, ecclesiastics and laymen. Nor
were their efforts in vain, as may be seen from the conversion of
whole towns and provinces, effected by Vincent Ferrer, Bernardine of
Siena, John Capistran, Savonarola, and others. And beside the many
unworthy prelates and priests of the period, the historian meets, in
every country of Christendom, with a great number of men distinguished
alike for virtue and learning. The number of Saints of this period,
especially in the Franciscan and Dominican Orders, is exceedingly
great, a proof that the Church had not lost her saving and sanctifying
power. See Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, pp. 32-38.
[111] These symptoms are summed up by Janssen, vol. II, _passim_,
especially pp. 285-302.--Guggenberger, vol. II, pp. 146-151.
[112] See: _Luther and his Protestant Biographers_, by the Rev. H. G.
Ganss in the _American Catholic Quarterly Review_, July 1900; also _The
Messenger_, Nov. 1902.
[113] _Neue Geschichte der Deutschen_, vol. II, p. 44, quoted by Ganss,
_l. c._, p. 599, where similar statements of other Protestants may be
found.
[114] Professor Maurenbrecher of the Königsberg University, _ib._
[115] London _Athenaeum_, Dec. 1884, p. 729.
[116] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 100-101.
[117] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 106 foll.
[118] _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 128-29. (2. ed. I, 174 foll.).
[119] Protestants frequently object to the appellation “revolution”, as
applied to the Reformation. However, men like Harnack openly declare
that it was a revolution. See _What is Christianity?_ Lecture XV, pp.
277-281. Paulsen, _l. c._
[120] _L. c._, p. 129. (1. ed.; cf. 2. ed. I, p. 174 foll.)
[121] Paulsen, _l. c._, pp. 133-144. (I, pp. 184-195.)
[122] _Ibid._, p. 143. (I, p. 194.)
[123] _Die Reformation_, vol. I, pp. 418-545; see also Janssen, vol.
III, pp. 355-365; vol. VII, p. 11 foll.
[124] Hallam, _Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the
fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries_, vol. I, chapter VI, p.
189, note (Harper’s ed. 1842).--Janssen, vol. III, p. 357.--Döllinger,
_l. c._, vol. I, p. 470 foll.
[125] See Archbishop Spalding’s _The Reformation in Germany_, chap.
XIII.--Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 423.
[126] _L. c._, p. 134. (I, p. 185.)
[127] Paulsen, _ib._
[128] _Luther’s Werke_, ed. Walch XIX, 1430. See Döllinger, _l. c._,
vol. I, p. 475 foll.--Janssen, vol. II (German ed. 18), pp. 211-213.
[129] _Ib._, XII, 45; XI, 459.
[130] See Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I (2nd ed.), pp. 477 foll.
[131] _Ib._, p. 479.
[132] Paulsen, pp. 135 foll.
[133] Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 466 foll.--Numerous
contemporary testimonies to the same effect may be seen in Janssen’s
_Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_ (German edition, 18), vol. II, p.
322; vol. VII, pp. 11-211.
[134] Spalding, _The Reformation in Germany_, ch. 14.
[135] Another result of the Reformation has been pointed out by
President Butler of Columbia University, New York: “The separation
of religious training from education as a whole is the outgrowth of
Protestantism and democracy.” _Educational Review_, December 1899, p.
427.--Why democracy should be a cause of this separation is not clear
to me, nor are the arguments, adduced by President Butler, convincing.
[136] On the development of the Protestant schools see Paulsen, _l.
c._, p. 145 foll. (I, 209).--Ziegler, _l. c._, p. 61 foll.
[137] Dr. Nohle, in _Rep. of Com. of Ed._, 1897-98, vol. I, p. 30.
[138] Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 69.
[139] _Introduction to the Literature of Europe_, vol. I, p. 165
(Harper’s ed. 1842).--Hence it is utterly false to say that the reform
of the studies in the sixteenth century was, in the first place, a
Protestant work. And yet this statement is repeated again and again.
[140] _Ib._, p. 200. Also _Döllinger, Die Reformation_, vol. I, pp.
546-563, and especially Paulsen I, 212-214.
[141] Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, vol. II, p.
423.
[142] Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, p. 41 foll.
[143] Fuller’s _History of the University of Cambridge_, in Gasquet,
_Henry VIII._ etc., vol. II, p. 519.
[144] See above, p. 65-66.
[145] Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, vol. II, pp.
519-520.
[146] Hallam, _Literature of Europe_, vol. I, p. 196.
[147] See page 20.
[148] See the words of Mr. Einstein, above p. 37.
CHAPTER III.
The Society of Jesus.--Religious as Educators.
It is not our task to give a detailed history of Ignatius of Loyola,
the Spanish nobleman who was wounded on the ramparts of Pampeluna,
in 1521, nor of his subsequent conversion and life. This story has
often been told and may be read in the numerous biographies of the
Saint.[149] Nor need we enumerate all the different and contradictory
estimates of his character, as given by various writers. Macaulay
calls him a “visionary” and an “enthusiast, naturally passionate and
imaginative,” possessed of a “morbid intensity and energy, a soldier
and knight errant,” who became “the soldier and knight errant of the
spouse of Christ.”[150] Canon Littledale, in spite of his hostility
against the Society, cannot help admitting that Loyola possessed
“powerful gifts of intellect and an unusual practical foresight.”[151]
To see with Macaulay in Ignatius a “visionary,” is an utter
misconception of his character. Nor is it correct to style him a
“religious enthusiast.” This appellation could, at the most, be applied
to him only for the first few years after his conversion. During that
period, in a few instances, as in the famous meeting with the Saracen,
Ignatius displays indeed a conduct singularly contrasting with his
conduct in after-life and with those wonderfully wise rules which he
laid down on the discernment of the good spirit from the evil one. In
his _Autobiography_ the Saint insists particularly on the mistakes
into which he had fallen on the road to mature judgment in spiritual
matters.[152] During these first few years following his conversion,
Ignatius gave manifestation of the chivalrous spirit which he had
imbibed from his early military training, when, for instance, in the
Monastery of the Montserrat he hung up his sword beside our Lady’s
image, in token that henceforth his life was to be one of spiritual
warfare and spiritual knighthood.
The Society, however, was not founded in this period of the Saint’s
life, but when the youthful fervor was completely mastered by the
calmest discretion. At the time when he drew up the Constitutions of
the Society, all his actions and sentiments were so entirely under his
control that, although by nature of an ardent temper, he was commonly
thought cold and phlegmatic. In framing the Constitutions he proceeded
with the utmost care and circumspection. On points which might appear
unimportant, he deliberated for days, nay for weeks and months. It was
a common practice of his to write down the reasons for and against in
parallel columns, then to weigh their force and importance. After this
he consulted the Fathers who lived with him in Rome, in order to take
their advice as to changes or additions which they thought necessary
or useful. Moreover, he submitted the results of his painstaking
labors to the judgment of those Fathers who lived in various parts of
Europe. Surely in this cautiousness we see anything but the traits of a
visionary or enthusiast.
As early as 1523 Ignatius had conceived the idea of his future
life-work, although only in general outlines. We find this idea
embodied in his _Spiritual Exercises_, particularly in the
contemplation on the “Kingdom of Christ.” The generous knight, who
has renounced all worldly ambition, is resolved to become a soldier
of Christ. In Him he sees his King and General and, in order to
defend and propagate Christianity, the Kingdom of Christ, he plans a
spiritual crusade. Those who wish to become his companions in this
noble enterprise must be determined to distinguish themselves in the
service of their heavenly King. They are not to be satisfied with
being ordinary soldiers in this army, but they are to constitute,
as it were, Christ’s bodyguard, hence the name of the Society: “La
Compañia de Jesus,” the Company of Jesus. A distinguished Protestant
writer, Professor Harnack of Berlin, has recently made the following
comparison which in _some_ points is _not inappropriate_: “If we assert
and mean the assertion to hold good even of the present time, that the
Roman Church is the old Roman Empire consecrated by the Gospel, that
is no mere ‘clever remark,’ but the recognition of the true state of
the matter historically, and the most appropriate and fruitful way of
describing the character of this Church. It still governs the nations;
its Popes rule like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius; Peter and Paul have
taken the place of Romulus and Remus; the bishops and archbishops, of
the pro-consuls; the troops of priests and monks correspond to the
legions; the Jesuits to the imperial body-guard.”[153]
Ignatius’ first intention was to convert the Turks in Palestine.
So he went to Jerusalem, there to establish a society of apostolic
men who, in the midst of the children of Mahomet, should open a
way to new triumphs of the Church. This was without doubt a noble
conception, one which the swords of Christian chivalry had not been
able to realize by the efforts and enthusiasm of centuries. It was only
after his endeavors to gain a foothold near Our Lord’s Sepulchre had
been frustrated, that Ignatius gave his new Society the more general
character of defending the “Kingdom of Christ” among all classes,
in all countries, and by all legitimate means. As the object of the
Society was purely spiritual, not temporal or political, so also the
means employed were to be of spiritual order, above all preaching and
teaching.
It has often been said that the prime object of the Society was and
is the crushing of Protestantism.[154] This assertion is proved to be
false by the life of Ignatius, and this proof is strengthened by the
Constitutions, the Papal Approbations, and the whole history of the
Order. The Papal Letters and the Constitutions assign as the special
object of the Society: “The progress of souls in a good life and
knowledge of religion; the propagation of faith by public preaching,
the Spiritual Exercises and works of charity, and particularly
the instruction of youth and ignorant persons in the Christian
religion.”[155] The Protestants are not as much as mentioned in this
Papal document which states the end and the means of the Society. Pius
V., in 1571, highly praised the educational work of Jesuit schools and
granted them ample privileges.[156] Here again it is not said that
these schools or the Society are directed against Protestantism.
The evidence is so strong that Professor Huber, one of the bitterest
opponents of the Order, declares: “At the time when Ignatius conceived
the idea of founding a new order, he had not heard as much as the name
of the German Reformer. Even more than a decade later he seems to
have paid little heed to the religious movement in Europe, especially
in Germany.”[157] As we said, it was the intention of Ignatius to
convert Palestine. Frustrated in this plan, he chose Italy, Spain and
Portugal as the field of labor for himself and his companions. There
he endeavored to reform the morals of the people and to encourage the
practice of works of charity.[158] His most powerful co-worker, Francis
Xavier, he sent to East India; to Germany, he sent the first Jesuit in
1540, and that only at the urgent request of the Imperial Ambassador.
In 1555, one year before the death of Ignatius, the Society comprised
eight provinces: Italy had two; Spain, three; Portugal, one; Brazil,
one; India and Japan, one. There was none in Germany, the cradle of
Protestantism. Of the sixty-five residences of the Order in that year,
there were only two in Germany: those of Cologne and Vienna. The
first colleges of the Society were founded in Catholic countries: at
Gandia in Spain, Messina in Sicily, Goa in the East Indies. Protestant
pupils were received only by exception, and in many colleges they were
not admitted at all. How, then, can all this be explained, if the
main object of the Society was the destruction of Protestantism and
proselytism among Protestant students?[159]
When Ignatius had decided to devote his life “to the greater glory
of God” and the salvation of souls, he understood the necessity of
higher learning. So, at the age of thirty-three, the former gallant
officer and hero of Pampeluna, was not ashamed to sit with children on
the school-bench at Barcelona, where he began to study the rudiments
of Latin. After two years he went to the university of Alcala, thence
to Salamanca, and last to the university of Paris, at that time the
greatest centre of philosophical and theological learning.
He arrived in the French capital in 1528. There he studied philosophy
and theology, and in 1534, by a successful examination, became a
Master of Arts. At the University he had won six young men: Peter
Lefèvre, a Savoyard; Francis Xavier, a Navarrese; the three Spaniards,
James Lainez, Alphonsus Salmeron, and Nicholas Bobadilla, and Simon
Rodriguez, a Portuguese. On August 15, 1534, the little band repaired
to the church of the Blessed Virgin at Montmartre in Paris, and bound
themselves by a vow to the service of God. This was the birthday of the
Society of Jesus. The new Order received the papal sanction from Paul
III., on September 27, 1540.
The aim of the Society is expressed by its motto: _Omnia ad majorem
Dei gloriam_--_All for God’s greater glory_. Hence it is the duty of
the members to labor with the same zeal for the salvation of others
as for their own perfection. The salvation of their neighbor they
accomplish by conducting the spiritual exercises, preaching missions
to the faithful, and evangelizing the heathen; by hearing confessions;
by defending the faith against heretics and infidels through their
writings; by _teaching catechism to children and the ignorant_;
by _lecturing on philosophy and theology in the universities_; by
_instructing youth in grammar schools and colleges_. Although various
occupations are here mentioned, yet, as Professor Paulsen rightly
observes, “education so largely prevails in the activity of the Order
that it can be called in a special sense a _teaching_ or _school_
order.”[160] “Evidently these university men, who were engaged in
drawing up the Institute, considered that, if the greatest Professor’s
talents are well spent in the exposition of the greatest doctrines in
theology, philosophy, and science, neither he, nor any one else, is too
great to be a school master, a tutor, and a father to the boy passing
from childhood to the state of manhood,--that boyhood which, as Clement
of Alexandria says, furnishes the very milk of age, and from which the
constitution of the man receives its temper and complexion.”[161]
Ignatius, then, had founded a religious order which made the
education of youth one of its primary objects. It will be well to speak
here of a much discussed and most important question, namely, the
educational work of religious orders in general, a work not favorably
viewed by the majority of non-Catholics, to whom “monasticism”[162] is
one of the features in the Catholic Church which they hold in special
abhorrence. This antipathy is largely due to the unscrupulous slanders
of the later humanists and the fierce invectives of the fathers of the
Reformation. It is known what language Luther used against religious
vows, which he called an “abomination, unnatural and impossible to
keep, a slavery of Egypt, a sacrifice to Moloch;” etc. The monks he
styled “lazy drones, cowled hypocrites,” etc.[163]
However, there are many enlightened and scholarly non-Catholics who do
not share these opinions. Careful historical research revealed that the
monks were not lazy drones, but that they were the civilizers of Europe
and the preservers of ancient literature. Then it was admitted that
they were not all hypocritical debauchees. Thus, in a recent work of an
American scholar,[164] we find, after the description of the monastic
principles and ideals, the following statement: “The ideal monastic
character was that which corresponded to these principles. And in
hundreds of instances a personality with such a character did result;
a personality when directing faultless in humility and obedience to
God, faultless in humility and obedience when obeying; knowing neither
pride nor vanity, nor covetousness nor lust, nor slothful depression;
grave and silent with bent head, yet with an inner peace, even an inner
passionate joy; meditative, mystic, an otherworld personality; one that
dwells in spiritual facts, for whom this world has passed away and
the lusts thereof; one that is centered in God and in eternal life,
and yet capable of intense activities; a man who will not swerve from
orders received, as he swerves not from his great aim, the love of
God and eternal life.” And the Protestant Professor Harnack declares
that even to-day the Roman Church “possesses in its orders of monkhood
and its religious societies, a deep element of life in its midst. In
all ages it has produced saints, so far as men can be so called, and
it still produces them to-day. Trust in God, unaffected humility, the
assurance of redemption, the devotion of one’s life to the service of
one’s brethren, are to be found in it; many brethren take up the cross
of Christ and exercise at one and the same time that self-judgment
and that joy in God which Paul and Augustine achieved. The _Imitatio
Christi_ kindles independent religious life and a fire which burns with
a flame of its own.”[165]
A still more remarkable reaction seems of late to take place in
the minds of Protestant writers, concerning the origin and nature
of “monasticism”. After various attempts had been made to explain
the rise of monasticism from Essene, Brahman, or Buddhist influence,
not a few Protestants admit now that it logically, and, as it
were, naturally, arose from Christianity. “Monasticism”, says Mr.
Taylor, “arose from within Christianity, not from without.”[166]
Professor Harnack even regrets it that the Reformation has abolished
monasticism within the Evangelical Church. The words of this leader
among rationalistic Protestants deserve to be quoted. After having
pictured the achievements of the Protestant Reformation, he asks what
it has cost. Among other “high prices” which the Reformation had
to pay, he enumerates monasticism. When the Reformation abolished
monasticism, “something happened which Luther neither foresaw nor
desired: monasticism, of the kind that is conceivable and necessary in
the evangelical sense of the word, disappeared altogether. But every
community stands in need of personalities living _exclusively_ for its
ends. The Church, for instance, needs volunteers who will abandon every
other pursuit, renounce the ‘world’, and devote themselves entirely to
the service of their neighbor; not because such a vocation is a ‘higher
one’, but because it is a necessary one, and because no church can
live without also giving rise to such a desire. But in the evangelical
churches the desire has been checked by the decided attitude which they
have been compelled to adopt towards Catholicism. It is a high price
that we have paid; nor can the price be reduced by considering, on the
other hand, how much simple and unaffected religious fervor has been
kindled in home and family life. We may rejoice, however, that in the
past century a beginning has been made in the direction of recouping
this loss. In the institution of deaconesses and many cognate phenomena
the evangelical churches are getting back what they once ejected
through their inability to recognize it in the form which it then took.
But it must undergo a much ampler and more varied development.”[167]
One of the “ends” of the Church is education. It is natural, then,
that there should be personalities who live exclusively for this end,
or, at least, devote themselves in a special manner to this work. In
fact, from the earliest ages of Christianity, we find that religious
took a special interest in the education of youth. The celebrated
historian Dr. Neander of Berlin, who can not be accused of any undue
leaning towards Catholicism, praises the early monks for their labor
in this direction. He points out that the duties of education were
particularly recommended to the monks of St. Basil. They were enjoined
to take upon themselves voluntarily the education of orphans, and the
education of other youths when entrusted to them by their parents. It
was by no means necessary that these children should become monks; they
were early instructed in some trade or art, and were afterwards at
liberty to make a free choice of their vocation.[168]
St. John Chrysostom most earnestly recommended to parents to employ
the monks as instructors to their sons; to have their sons educated in
monasteries, at a distance from the corruption of the world, where they
might early be made acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, be brought
up in Christian habits, and where the foundation of a true Christian
character might be laid, the fruits of which would afterwards manifest
themselves in every station and circumstance of life. Dr. Neander
thus comments on the appeals of St. Chrysostom: “Where men truly
enlightened were to be found among the monks, as was often the case,
the advice of St. Chrysostom was undoubtedly correct; and even where
too great attention to outward forms, and too little of an evangelical
spirit prevailed, education among them was more desirable than in
corrupted families, or the schools of the sophists, in which vanity and
ostentation were in every way encouraged.”[169]
It is scarcely necessary to state that other religious orders before
the foundation of the Society of Jesus, especially the Benedictines
and the Dominicans, had rendered inestimable service to the cause of
Christian education. Cardinal Newman compares the educational work of
these three orders in the following terms: “As the physical universe
is sustained and carried on in dependence on certain centres of power
and laws of operation, so the course of the social and political world,
and of that great religious organization called the Catholic Church,
is found to proceed for the most part from the presence or action of
definite persons, places, events, and institutions, as the visible
cause of the whole.... Education follows the same law: it has its
history in Christianity, and its doctors or masters in that history. It
has had three periods: the ancient, the medieval, and the modern; and
there are three religious orders in those periods respectively which
succeed, one the other, on its public stage, and represent the teaching
given by the Catholic Church during the time of their ascendancy. The
first period is that long series of centuries, during which society
was breaking, or had broken up, and then slowly attempted its own
reconstruction; the second may be called the period of reconstruction;
and the third dates from the Reformation, when that peculiar movement
of mind commenced, the issue of which is still to come. Now, St.
Benedict has had the training of the ancient intellect, St. Dominic of
the medieval, and St. Ignatius of the modern.... Ignatius, a man of the
world before his conversion, transmitted as a legacy to his disciples
that knowledge of mankind which cannot be learned in cloisters.”[170]
However, none of the religious orders of the Middle Ages had taken
the education of youth formally and expressly into its constitution.
As regards the Benedictines, Cardinal Newman maintains that their
occupation with literary and historical studies was, in a way, a
compromise with the primary end of their institute. The monastic
institute, as the great Benedictine scholar Mabillon says, demands
_summa quies_, the most perfect quietness. Hence the studies which they
pursued with special predilection, were such as did not excite the
mind: the study of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, the examination of
ancient manuscripts, editions and biographies of the Fathers, studies
which can be undergone in silence and quietness.[171] So was also the
educational work which they undertook accidental to the primary object
of their institute. The Order of St. Dominic had a much closer, a more
direct and explicit connection with studies and teaching. But it was
chiefly the teaching of the highest branches, of theology, the “science
of sciences”, and of philosophy, which this order undertook. What we
now understand by “education” was only remotely included in the object
of the Order of St. Dominic.
St. Ignatius was the first to assume the education of youth as a
special part of the work of a religious order, as a special ministry,
a special means of obtaining the end of his Society: the glory of God
and the salvation of souls. “We can,” says Cicero, “do no greater or
better service to the commonwealth than to teach and instruct youth.”
St. Ignatius knew this full well, he also knew that it applied to the
supernatural commonwealth, the City of God, the Church of Christ.
In opposition to the pagan ideas of the radical school of the
humanists, he deemed it absolutely necessary that all efforts should
be made to instil the principles of the true religion, together with
useful knowledge, into the minds of boys; for as the Wise Man says:
“A young man, according to his way, even when he is old, he will not
depart from it.” (_Prov._, 22, 6.)--“Hence”, as the Jesuit theologian
Suarez says: “God raised up St. Ignatius, and gave to him this mind and
counsel, without the motive and example of other religious orders, and
it has been approved by the authority of His Vicar.”[172]
This measure of St. Ignatius in taking the education of youth as
a fundamental part into his order, marks an important epoch in the
history of Catholic education. After the time of St. Ignatius other
religious congregations were founded with the special object of
undertaking the education of the young; we mention only the Christian
Brothers, founded by Saint de La Salle, and the Piarists. For the
education of women there are numerous congregations of sisters, which
exclusively or primarily are engaged in imparting a refined and
thoroughly Christian education.
Of late the educational work of religious orders has frequently been
objected to, even by some who call themselves Catholics. But in spite
of all that has been said to the contrary, the care which religious
orders take of education is a source of blessings for the pupils, the
family, and the whole community. Religious, above all, try to impart a
religious, a Christian education. How useful, how absolutely necessary
this is for society as well as for the individual pupil, need not be
discussed. Further, in the case of religious teachers a guarantee is
given that persons of noble character and high aspirations devote their
whole lives to the cause of education. Must we not expect that such
teachers will obtain most satisfactory results in their work? At all
events, it cannot be denied that the educational labors of the Society
were crowned with success.
Protestant historians, as Ranke, Paulsen, and others, admit that the
Jesuit schools of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were far more
successful than their Protestant rivals. Whence the difference? Ranke
finds it in the exactness and nicety of the methods of the Society.
This was undoubtedly one cause of their greater success. Still it is
more probable that the chief reason is to be sought in the teachers
themselves. The teachers in the Jesuit colleges were, on the whole,
better fitted for their work than were most other teachers. It is not
difficult to prove this assertion. The social position of teachers
was, during these centuries, a most undesirable one.[173] The salaries
were so miserable that the teachers, to support themselves and their
families, had to practise some other profession or trade. Professor
Paulsen states that in Saxony, towards the close of the sixteenth
century, the _one_ schoolmaster of a small town was regularly organist,
town-clerk and sexton.[174] The village schoolmasters were mostly
sextons, field-guards, or tailors. As late as 1738, an order was
issued in Prussia to the effect that in the country there should be
no other tailors besides the sextons and schoolmasters, and later on
Frederick the Great declared: “tailors are bad schoolmasters,” and so
he preferred to make teachers out of old soldiers, invalid corporals,
and sergeants. The position of teachers in the higher schools was
not much more enticing. They had to obtain some addition to their
scanty salaries by a sort of genteel beggary: by dedicating books or
orations to influential persons, by writing poems for weddings or
similar occasions. Teachers were always far worse off than lawyers or
physicians. It was always a true saying, but especially in those times:
_Dat Galenus opes, dat Justinianus honores,
Sed genus et species cogitur ire pedes_,
which may be freely rendered:
The doctor’s purse old Galen fills,
Justinian lifts the esquire on high,
But he that treads in grammar-mills,
Will tread it on until he die.
The famous rector of the school of Ilfeld, Neander, was told one day
by his former colleague of Schulpforta, Gigas, who had retired to a
parish: “You should have had yourself flayed alive rather than stay
so many years with the wicked and devilish youths of to-day.” And
Schekkius, who died in 1704, had the following inscription painted on
the wall of the Gymnasium in Hildesheim:
“_Quis miser est? Vere miseros si dixeris ullos,
Hi sunt, qui pueros betha vel alpha docent._
“The schoolmasters have horses’ and asses’ labor; they have to swallow
much dust, stench and smoke to boot; discomfort, calumnies, and sundry
troubles, with ingratitude in _fine laborum_.”
We cannot wonder that the _desudare in pulvere scholastico_ was not
considered a desirable profession, and that the school career was
sought only as a transitory occupation, which was abandoned as soon as
a good parsonage was offered. Others again entered upon this career
because, for lack of talent or other qualities, they could not expect
to succeed in the ministry.[175] The changes among the teachers, in
Saxony and elsewhere, were exceedingly frequent. It was very common
among Protestant theologians to teach for one year, or at the most two
years, and then to retire to a parish.[176]
What do we find among the Jesuits? The most talented youths entered
their ranks, and after a long and solid training many taught in the
colleges their whole lives, others for at least five or more years.
They had not to worry about their livelihood, as the Order provided
all they needed. So they could devote themselves, all their time and
strength, to the work of education.[177] But this was possible only
because they had joined a religious order, which had taken up the
education of youth as one of its special ministries. I have never
found that any writers who discuss the causes of the superiority of
the Jesuit schools have taken this fact into account. And yet it was
undoubtedly one of the most important reasons of the great success of
the colleges of the Society.
But may not even at the present day religious most beneficially
be employed as educators of Catholic youth? Will not their state
of life secure some advantages for the work of education? It has
repeatedly been stated by non-Catholic writers that the schools
of the teaching congregations in France were far more successful
than the lay schools.[178] What is the explanation of this fact,
so unwelcome to those who have to admit it? A recent article in an
American magazine may help us to find a very plausible explanation.
Professor Münsterberg of Harvard writes[179]: “The greater number of
those who devote themselves to higher teaching in America are young
men without means, too often without breeding; and yet that would be
easily compensated for, if they were men of the best minds, but they
are not. They are mostly men of a passive, almost indifferent sort of
mind, without intellectual energy, men who see in the academic career
a modest safe path of life ... while our best young men must rush to
law, and banking, and what not,” and all this because the salaries are
not high enough.[180] It is not our task to investigate or defend the
correctness of these statements, which unquestionably contain a great
deal of truth.
What do we find in religious orders? No doubt, the type of mind
described in the preceding lines is to be met with among them; but in
schools, conducted by religious, men are teaching who are “of the best
minds”, sometimes also men who belong to the best Catholic families
in the land. The Jesuits, in particular, have even been charged with
drawing the finest talents and the sons of the most distinguished
families to their Order. If this were true, these talents would not
be lost to society. For they are working for the noblest cause, the
education of the young. Their state of life made firm and lasting by
sacred vows, frees them from family cares and family troubles, and
permits them to devote all their time and energy to education. The
Jesuit is prevented from seeking earthly remuneration, consequently, no
“better chance”, no higher salary offered by other occupations, will
entice him to forsake his arduous but sublime task.
In the year 1879, at the time of violent agitations against the Jesuit
colleges in France, a writer in the Paris _Figaro_ called attention
to the fact how little a Jesuit teacher needed. In the provinces, a
Jesuit teacher costs one thousand francs, in Paris, a little more, and
this is for board, clothes, etc. Going from one college to another, he
takes with him his crucifix, his breviary, and the clothes which he
wears on his body, his manuscripts, if he has any, and that is all. And
yet, as the same writer points out, among these truly poor men, among
these volunteers to the noble cause of education, are men who are the
sons of millionaires, others who have received the badge of the “Legion
of Honor”, others who had been awarded this distinction before they
became Jesuits; there are among them men who had been able officers in
the army or navy. Indeed, these men must see in the education of youth
something more than an occupation for gaining a livelihood.
In this country the instability of teachers has more than once formed
the subject of complaints. “In Maine,[181] some time ago, four years
was found to be the average time of service. The report of 1892 on the
high schools of Washington (D. C.) remarks that, with few exceptions,
all professionally prepared teachers who had occupied their positions
four years ago had resigned to enter more lucrative positions. Better
opportunities are offered not only to male but to female teachers,
who also give up their positions to enter upon married life. Even
well-to-do American women, generally highly educated, well informed,
and at the same time enterprising, prefer to spend a few years in
teaching rather than await their future inactively. The official report
condenses all this in the mournful remark: ‘In the United States the
profession of teaching seems to be a kind of waiting-room in which the
young girl awaits a congenial, ulterior support, and the young man a
more advantageous position.’”[182]
It is evident that teaching must suffer from such instability. No
professional skill is possible in the majority of teachers; experience
and steadfastness, two important elements in education, are lacking.
This latter point may be illustrated by a comparison drawn between the
Catholic Sister and the Protestant Deaconess. The comparison has been
drawn by a Protestant lady in Germany, Frau Elisabeth Gnauck-Kühne,
who for many years was prominent in works of Christian charity. She
says:[183] “The Catholic Sister has made a binding vow, she has burnt
the ships behind her; earthly cares, earthly pleasures she knows no
more, her conversation is in heaven. It is the same to her whither she
goes, whom she attends, poor or rich, old or young, high or low, all
these circumstances are immaterial; for she has balanced her account
with the life on this side of the grave, she does nothing by halves.
The Evangelical Deaconess in theory stands in a different position. Her
church demands of her no oath of renunciation, she has not destroyed
the bridge, she may at any moment return to the fleshpots of Egypt,
especially when a man wants her for his wife. Then the motives which
have led her to the service of the sick will hold no longer; then
the needs, which, as far as lay in her, she wished to remedy, must
continue to exist, she doffs the severe garb and decks herself with
the orange-blossoms. Such being the case, is it not most natural
that she yields more easily to the temptation of having one eye on
her vocation, the other on the world? What is excluded in the case
of the Catholic Sister, the desertion of her vocation and marriage,
are possible for her, and why should she not find the possibility
desirable? If, in addition, the wish is father to the thought, there
arises consciously or unconsciously, that disposition which has been
felt as a ‘tinge of worldliness.’ But it would be unfair to blame the
Deaconess. Protestantism with irresistible consistency must produce the
described disposition and half-heartedness, for it esteems married life
more highly than voluntary virginity, and under all circumstances it is
lawful and laudable to strive after that which is higher and better.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, while considering married life
a sacred state, gives a higher rank to life-long virginity consecrated
to God.”
This surprising tribute to the usefulness and dignity of the
religious life as practised in the Catholic Church, may be applied
with equal force to the religious teachers. They, too, do nothing
by halves; “their hearts are not divided.”[184] “For the kingdom of
heaven’s sake”[185] they have renounced the joys of family life. All
their affections purified, ennobled and made supernatural, are to be
bestowed on those entrusted to their care. It is Christ whom they
have to see in the little ones, according to the words of the Divine
Master: “He that receiveth one such little child in my name receiveth
me.” We do not mean to imply that married men may not be excellent
teachers,--thousands have been such,--nor that all religious on account
of their state are good teachers. We merely wish to prove that the
religious state in itself affords many advantages for the cause of
education. The difficulties connected with education will be borne more
patiently, sometimes even heroically, by one who has bound himself to a
life of perfect obedience and self-sacrifice.
Besides, in a teaching order, a continuity of aim and effort is
effected which is and must be wanting in individuals. Mr. Quick has
well emphasized this fact: “By corporate life you secure continuity
of effort. There is to me something very attractive in the idea of a
teaching society. How such a society might capitalize its discoveries.
The Roman Church has shown a genius for such societies, witness the
Jesuits and the Christian Brothers. The experience of centuries must
have taught them much that we could learn of them.”[186] For this
reason a change of Professors in a Jesuit College is attended by fewer
inconveniences, as all have been trained under the same system, and
thus have imbibed the pedagogical traditions of the Order.
A French writer has spoken of another advantage, the moral influence,
which the religious exercises owing to his state. “The Jesuit
teacher”--the same may be said of all religious teachers--“is not a
paid official. The pupils look up to him as a loved and venerated
friend. Perhaps they know that he is the scion of an illustrious
family, who could have followed a splendid career in life, who could
have succeeded in the world of finances and industry. But he preferred
to take the black gown and to devote himself to education.”[187]
The source of the growing antipathy against the educational labors
of religious is either hatred of the Catholic religion or religious
indifferentism. When people do not care any more for the supernatural,
the education based professedly on supernatural views, seems to them
out of date, antiquated, a remnant of medieval priestcraft and clerical
tyranny. Be it remarked, however, that this opposition is not new
to our age. The very Middle Ages witnessed a violent opposition to
the teaching of religious orders. This was especially the case in
the University of Paris, where, in the thirteenth century, a strong
rationalistic party, headed by William of Saint-Amour, endeavored to
expel the Dominicans and Franciscans from the professorial chair.
William’s contention was that the religious should not be allowed to
teach, but should employ themselves in manual labors, as did the monks
in olden times. Then it was that three able pens were employed to
defend the religious orders and their work: those of Bonaventure, of
Albertus Magnus, and of Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas wrote his little
work: “Against those who attack, Religion and the Worship of God”,[188]
of which Fleury said that it had always been regarded as the most
perfect apology for religious orders. In the second chapter, headed
“Whether Religious may teach”, and the third, “Whether Religious may be
a corporate body of secular teachers”, the Saint refutes the objections
of William in a most lucid and powerful manner, and sets forth the
advantages which the Church and society may derive from teaching by
religious orders. He contends that a religious order may be instituted
for any work of mercy. As teaching is a work of mercy, a religious
order may be founded with the special end of teaching.[189] And as the
common good is to be preferred to private utility a monk may leave his
solitude with permission of Superiors, to minister to the general good
by teaching as well as by writing.
We see from this fact that history repeats itself, and that the modern
attacks on the educational labors of religious communities are by no
means new. The tactics of the enemies of the religious change, the
pretexts of attacks on them will vary, but the nature of the warfare
is ever the same. It is conscious or unconscious opposition to the
principles of Christianity. Therefore, we find that those who have
the interest of religion at heart, are not among the opponents of
“clerical” education.
Even Protestants frankly admit that the union of the clerical office
with that of the teacher offers great advantages. Sir Joshua Fitch,
the distinguished English educator, thinks that the “parents in
parting with the moral supervision of their sons are not unreasonably
disposed to place increased confidence in a headmaster who combines the
scholarship and the skill of teaching with the dignity and the weight
of the clergyman’s office.”[190] And Professor Paulsen, certainly not
theologically biased, says that it was not without disadvantages that
the theologians were replaced in the Gymnasia by philologians and
mathematicians, a change which for a long time was wished, undoubtedly
not without good reasons. The theologian, owing to his whole training,
had an inclination towards the care of the _souls_; the interest in the
_whole_ man was the centre of his calling.[191]
What we have said so far undoubtedly justifies us in maintaining that
the measure adopted by Ignatius, in making education a special ministry
of a religious order, marks an epoch of prime importance in the history
of Catholic pedagogy.
The character and object of the Society, the means it applies for
obtaining its object, and its system of administration are laid down
in the Constitutions of the Society. These Constitutions are the work
of St. Ignatius, not, as has been asserted, of his successor Lainez,
although the latter was one of those Fathers whom Ignatius consulted
very frequently whilst drawing up the Constitutions. St. Ignatius died
in 1556; in 1558 the representatives of the Order met together and
elected James Lainez second General of the Society. They examined the
Constitution which Father Ignatius had left at his death, and received
it with unanimity, just as it stood. They presented it to the Sovereign
Pontiff Paul IV., who committed the code to four Cardinals for accurate
revision. The commission returned it, without having altered a
word.[192]
We must explain a few details of the organization of the Order, as
certain terms will be used again and again in this work. The Order is
divided into _Provinces_, which comprise all the colleges and other
houses in a certain country or district. The Superior of a Province
is called _Provincial_; he is appointed by the General for a number
of years. Several Provinces form a so-called _Assistancy_. The head
of the Order is the _General_, elected for lifetime by the General
Congregation. He possesses full jurisdiction and administrative power
in the Order. Five assistants form, as it were, his council. They are
elected by the General Congregation, from the various assistancies.
They are now five: those of Italy, Germany (with Austria, Galicia,
Belgium and Holland), France, England and North America, Spain
(with Portugal). The legislative body of the Order is the _General
Congregation_. It alone can add to the Constitutions, change or
abrogate. It consists of the General (after his death, his Vicar),
the Assistants, the Provincials, and two special deputies, elected by
each province. It assembles only after the death of a General, or in
extraordinary cases at the command of the General. As was said, it
elects a new General and his assistants, and it may depose the General
for grave reasons. It is clear, then, that the General’s power is not
so absolute as it is sometimes represented to be, but is wisely limited.
In this way the greatest possible centralization is secured in the
hands of the General, and yet the danger of abusing so great a power
is excluded by the institution of the Assistants. Ribadeneira has
well remarked that this form of government borders closely upon
monarchy, but has still more in common with an oligarchy, for it avoids
everything faulty in each of the two systems and borrows the best
points of both. From the monarchy it takes its unity and stability;
from the oligarchy the existence of a council, so that the General
may command every one, and at the same time, be subject to every one
(_praesit et subsit_).[193]
In connection with the Constitutions we must mention a book which
is said to exhibit the “true” character of the Society, namely the
so-called _Monita Secreta_, or code of secret instructions, supposed to
have been drawn up by Aquaviva, the fifth General, for the benefit of
Superiors and others who are considered fit to be initiated in the full
mystery of the schemes of the Society. It imputes to the Society the
most crooked designs to achieve the aggrandizement of the Order. It has
been reprinted again and again, in England as late as 1850 (London), in
France 1870 and 1876, in Germany 1886 and 1901. The work has repeatedly
been proved to be an infamous libel, written by one Zahorowski, who had
been discharged from the Society in 1611 or 1612. Even such enemies of
the Society as the Jansenist Arnauld, the “Old-Catholics” Döllinger,
Huber, Reusch, and Friedrich, declare it “spurious and a lampoon on the
Order.” Dr. Littledale calls it “an ingenious forgery”,[194] it has
been recently called a fraudulent squib by Protestants like Professor
Harnack (1891), Tschackert (1891), and others.[195] And still, in
spite of all this adverse authority, recent Protestant publications
have referred to this forgery as to an authentic document. No, not the
_Monita Secreta_, but the Constitutions, available to any one, contain
the spirit of the Society.
The Constitutions are divided into ten parts, the fourth of which
treats of studies. This part is the longest of all, and its perfect
arrangement met with especial admiration. After the promulgation of
the Constitutions successive General Congregations issued decrees,
emphasizing the vast importance of the education of youth, and the
great esteem to be had for the teaching of grammar and the classics.
It is called “a special and characteristic ministry of the Society”
(_Congr. 8., Dec. 8._), “one of the most desirable occupations and most
beneficial to many” (_C. 7., D. 26._). In the Ratio Studiorum, the very
first Rule reads:[196] “As it is one of the principal ministries of our
Society to teach all the branches of knowledge, which according to our
institute may be taught, in such a manner that thereby men may be led
to the knowledge and love of our Creator and Redeemer, the Provincial
should consider it his duty to see with all diligence, that the fruit
which the grace of our vocation requires, corresponds with the manifold
labors of our schools.” This work of teaching boys is considered
so important in the Society that in the last vows it is expressly
mentioned: “I vow according to obedience a special concern for the
education of boys.”
The branches which “according to the Institute may be taught,” are
chiefly those that are connected with higher education. The Society has
been blamed for neglecting elementary education. Professor Huber thinks
that the Jesuits did so, “first, because this task seemed to them to be
more subordinate, since the hold on the people was assured to them any
way by their ecclesiastical influence; secondly, because on the whole
they were no friends of popular education, however insignificant; for
the complete ignorance of the masses did but fortify their control of
them.”[197] This is a flagrant injustice and sheer calumny. The Order
never opposed popular education. On the contrary, the Constitutions
expressly declare it to be a laudable work: “Moreover it would be a
work of charity to teach reading and writing, if the Society had a
sufficient number of men. But on account of dearth of men we are not
ordinarily used for this purpose.”[198]--This is the proper reason, and
the only one why the Jesuits could not undertake elementary education.
They had never men enough to supply the demands for higher education.
Actually hundreds of applications from bishops and princes for erecting
colleges had to be refused. As early as 1565, the Second General
Congregation had to decree that “existing colleges should rather be
strengthened than new ones admitted. The latter should be done only if
there was a sufficient endowment and a sufficient number of teachers
available.”[199]
How, then, could the Society enter so vast a field as that of
elementary education? Besides the whole intellectual training of
the Jesuits fitted them better for the higher branches. At the
present day, when the watchword is “specialization”, the Jesuits
should rather find recognition than censure, for having wisely
limited their work centuries ago. Moreover, the Jesuits _did_ teach
elementary branches, at least in some places, not only in Paraguay,
but also in Europe. Father Nadal writes: “In the elementary class
(_classic abecedariorum_), which may be opened with the permission
of the General, the boys are taught reading and writing. A brother
may be employed to assist the teacher if the class should be too
large.”[200]--Be it further added that at present, in the foreign
missions, v. g. in Syria, the Jesuits conduct hundreds of elementary
schools, in which most branches are taught by lay brothers or by
sisters of various teaching congregations.[201]
The fourth part of the Constitutions contains only the general
principles, not a complete system of education. That this more general
legislation was not considered final by St. Ignatius, follows from the
passage in which he states that “a number of points will be treated of
separately in some document approved by the General Superior.”[202]
This is the express warrant, contained in the Constitutions, for the
future Ratio Studiorum, or System of Studies in the Society of Jesus.
FOOTNOTES:
[149] The best for English readers are: _Saint Ignatius of Loyola_,
by Henri Joly (London, 1899). _Life of St. Ignatius_, by C. Genelli.
_Saint Ignatius and the Early Jesuits_, by Stewart Rose.
[150] _Essays_: “Ranke’s History of the Popes.”
[151] _Encyclopedia Britannica_ (9th ed.), article “Jesuits.” This
article teems with gross misrepresentations of the Order, and it would
take a volume to refute the calumnies and the ungrounded insinuations
contained therein.
[152] See _The Testament of St. Ignatius_. Introduction by Father
Tyrrell, S. J., p. 7; and notes on pp. 60-61, 79-82, 197 foll.
[153] Harnack, _What is Christianity?_ (New York, 1901), Lecture XIV,
p. 252.--However, much of what has been written about the military
character of the Society is due to a misconception. When Mr. Davidson,
in his _History of Education_, says that “the Society of Jesus was a
great military organization, a _Catholic Salvation Army_, with methods
very much resembling those of its latest imitator,” we must call this
comparison absurd. For a greater difference than that between the
methods of the Society and those of the Salvation Army is scarcely
conceivable, not to say a word of the vast difference of their aims.
[154] “To resist the encroachments of Protestantism, that followed
the diffusion of instruction among the people, Loyola organized his
teaching corps of Catholic zealots; and his mode of competition for
purposes of moral, sectarian and political control has covered the
earth in all Christian countries with institutions of learning.”
Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, p. 163.
[155] In the first approbation of the Institute, by the Brief _Regimini
militantis_ of Pope Paul III., September 27, 1540. (Cf. _Litterae
Apostolicae_, Florentiae, 1892, p. 4.)
[156] _Litterae Apostolicae_, _l. c._, p. 44.
[157] Huber, _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, 1873, p. 3.
[158] Huber, _l. c._, p. 26.
[159] On this subject cf. Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_. (Jesuit-Myths),
Herder, Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1899, (3rd edition), pp. 1-28.
[160] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 382. In
another passage he styles the Society a _Professoren-Orden_.
[161] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 43.
[162] It is common among non-Catholics to style the members of all
religious orders “monks.” However, this popular appellation is not
correct. The general term is “religious.” This word was used in this
sense very early in English (v. g. by Chaucer, _Troylus and Chryseyde_,
CIX, 759). It seems that after the Reformation, Protestants refused
to honor members of religious orders with this title. J. L. Kington
Oliphant, of Balliol College, Oxford, states in his work _The New
English_ (vol. I, p. 482), that “the phrase _the relygyon_ is employed
for monk’s profession, almost for the last time” between 1537 and
1540. Protestants preferred to use the word “monk”, which soon became
a term of reproach. They saw in the monks the very type of laziness,
uselessness, ignorance, fanaticism and profligacy. Cardinal Newman
has said of this Protestant view: “As a Jesuit means a knave, so a
monk means a bigot.”--The Catholic Church, as every other society, has
the right to lay down its own terminology, which, we think, should be
respected by all. (The term “religious” in this sense is recognized by
the Standard and Century Dictionaries). The Church and all enlightened
Catholics distinguish between Monks, Friars and Clerks Regular. _Monks_
are the contemplative orders: Basilians, Benedictines, Carthusians,
Cistercians and Trappists. The _Friars_ or _Mendicants_ were founded in
the Middle Ages; they are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and
Augustinians. _The Clerks Regular_, or _Regular Clerics_, are chiefly
of more recent date: The Theatines, the Jesuits etc. The difference, as
regards the aim and manner of life of these classes, is well explained
in _The Religious State_, by William Humphrey, S. J. (London, 1884,
3 vols.) vol. II, pp. 309-336. This work is a digest of the classic
work on the religious state, the _De Statu Religionis_ of the Jesuit
Suarez. Father Humphrey’s digest may prove of service to all who desire
to have information with regard to a salient feature of the Catholic
Church.--See also the excellent articles in the _Kirchen-Lexikon_
(Herder, 2nd ed.): “Orden,” vol. IX, 972; “Mönchthum,” vol. VIII, 1689;
“Bettelorden,” vol. II, 561; “_Clerici regulares_,” vol. III, 530.
[163] Much of what Luther said on the subject of vows, as well as of
matrimony, does not bear translation. See Janssen, _Ein zweites Wort an
meine Kritiker_, pp. 93-97. Professor Paulsen indignantly repudiates
the vile calumnies of the humanists against the religious orders. He
points out that the writings of many humanists exhibit a licentiousness
which would have made most religious throw these books aside with utter
disgust. Some Protestant critics severely blamed the Berlin Professor
for this defence of the outlawed monks. Professor Ziegler even accused
him that, in alliance with Janssen and Denifle, he endeavored to
restore the old Catholic _fable convenue_. Professor Paulsen answers
this charge of his co-religionists by saying that he is entirely
free from any such tendency. “I do not want to restore or maintain
any fables, neither Catholic nor Protestant; but I wish, as far as
possible, to see things as they are. It is true, this endeavor has led
me to doubt whether the renaissance and its apostles deserve all the
esteem, and the representatives of medieval education all the contempt
which, up to this day, has been bestowed on them.” _L. c._, vol. I, p.
89.
[164] Taylor, _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, (New York,
Macmillan 1900), p. 182.
[165] _What is Christianity?_, p. 266.
[166] _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, p. 142.
[167] _What is Christianity?_, p. 288.
[168] _The Life of St. Chrysostom_, by Dr. Neander. Translated from the
German by the Rev. J. C. Stapleton, London 1845, p. 92.
[169] _Ibid._, p. 37.
[170] _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, pp. 365-366.
[171] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, pp. 420-26; 452.
[172] _De Religione Societatis Jesu._--See the digest of the work in
_The Religious State_, by W. Humphrey, S. J., vol. III, p. 167.
[173] Many interesting details on this subject have been published in
a recent book by Reicke, _Lehrer und Unterrichtswesen in der deutschen
Vergangenheit_, Leipzig, Diederichs, 1901. Summary in _Neue Jahrbücher
für das klassische Altertum_, 1902, vol. X, pp. 295-296.--See also
Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_ (2nd ed.), vol. I, pp.
326-333; 362.
[174] _L. c._, p. 296.
[175] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, _l. c._, p. 327.
[176] _Ib._, p. 296.
[177] Professor Paulsen states that the Jesuit teachers changed also
rather frequently; but _every_ Jesuit had to teach at least four or
five years after the completion of his philosophical course, and very
many returned to the colleges after their theological studies. Hence
there was incomparably more stability in Jesuit colleges than in most
Protestant schools of those times.
[178] See for instance the _Contemporary Review_, March, 1900, p. 441,
where it is plainly stated by a writer most hostile to the religious
orders, that the “religious teachers do their work efficiently and
successfully, their rivals with a degree of slovenliness which is
incredible.” See further testimonies below, chapter VII.
[179] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1901, p. 628. However, this feature is
not confined to American schools. Within the last few years serious
complaints begin to be heard also in Germany. There is even a serious
danger apprehended for the higher schools. The commercial spirit has
invaded Germany, and young men are not anxious to enter on a career
which is perhaps the most fatiguing of all and offers the fewest
chances for advancement. See Dr. Wermbter, _Die höhere Schullaufbahn
in Preussen_, 1901; Dr. Schröder: _Periculum in Mora_, 1901.--Of the
French teachers M. Bréal, Professor of the _Collège de France_, said
as early as 1879: “Les maîtres d’études sont, généralement, des jeunes
gens qui acceptent de fatigantes et difficiles fonctions pour avoir
le loisir de se préparer à un emploi plus relevé, ... personnes sans
expérience pédagogique, dont la pensée et l’activité sont tournées vers
les examens qui les attendent.... Je ne crains pas d’être contredit si
j’affirme que l’autorité leur manque pour être les éducateurs que nous
cherchons.” Du Lac, _Jésuites_, p. 280.
[180] Political influence has repeatedly been pointed out as another
cause that deters able men in this country from school work. “It seems
to be true that high schools have not been able to attract the best men
into their service, because appointments in them must be sought usually
through avenues of political influence.” _Educational Review_, May,
1902, p. 506. See also President Draper, in _Education in the United
States_, vol. I, pp. 13, 16, 29; and Mr. Anderson’s article “Politics
in the Public Schools,” _Atlantic Monthly_, April, 1901.
[181] In Illinois and other states the same has been proved. Mr.
McBurney wrote quite recently in the _Ohio Teacher_ that the average
life of the country teacher is not over three years. See _The Review_,
St. Louis, October 2, 1902, p. 601.
[182] _Report of the Com. of Education_, 1892-93, vol. I, p. 545; see
also pp. 565 and 586.
[183] From the Protestant _Tägliche Rundschau_ of Berlin, Sept. 28,
1899.
[184] I. _Corinth._ 7, 33.
[185] _Matth._ 19, 11, 12.
[186] _Educational Reformers_, p. 532.
[187] Albert Duruy in _Revue des Deux-Mondes_, Jan. 1, 1880.
[188] _Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem._ Edition of Parma,
1864, vol. XV. _Opusculum_ I. See _The Life and Labors of St. Thomas
Aquinas_, by Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., 1871, vol. I, pp. 625-726.
[189] See also _Summa Theol._, 2., 2., _qu._ 188, a. 5.
[190] _Thomas_ and _Matthew Arnold_, p. 97.
[191] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, pp. 628-629 (2. ed., vol. II, p. 390).
[192] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 55.
[193] _Saint Ignatius_, by H. Joly, p. 217.
[194] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article “Jesuits”.
[195] See Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_ (3rd ed.), pp. 76-102.--_The Month_
(London), August 1901, pp. 176-185: _The Jesuit Bogey and the Monita
Secreta_; and especially Reiber, _Monita Secreta_, Augsburg, 1902.
[196] _First Rule of the Provincial._
[197] _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 348.--Compayré repeats this charge: “The
Jesuits have deliberately neglected and disdained primary education.”
_Hist. of Ped._, p. 142.
[198] _Constitut._, P. IV, c. 12, _Declaratio C._--The XX. General
Congregation, 1820, when asked whether elementary schools should be
admitted, reverted to this passage of the Constitutions: “Such schools
are not excluded by our Institute, on the contrary, it is said in the
Constitutions that such teaching is a work of charity. But the dearth
of men is to be taken into consideration, and care must be taken not
to hinder greater good through this (admission of elementary schools).
The whole matter is left to the prudence of the Provincials, who have
to see what is expedient according to place and circumstances.” _Decr._
XXI. Pachtler, vol. I, p. 107.
[199] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 74. (_Decr._ VIII.)
[200] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, 1902, p. 108.
[201] See below chapter VII.
[202] _Const._, P. IV, cap. XIII. _Decl. A._
CHAPTER IV.
The Ratio Studiorum of 1599.
The number of colleges of the Society grew very rapidly. Colleges
were opened during the life-time of St. Ignatius, at Messina, Palermo,
Naples, and other towns in Italy; at Gandia, Salamanca, Valencia,
Alcala, Burgos, Valladolid, and Saragossa in Spain; at Lisbon in
Portugal; at Vienna in Austria; and at Billom in France. After the
death of the first General (1556), many more colleges were added to
the list, especially in those parts of Germany and the Netherlands
which had remained faithful to the Catholic Church. Thus Ingolstadt,
Cologne, Prague, Tyrnau (Hungary) were opened in 1556, Munich 1559,
Treves 1560, Innsbruck and Mentz 1561, etc.[203] In Belgium Audenarde
1566, Douay 1568, Bruges 1571, Antwerp 1575, Liège 1582, etc. But
the Society possessed as yet no uniform system of education; the
colleges in the various countries at first followed, more or less, the
systems prevailing there, not however, without improving the existing
methods according to the general principles of the fourth part of the
Constitutions. Still, it would be altogether wrong to suppose that the
Ratio Studiorum, or Plan of Studies, drawn up 1584-1599, was the first
important document of its kind. The recent historical researches of
the Spanish Jesuits have shed much new light on this question.[204]
These Fathers have published in 1901-1902 many important documents on
the educational methods of the Society, drawn up before 1584. Three
documents especially exhibit three complete “Plans of Studies.” The
first was written by Father Jerome Nadal (Latinized Natalis), probably
between 1548-1552, during the life-time of St. Ignatius. Nadal was
well fitted for drawing up a plan of studies. Possessed of great
talent and a singular prudence, he had made excellent studies in the
University of Paris. Appointed Rector of the new College at Messina,
in 1548, he wrote his treatise _De Studiis Societatis Jesu_, the first
plan of studies of the Society known thus far.[205] The second is an
adaptation of Father Nadal’s plan which was sent from Messina to the
Roman College.[206] The most important is the third, written by Father
Ledesma. This distinguished scholar had studied in the Universities
of Alcala, Paris and Louvain. Immediately after his entrance into the
Society, in 1557, he taught in the Roman College until his death, in
1575. As Prefect of Studies in this college, he drew up a plan of
studies which practically contains, at least in outline, all points
which were later on laid down in the Ratio Studiorum concerning
classical studies.[207] Besides these three documents there are extant
fragments of plans of studies of various colleges in Italy, France,
Spain, Portugal, and Germany.[208]
With the increase of the colleges, the want of a uniform system for the
whole Society was felt more and more. Teachers and superiors of schools
and provinces asked more urgently for the plan of studies which St.
Ignatius had promised in the Constitutions. The final completion of
the educational system was reserved to the fifth General of the Order,
Father Claudius Aquaviva, who governed the Society from 1581-1615. His
Generalate was a most stormy, but at the same time the most brilliant,
epoch in the history of the Order. It was the glorious time of the
English and Japanese martyrs; the time when the great missions in
Japan, China, and Brazil began to flourish; the time in which learned
men like Bellarmine, Suarez, Maldonatus, Toletus, de Lugo, Vasquez,
Molina, Lessius, a Lapide, Peter Canisius, Clavius, and a host of other
writers not only added lustre to the Society, but were held to be the
foremost scholars of the age and the most renowned champions of the
Catholic Church.
In 1584, Father Aquaviva called to Rome six experienced schoolmen,
who had been elected from different nationalities and provinces, in
order that the peculiarities of the various nations might be considered
in the formation of a system which was destined to be put to practice
in so many countries all over the world. These men worked for about a
year, consulting authors on education, examining the regulations and
customs of universities and colleges, especially those of the Roman
College, and the letters, observations, and other documents sent to
Rome from the various provinces. The standard which guided these men in
their deliberations was the fourth part of the Constitutions. In 1585
they presented the result of their labor to the General.[209] In 1586,
Father Aquaviva sent the report to the provinces; and at the same time
ordered that in each province at least five men of eminent learning and
experience should examine the report, first in private, then in common,
and should send the result of their examination to Rome.
How much liberty was granted in these remarks on the educational
methods then prevailing in the Order, may be seen from the verdict
given by James Pontanus (his German name was Spanmiller), one of the
ablest classic scholars of the Society. He boldly censures some abuses,
especially that sometimes young men were employed in teaching who were
not sufficiently prepared for the work; men who were not well grounded
in Greek; that too frequent changes occurred among teachers, etc. He
deplores the fact that too much weight is laid on physics, metaphysics,
and dialectics, and that the humanistic studies are not valued as they
deserve. “Without classical education,” he says, “the other branches
of study are cold, dumb and dead; classical learning gives these other
studies life, breath, motion, blood and language.” Pontanus’ memorandum
was by no means free from exaggerations and unwarranted generalizations
of single instances. But it is interesting to see how freely opinions
could be uttered on a question of such importance.[210]
The notes and suggestions sent from the different provinces were
examined by the most prominent Professors of the Roman College and
three members of the committee of 1584-85, and then were used in
drawing up a second plan. This new plan, after having been revised by
the General and his Assistants, was sent to the provinces in 1591 as
_Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum_, the _editio princeps_ of the Ratio.
The Provincials who came to Rome for the fifth General Congregation
(1593-94), again reported on the results of the plan as practised
during the last years, and demanded some changes. At length, in 1599,
when every possible effort had been made, when theory and practice
alike had been consulted, and every advisable modification had been
added, the final plan of studies appeared under the title: _Ratio atque
Institutio Studiorum Societatis Jesu_ (Naples 1599), usually quoted
as _Ratio Studiorum_. Well could it be said that this Ratio was “the
fruit of many prayers, of long and patient efforts, and the result of
the combined wisdom of the whole Order.”--It has sometimes been said
that the word _Ratio Studiorum_ is a misnomer, as it does not propose
any educational _principles_. However, as Father Eyre, S. J., years
ago has pointed out,[211] Ratio, as applied to studies, more naturally
means _method_ than principle, and the Ratio Studiorum is essentially
a practical method or system of teaching. Hence the name is altogether
appropriate.
How easily an author, even without ill will, may be led into mistakes
regarding the Ratio Studiorum, can be inferred from the following
passage which is found in a Catholic magazine.[212] “The work which
caused the greatest sensation was the _Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum
Societatis Jesu_, published in the College at Rome in 1586. It took
nine months to print it. The part bearing on theological opinions
raised a storm of opposition among the other religious orders,
principally the Dominicans, who denounced it to the Inquisition. The
result was that Sixtus V. pronounced against the book, and, in the
following editions, the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ was omitted.”
The same mistake is made by Dr. Huber.[213]
The author of the article was betrayed into making these very
inaccurate statements by implicitly trusting Debure (_Biographie
Instructive_, Paris, 1764). The historical truth is established by
Father Pachtler,[214] and by Father Duhr.[215] The evidence given by
Father Pachtler may be summed up as follows:
1. The Ratio of 1586 was in no sense of the word “published”, and
hence caused no “sensation” whatever. It was only the project or plan
of a Ratio, and printed privately for the members of the Order. How it
should have taken “nine months to print it,” is unintelligible; the
error arose probably from misunderstanding the fact, that it took the
six fathers who formed the committee, nine months to work out the plan
of the Ratio.
2. This first draft, written in the form of dissertations, is now very
rare. It is known to exist at present in Trier (Treves), Berlin, Milan,
and Marseilles. Father Pachtler has for the first time reprinted it
entirely from the copy found in the city library at Trier (located in
the former Jesuit College).
3. This private document was not “denounced to the Inquisition,” but
was wrongfully seized by the “Spanish Inquisition,” at the instance of
the Spanish Dominicans, set on by some disloyal Spanish Jesuits who
were soon after expelled from the Society.
4. As soon as the seizure was reported to Rome, Father Aquaviva
complained directly to Pope Sixtus V. This energetic Pope, formerly
a Franciscan and by no means partial to the Jesuits, far from
“pronouncing against the book,” became highly incensed at the action
of the Spanish Inquisition, and wrote a characteristic dispatch to his
nuncio in Spain, inclosing a letter to the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor
Quiroga, and bidding the nuncio deliver the letter to the Cardinal
only after having read it to him. In this letter the masterful Pontiff
commands Quiroga, in virtue of his apostolic power, forthwith to
restore to the Society the book of the Institute (which had also been
seized), and especially the Ratio Studiorum. And unless he obeyed this
command, the Pope threatened to depose him at once from the office of
Grand Inquisitor, and strip him of the dignity of Cardinal.[216]
5. The second draft of the Ratio was sent to the Provinces in 1591.
In this draft the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ (i. e. catalogue of
philosophical and theological questions which were not to be taught in
the Society), was omitted, but was sent out separately for examination
in the following year. Hence the statement that in the following
editions the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ was omitted, is again
inaccurate.
6. The final Ratio, including, of course, the _Catalogus Quaestionum_,
was, as we have seen before, promulgated in 1599.[217]
This final Ratio did not contain any discussions on the educational
value of different subjects, nor any treatises why this or that
method had been adopted. Such discussions had preceded, and had been
contained in the Ratio of 1585.[218] That of 1599 was a code of laws,
a collection of rules for the different officials, in whose hands
lies the government of a college, and for the teachers of the various
classes. The rules are divided as follows:
I.
_Regulae Provincialis_ (Provincial Superior).
” _Rectoris_ (President).
” _Praefecti Studiorum_ (Prefect or Superintendent of Studies).
II.
_Regulae Communes omnibus Professoribus Superiorum Facultatum_
(General regulations for the Professors of theology and
philosophy).
” _Professoris Sacrae Scripturae._
” ” _Linguae Hebraicae._
” ” _Scholasticae Theologiae._
” ” _Historiae Ecclesiasticae._
” ” _Juris Canonici._
” ” _Casuum Conscientiae_ (Moral Theology).
III.
_Regulae Professoris Philosophiae._
” ” _Philosophiae Moralis_ (Ethics).
” ” _Physicae_ (Physics and other natural sciences).[219]
” ” _Mathematicae._
IV.
_Regulae Praefecti Studiorum Inferiorum_ (together with regulations
for written examinations and for
awarding prizes).
_Regulae Communes Professoribus Classium Inferiorum._
” _Professoris Rhetoricae._
” ” _Humanitatis._
” ” _Supremae Classis Grammaticae._
” ” _Mediae_ ” ”
” ” _Infimae_ ” ”
Then follow various rules: for the pupils, for the management of
academies (literary and debating societies) etc.
The rules under No. I are those of the Superiors.[220] The entire
government of a college is in the hands of the _Rector_ (President).
He is also the court of appeal in all disputed questions among the
teachers, or between the masters and the students. He is to inspect
the classes from time to time, in order to inform himself of the
progress of the students, and to give advice to the teachers. As far as
possible, he is to take an interest in each pupil personally. Nothing
of importance can be undertaken in the college without consulting
him, nor can any custom of the house be changed without his consent.
The subordinate officials have that amount of authority which he
gives them, and they are obliged to report to him frequently on the
conditions of affairs in the college. The Rector’s power is, however,
not absolute; he has to follow the laws laid down for him. Besides he
is provided with a Board of Consultors and he is obliged to ask their
opinion on all matters of greater moment, although he remains free to
follow their advice or to reject it. The teachers have to carry out
the decisions of the Rector, but they may always have recourse to the
higher Superior, the Provincial. The Provincial visits the colleges at
least once a year, and every teacher has to confer with him privately
and may lay before him any complaints against the Rector. In this
manner, a firm centralized government is ensured, while at the same
time any arbitrariness on the part of Superiors is prevented.
Interesting are, in this regard, the words of Father Nadal: “Let the
Rector have his ordinary advisers (_consultores_) and let him hold
regular meetings (_concilia_). One is the meeting of ‘languages’,
in which all teachers of the languages take part; the second of
philosophy, and the third of theology. To these meetings the Rector may
invite two or three other experienced men, if he thinks it necessary
or useful. In order to settle a question concerning languages, or
philosophy, or theology, a meeting of the respective professors should
be held; if a question concerns the whole institution, a meeting of
all professors should be called. However, the Rector is not so bound
that he could not do anything without convoking such a meeting. For
these meetings are held that he may benefit by their advice. The whole
authority and responsibility of the administration rests with him; but
every year the Rector shall report to the General about the college,
and all officials of the college shall inform the General through
sealed letters about the administration by the Rector.”[221]
The chief assistant of the Rector is the _Prefect of Studies_. To
him belongs the direct supervision of the classes and everything
connected with instruction. He must be a man of literary and scientific
accomplishments and of experience in teaching, so that both teachers
and students can have recourse to him with confidence in all questions
pertaining to education. It is his duty to assign the students to their
proper classes, to determine the matter of examination, and to appoint
the examiners, to select the authors to be read during the following
scholastic year,[222] to visit every class at least once in two weeks,
to admonish the masters of any defects he notices in their manner of
teaching, and to direct them by other useful advice. In all this he is
the instrument of the Rector, whom he has to consult in all important
matters.
There is another assistant of the Rector, the _Prefect of Discipline_,
who is immediately responsible for all that concerns external order and
discipline. From these few details, it will appear that the government
of a Jesuit college is, at once, extremely simple and highly efficient.
The regulations contained under No. II are for the theological faculty
in universities and seminaries. We have to examine chiefly the last two
classes: the regulations for the faculty of Arts or Philosophy, and
those for the _Studia inferiora_ or _Humanities_. These “lower studies”
were for the greater part literary and correspond to the classical
course of the high school and part of the college. The Ratio Studiorum
treated languages, mathematics and sciences not simultaneously, but
successively; hence the distinction between Philosophy (Arts) and
_Studia inferiora_.
In the five lower classes--in many places there were six--the classical
languages were the staple studies. Other branches, as history and
geography, were to be treated as _accessories_ or complements of the
literary studies. The task for each grade is expressed in the first
rule of the Professor of the respective class.[223]
LOWER GRAMMAR. The aim of this class is a perfect knowledge of the
rudiments and elementary knowledge of the syntax.--In Greek: reading,
writing, and a certain portion of the grammar. The work used for the
prelection,[224] will be some easy selections from Cicero, besides
fables of Phaedrus and Lives of Nepos.
MIDDLE GRAMMAR. The aim is a knowledge, though not entire, of all
grammar; and, for the prelection, only the select epistles, narrations,
descriptions and the like from Cicero, with the Commentaries of Caesar,
and some of the easiest poems of Ovid.--In Greek: the fables of Aesop,
select dialogues of Lucian, the Tablet of Cebes.
UPPER GRAMMAR. The aim is a complete knowledge of grammar, including
all the exceptions and idioms in syntax, figures and rhetoric, and the
art of versification.--In Greek: the eight parts of speech, or all
the rudiments. For the lessons: in prose, the most important epistles
of Cicero, the books, _De Amicitia_, _De Senectute_, and others of
the kind, or even some of the easier orations; in poetry, some select
elegies and epistles of Ovid, also selection from Catullus, Tibullus,
Propertius, and the Eclogues of Virgil, or some of Virgil’s easier
books, as the fourth book of the Georgics, or the fifth and seventh
books of the Aeneid.--In Greek: St. Chrysostom, Aesop, and the like.
HUMANITIES. The aim is to prepare, as it were, the ground for
eloquence, which is done in three ways: by a knowledge of the language,
some erudition, and a sketch of the precepts pertaining to rhetoric.
For a command of the language, which consists chiefly in acquiring
propriety of expression and fluency, the one prose author employed in
daily prelections is Cicero; as historical writers, Caesar, Sallust,
Livy, Curtius, and others of the kind; the poets used are, first of
all, Virgil; also odes of Horace, with the elegies, epigrams and other
productions of illustrious poets, expurgated; in like manner orators,
historians, and poets, in the vernacular (1832). The erudition conveyed
should be slight, and only to stimulate and recreate the mind, not
to impede progress in learning the tongue. The precepts will be the
general rules of expression and style, and the special rules on the
minor kinds of composition, epistles, narrations, descriptions, both in
verse and prose.--In Greek: the art of versification, and some notions
of the dialects; also a clear understanding of authors, and some
composition in Greek. The Greek prose authors will be Saints Chrysostom
and Basil, epistles of Plato and Synesius, and some selections
from Plutarch; the poets: Homer, Phocylides, Theognis, St. Gregory
Nazianzen, Synesius, and others like them.
RHETORIC. The grade of this class cannot be easily defined. For it
trains to perfect eloquence, which comprises two great faculties,
the oratorical and the poetical, the former chiefly being the object
of culture; nor does it regard only the practical, but the beautiful
also. For the precepts, Cicero may be supplemented with Quintilian and
Aristotle. The style, which may be assisted by drawing on the most
approved historians and poets, is to be formed on Cicero; all of his
works are most fitted for this purpose, but only his speeches should
be made the subject of prelection, that the precepts of the art may be
seen in practice.--As to the vernacular, the style should be formed on
the best authors (1832). The erudition will be derived from the history
and manners of nations, from the authority of writers and all learning;
but moderately as befits the capacity of the students.--In Greek: the
fuller knowledge of authors and of dialects is to be acquired. The
Greek authors, whether orators, historians, or poets, are to be ancient
and classic: Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and
others of the kind, including Saints Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom.
Let it not be imagined, however, that this plan was followed
slavishly. The different provinces of the Order made such adaptations
and introduced such changes as they thought best for their respective
countries. We give here the plan which was followed in the colleges in
Upper Germany, in the beginning of the eighteenth century. It is taken
from the _Ratio et Via_ of Father Kropf, published in 1736.[225]
LOWER GRAMMAR. _First Year._
(First high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar of Alvarez, elements, and easier rules of
construction.--Reading: The easiest letters of Cicero, specially
selected and separately printed. Selections from book I and II of
Father Pontanus’ _Progymnasmata_.[226]
_Greek._ Grammar of Father Gretser,[227] or of Father Bayer.[228]
Correct reading and writing; accents and declensions.
_Religion._ Small Catechism of Peter Canisius,[229] part I-II.
Explanation of the Latin Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_,[230] vol. I., treating chiefly of
the history of the people of Israel.
LOWER GRAMMAR. _Second Year._
(Second high school class.)
_Latin._ Alvarez’ Grammar, book I, part II; repetition of first year’s
matter; the irregular verb; first part of syntax.--Reading: Select
letters of Cicero. Selections from Pontanus’ _Progymnasmata_.
_Greek._ Grammar: repetition of declensions; comparison of adjectives;
pronouns and auxiliary verbs.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius, part I-III. Explanation of Latin
Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. II: The four monarchies (Ancient
history).
MIDDLE GRAMMAR.
(Third high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar: The whole of syntax; repetition of irregular
verbs.--Reading: chiefly Cicero’s _Epistulae ad Familiares_, some
parts of the _Progymnasmata_. The reading of poetical works which is
customary in other Jesuit colleges in this class, is not sanctioned in
this province.
_Greek._ Grammar: the verb completed.--As regards reading it is left
to the judgment of the Prefect of Studies to prescribe the study of
the Greek Catechism or Cebes’ Tablet. At all events the pupils should
practise the reading of these books from time to time and give an
account of their reading.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius and Latin Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. III: The Christian Emperors of
Rome (Medieval history).
UPPER GRAMMAR.
(Fourth high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar: the whole of syntax (repeated), rules of
construction; rules of prosody.--Reading: Above all, the Letters
of Cicero to Atticus and his brother Quintus; _De Amicitia_, _De
Senectute_, etc. Selections from the _Progymnasmata_, books II and
III.--Selections from Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius; Ovid; Virgil;
fourth book of the Georgics; Aeneid, books V and VII.
_Greek._ First book of Gretser’s grammar, except the
dialects.--Reading: Chrysostom, Aesop, Agapetus, etc.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius. Greek Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. IV: The States of the World
(Modern history).
HUMANITIES. (Freshman.)
_Latin._ Rules of rhetoric from a brief compendium; rules of style,
tropes, figures, etc.--Reading: Cicero’s ethical works; Caesar, Livy,
Curtius, Sallust, etc., or easier orations of Cicero: _Pro Lege
Manilla_, _Pro Archia_, _Pro Marcello_, etc. Virgil; select odes of
Horace, etc.
_Greek._ The whole of syntax. The teacher should see that the pupils
acquire a fair understanding of the authors, and that they are able
to write an easier Greek composition. The authors are orations of
Isocrates, or of Chrysostom and Basil; also letters of Plato and
Synesius, selections from Plutarch, poems of Phocylides, Theognis, etc.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius; the Greek Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. V: Geography and heraldics.
RHETORIC. (Sophomore.)
Precepts of rhetoric from the oratorical works of Cicero and
Aristotle. The practice of the rules is chiefly based on Cicero,
particularly his orations; also the historians may be used to some
extent. The rules of poetry may be drawn from Aristotle’s _Poetics_. Of
the poets only the best should be read: Virgil, Horace, etc.
_Greek._ Repetition of syntax; prosody; the dialects, a further
introduction into Greek literature. The standard authors are
Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, etc.; also
Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom may be read.
Other Latin and Greek authors which may be given into the hands of the
pupils of the class of Rhetoric and of other classes, are enumerated by
Juvencius.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius (larger one). On Saturday the Acts of
the Apostles are read in Greek, or an oration of Chrysostom.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. VI: Compendium of Church history.
The school hours were not too long; two hours and a half in the morning
and the same in the afternoon; in the highest class (rhetoric),
only two hours in the morning and the same in the afternoon; thus
the students of the highest grade were wisely given more time for
home work. There was ordinarily a full holiday every week, usually
Wednesday or Thursday, “lest,” as the regulations of the Province of
the Upper Rhine have it, “the pupils have to go to school four days in
succession.”[231] These holidays were frequently spent in a country
house (_villa_), near the city. On the whole, study and recreation were
so distributed that the complaints of “overburdening” the students
could not reasonably be made in Jesuit schools.
Against the literary curriculum of the Society some serious charges
have been made by modern critics. It has been said that nothing but
the ancient languages was studied in Jesuit colleges, and that other
branches, as history, were entirely neglected, “Preoccupied before
all else with purely formal studies, and exclusively devoted to the
exercises which give a training in the use of elegant language, the
Jesuits leave real and concrete studies in entire neglect. History is
almost wholly banished from their programme. It is only with reference
to the Greek and Latin texts that the teacher should make allusion to
the matters of history, which are necessary for the understanding of
the passage under examination. No account is made of modern history,
nor of the history of France. ‘History’, says a Jesuit Father, ‘is the
destruction of him who studies it’.”[232] This last remark strikes us,
and perhaps also other readers of M. Compayré’s work, as ridiculous. We
ask: Who is this Jesuit Father that made such a silly statement? Is he
one of the framers of the Ratio Studiorum, or one of its commentators,
or a Superior of the Order? No; no one knows who he is--if ever a
Jesuit has said such nonsense. But granted one has said it, must not
every fair-minded reader ask: Can the Jesuit Order be said to hold and
defend all the views which every individual Jesuit has uttered? If a
Professor of Harvard or Yale University made a foolish remark, would it
be fair to hold up the two universities to ridicule?
But let us examine the facts. History is taught in Jesuit schools
and was taught in the Old Society, it matters little whether this and
other branches were called _accessories_ or side branches--they were
called so because much less time was devoted to them than to the study
of language and literature. It is true, the historical studies were
not then cultivated, neither in Protestant nor Catholic schools, to
such extent as is done now. But history was never neglected in Jesuit
colleges, and it gradually obtained a place of honor among the literary
studies. This was evidently the case in France in the beginning of the
eighteenth century. We refer the reader to various works which deal
with this subject.[233] In Germany we find in the Jesuit colleges, as
early as 1622, special historical works assigned to various classes.
In these compendia also “modern” history was treated.[234] The
text-books most in use in German Jesuit colleges during the eighteenth
century, were the _Rudimenta Historica_ of Father Dufrène,[235] and
the _Introductio_ of Father Wagner.[236] From Father Kropf’s work it
is evident that, when he wrote this work in 1736, history was treated
quite systematically, in a well graded course, in all the classes below
philosophy. This is evident from the programme given above on pages
121-125. The same author gives also a method of teaching history.[237]
Nor was geography neglected. In the earlier Jesuit schools it was
treated more fully only in the philosophical course, in connection
with astronomy, or as “erudition” in the class of rhetoric. As early
as 1677 a geographical text-book, written by Father König,[238] was
used in German colleges. We have proofs that geography was taught in
the colleges in France, twelve years after the publication of the
Ratio Studiorum. A few years ago a manuscript was found belonging to
the old Jesuit college of Avignon, written in the year 1611 by Father
Bonvalot. It contains, in ninety-four folio pages, a brief but complete
course of geography. This course is divided into two parts: Europe,
and the countries outside of Europe. Every country of Europe forms the
subject of a special chapter, in which ancient and modern geography
are combined. Special attention is paid to the customs of the peoples,
the form of government, etc. This manuscript was used as the basis
of lessons in geography, which were dictated to the pupils. It has
been said that geography was not taught in Jesuit schools until long
after this branch had been cultivated in the schools of the Oratory
and the _Petites-Écoles_ of Port-Royal. And yet Father Bonvalot wrote
his course of geography the very year in which the Oratory was founded
and more than thirty years before the opening of the _Petites-Écoles_.
But Father Bonvalot was perhaps an exception. By no means. Documentary
evidence is at hand to show that, before the middle of the seventeenth
century, there was hardly a manuscript “course of rhetoric” in the
colleges of Lyons, Tournon, Avignon, etc., which did not contain a
course of geography.[239] The custom of dictating these lessons was
continued until the handbooks of geography were published by the
Jesuits Monet, Riccioli, Labbe, Briet, Saint-Juste, Buffier. Father
Daniel, S. J., in an interesting essay of twenty-eight pages, has
given many important details about the teaching of geography in Jesuit
colleges of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.[240]
Special attention was given to the geography of the country in which
the colleges were situated, but great interest was also taken in
the geographical discoveries in foreign countries. The Jesuits had,
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, better advantages for
obtaining geographical information than any other body of men. The
Jesuit missionaries scattered all over the world sent regular accounts
of their journeys and observations to their brethren in Europe. That
much valuable geographical and ethnological information was contained
in these reports may be seen from the “Jesuit Relations”, seventy-three
volumes of letters of Jesuits from New France, i. e. Canada and the
Northern part of the United States.[241] Several Jesuit missionaries
have made most important contributions to the science of geography,
not only by great discoveries as that of the Mississippi by Father
Marquette, but also by most valuable maps. Thus we read of Father
Martini in Baron von Richthofen’s work on China: “Father Martini is the
best geographer of all the missioners. By his great work, _Novus Atlas
Sinensis_, the best and most complete description which we possess of
China, he has become the Father of Chinese geography.” The first maps
of North Mexico, Arizona and Lower California, were prepared by four
German Jesuits, among them, the famous Father Kino (his German name was
Kühn).[242]
These few details taken from a mass of similar facts, show what
interest the Jesuits took in geography, and even if we had no positive
proof we would have to conjecture that they did not neglect its study
in their schools. But the positive proofs abundantly show that another
charge against the Jesuit colleges of former centuries is a sheer
calumny.
Owing to the importance of Latin as the universal language of
the educated world, less attention was devoted to the study of the
mother-tongue. In this regard the schools of the Jesuits did not
differ from those of the Protestants. However, at no time was the
mother-tongue entirely neglected; and gradually it received more and
more consideration. Thus, in France, rules for writing French verses
appear in the dictated “courses of rhetoric” in 1663.[243] About 1600,
the Bohemian Jesuits asked and received permission to open a private
“academy” for the study of the Czech language.[244] As early as 1560
Father Jerome Nadal had exhorted the Jesuits at Cologne, “to cultivate
diligently the German language and to find out a method of teaching
it; they should also select pupils and teachers for this branch.”[245]
In 1567 he gave the same order in Mentz. During the Thirty Years’ War,
the German Jesuits Balde, Mair, Bidermann and Pexenfelder, planned the
establishment of a society for the improvement of the German language;
but the calamities of that horrible war, which reduced Germany to a
state of utter misery, frustrated this whole plan. From about 1730
on, the German language was taught in the Jesuit schools according to
fixed rules, and the pupils were diligently practised in writing prose
compositions and poetry. Many valuable testimonies on this subject
are given by Father Duhr.[246] The fact that many Jesuits are to be
found among the prominent writers in the different modern languages
is another proof that the vernacular was not neglected, much less
“proscribed” as M. Compayré says.[247] One of the finest German writers
of the seventeenth century was the Jesuit Spe. The sweetness, power
and literary merits of his collection of exquisite poems, entitled
_Trutz-Nachtigall_ (Dare-Nightingale), and of his prose work _Güldnes
Tugendbuch_ (Virtue’s Golden Book) are admired by critics of the most
different schools, Protestants as well as Catholics.[248] Father Denis,
a Jesuit of the eighteenth century, was a most distinguished German
writer, and has been called “the pioneer of German literature in
Austria.” How could all these facts be explained if what Mr. Painter
says were true: “The Jesuits were hostile to the mother-tongue; and
distrusting the influence of its associations, endeavored to supplant
it”?[249]
After the pupil’s mind had been enriched with the treasures of
Latin and Greek literature, and after his native talents had been
“cultivated” or “stimulated”, as the Ratio very expressively
designates it, the student entered on the study of philosophy.[250]
This course, if given completely, comprised three years. The Ratio
of 1599 prescribed for the _First Year_: Introduction and Logics;
_Second Year_: Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy; _Third Year_: Special
Metaphysics, Psychology and Ethics. A course of mathematics runs
parallel with philosophy.
In philosophy Aristotle was the standard author. Of course, those
of his opinions which were contradictory to revealed truths were
refuted.[251] Special care is recommended in the correct explanation
of the text of Aristotle. “No less pains are to be taken in the
interpretation of the text than in the questions themselves. And the
Professor should also convince the students that it is a very defective
philosophy which neglects this study of the text.”[252] The Professor
of Philosophy is also told “to speak respectfully of St. Thomas Aquinas
and to follow him whenever possible.”[253] The Ratio had to encounter
many an attack for not following St. Thomas more rigorously. But the
composers of the Ratio wisely admitted modifications, as St. Thomas
evidently could not claim infallibility in all questions.
The philosophical course comprised not only philosophy properly so
called, but also mathematics and natural sciences. This _successive_
teaching of literary and scientific subjects secured concentration and
unity in instruction, whereas in modern systems too many branches,
which have no connection with each other, are taught in the same class
so that the mind of the young untrained learner is bewildered. There is
another consideration which may vindicate the educational wisdom of the
Ratio Studiorum in assigning mathematics and sciences to a later stage
in the curriculum. Distinguished teachers of mathematics have recently
pointed out that the mathematical teaching in the lower and middle
classes is frequently beyond the capacity of the students of those
grades. Problems are proposed which, at that stage, can at best be
treated only mechanically and superficially.[254] Mathematics, says a
prominent writer on this subject, makes very high demands on the mental
powers of the pupils, in such a degree that only the mature age derives
the full benefit from the study of this branch.[255]
In the philosophical course of the Jesuit colleges, mathematics was
by no means slighted, or treated as a branch of small educational
value. It will suffice to quote what an autograph treatise written
by Father Clavius, the “Euclid of his Age,” has on the teaching of
mathematics. “_First_, let a teacher of more than ordinary learning
and authority be chosen to teach this branch; otherwise, as experience
proves, the pupils cannot be attracted to the study of mathematics....
It is necessary that the professor have an inclination and a liking for
teaching this science; he must not be distracted by other occupations,
otherwise he will hardly be able to advance the students. In order
that the Society may always have capable professors of this science,
some men should be selected who are specially fitted for this task,
and they should be trained in a private school (_academia_) in the
science of mathematics.... I need not mention that without mathematics
the teaching of natural philosophy is defective and imperfect.--In
the _second_ place it is necessary that the pupils understand that
this science is useful and necessary for a correct understanding of
philosophy, and, at the same time, complements and embellishes all
other studies. Nay more, they should know that this science is so
closely related to natural philosophy that, unless they help each
other, neither can maintain its proper place and dignity. In order to
accomplish this it will be necessary for the students of physics to
study mathematics at the same time; this is a custom which has always
been kept up in the schools of the Society. For if the mathematical
sciences were taught at any other time, the students of philosophy
would think, and not without some reason, that they were not necessary
for physics, and so very few would be inclined to study mathematics.”
The writer then goes on to show the necessity of mathematics for the
study of the movements of heavenly bodies, of their distances, of the
oppositions and conjunctions of the comets; of the tides, the winds,
the rainbow, and other physical phenomena. He also treats of various
exercises by which the study of mathematics can best be advanced, such
as lectures given by the students on mathematical and astronomical
subjects.[256]
We find that in mathematics, pure and applied, the courses of the
Jesuit colleges were advanced to the foremost rank; in arithmetic and
geometry we notice that, as early as 1667, a single public course,
under the direction of the Jesuits at Caen, numbered four hundred
students.[257] The Order had among its members many distinguished
mathematicians, some of whom will be mentioned in succeeding chapters.
The modern course of physics was, in those centuries, a thing of the
future. But the physical sciences were taught as far as they were
known; in the middle of the eighteenth century, we find physical
cabinets in regular use, and experimental lectures given to the classes
by the professor of physics.[258]
These testimonies will suffice to show that the Jesuits, however
much they valued the classical studies, were not so one-sided as to
disregard or neglect mathematics and natural sciences. What, then,
should be said of Compayré’s statements: “The Jesuits leave real and
concrete studies in entire neglect.... The sciences are involved in the
same disdain as history. Scientific studies are entirely proscribed in
the lower classes.”[259] Indeed, in the Old Society, the sciences were
not taught in the five lower classes; there the Jesuits concentrated
the efforts of the pupils on the languages; but in the three highest
classes they applied the students with the same energy to the study of
mathematics, sciences and philosophy.
Having thus far analyzed the Ratio Studiorum, we may be allowed to
quote the judgment of Mr. Quick on the Ratio Studiorum: “The Jesuit
system stands out in the history of education as a remarkable instance
of a school system elaborately thought out and worked as a whole. In it
the individual schoolmaster withered (_sic!_), but the system grew, and
was, and I may say _is_, a mighty organism. The single Jesuit teacher
might not be the superior of the average teacher in good Protestant
schools, but by their unity of action the Jesuits triumphed over their
rivals as easily as a regiment of soldiers scatters a mob.”[260] This
system “points out a perfectly attainable goal, and carefully defines
the road by which that goal is to be approached. For each class was
prescribed not only the work to be done, but also the end to be kept
in view. Thus method reigned throughout--perhaps not the best method,
as the object to be attained was assuredly not the highest object
(_sic!_), but the method such as it was, was applied with undeviating
exactness. In this particular the Jesuit schools contrasted strongly
with their rivals of old, as indeed with the ordinary school of the
present day.”[261]
If we ask to which sources the Ratio Studiorum is to be referred, we
must confess that an adequate answer is not easy. There are many little
brooks which by their conflux form that mighty river. Ignatius and his
companions had been trained in scholastic philosophy. The Constitutions
and the Ratio Studiorum adapted this philosophic system, modified,
however, and perfected by the teachers and writers of the Order. Hence
the central position of Aristotle in philosophy, and St. Thomas Aquinas
in theology.[262]
The literary course was an adaptation of the humanistic schools as
they existed shortly before the outbreak of the Reformation. It is
especially Paris and the Netherlands which we have to consider as the
chief sources of much that is contained in the Ratio. We heard that
the great University of Paris was the _Alma Mater_ of St. Ignatius
and his first companions. Great must have been the influence of this
seat of learning on the formation of the educational system of the
Jesuits. Bartoli, one of the historians of the Society, goes so far
as to say: “Spain gave the Society a father in St. Ignatius, France
a mother in the University of Paris.” From this University Ignatius
probably adopted the division of his system of studies into the three
parts: Languages, Arts or Philosophy, Theology. In languages again the
Constitutions, as well as the Paris University, distinguished three
parts: Grammar, Humanities, Rhetoric. The school exercises, especially
the disputations in philosophy, were fashioned after those of Paris.
Father Polanco, secretary of the Society, himself a student of Paris,
writes about the colleges of Messina and Vienna, that “exercises
(disputations) were added to the lectures after the model of those of
Paris (_more parisiensi_).”[263]
Ignatius himself had recommended Paris as “the University where one
gains more profit in a few years than in some others in many.”[264] In
1553 he writes to Cardinal Morone that in the _Collegium Germanicum_ in
Rome, the exercises in the _Artes Liberales_ were the same as in Paris,
Louvain, and other celebrated Universities.[265] Louvain was called
by him a “most flourishing University,” and he wishes to establish
a college there.[266] It was pointed out before, that the “plans of
study” of Nadal and Ledesma exerted a great influence on the _Ratio_ of
1599. Both these men had for many years studied at Paris, Ledesma also
in Louvain.
This leads us to another source of the educational system of the
Jesuits: the humanistic schools of the Netherlands. We spoke of
Louvain in chapter II. Ignatius had visited the Netherlands in 1529
and 1530, and a considerable number of Jesuits in the first decades
of the Society came from that country. Ribadeneira enumerates 53 who
became known as writers before 1600. Two of the men who were in the
Commissions for drawing up the Ratio, Francis Coster and Peter Busaeus,
were from the Netherlands. Others were influential as founders of
colleges, for instance, Peter Canisius of Nymwegen; or as heads of
famous institutions, like Leonard Kessel of Louvain, Rector of the
College of Cologne.
As was said before, during his sojourn at Paris, Ignatius may have
come into contact with the Brethren of the Common Life.[267] These
Brethren conducted famous schools all over the Netherlands; their
college in Liège was perhaps the most flourishing school in Europe
at the beginning of the Reformation. Many points conspicuous in the
Ratio Studiorum, as well as in Sturm’s system, were to be found
in this college. Latin was the principal branch. It was taught
very methodically, and the imitation of authors was insisted on.
The course had eight classes; the lower were grammar classes; the
fifth--and part of the sixth--was Rhetoric, the seventh and eighth
taught Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics. Contests between
the pupils (_concertationes_) were frequent, especially solemn ones
at the distribution of prizes at the end of the scholastic year. On
account of the great number of pupils, the classes were divided into
_decuriae_, divisions of ten pupils each. At the head of each decuria
was a _decurio_, to whom his ten subjects had to recite their lessons,
etc.[268] All these customs are found in the Ratio Studiorum.
A result of humanistic influences was also the domineering position
which Cicero held in the classical course. To the humanists Cicero
had been _the_ author, whose style was considered by many with almost
superstitious reverence.
Humanism in the Netherlands had been much more conservative than in
Italy and Germany. Owing to the influence of the Brethren of the Common
Life, it had kept more faithfully the Christian views of the earlier
humanists. It certainly was this Christian humanism which appealed
to the religious mind of Ignatius; he always suspected the writings
of the younger humanists. Very early, shortly after his conversion,
the _Christian Knight_ of Erasmus had fallen into his hands.[269] He
conceived for this book, as well as for the _Colloquies_ and similar
works of the author, an aversion in which time only confirmed him. Not
that he was insensible to the author’s grace of style (for it is said
he made extracts from the _Christian Knight_ in order to familiarize
himself with the niceties of the Latin tongue), nor that he found
heterodox propositions in it; but he felt repulsed by the color in
which things and ideas were presented, by the malicious satire, lack of
feeling, vanity, and hollow scepticism which were prominent on every
page. Undoubtedly even if Luther had not started his Reformation,
Ignatius would have become a leader in a reform opposed to the radical
school of humanists, to whose disastrous influence the immorality of
the time and the worldliness of many ecclesiastics is, to a great
extent, to be ascribed.
The dependence of the Ratio on the University of Paris and the
humanistic schools of the Netherlands refutes also the supposition that
the Jesuits have drawn from Sturm’s “Plan of Studies”. Sturm himself
had studied, from 1521-1523, in the school of the Brethren in Liège,
from 1524-1529 at Louvain in the famous _Collegium Trilingue_; from
1530-1537 he was student and teacher in Paris. A German Protestant[270]
says: “The organization of the college of Liège made such an impression
on young Sturm that he adopted it even in some minute details as the
model for his school in Strasburg.”[271] Similarly speaks Professor
Ziegler.[272] Thus we see that Sturm had drawn his educational ideas
from the very same schools in which many of the first Jesuits had been
educated, and which were considered by them as models. Is it not much
more probable that the Jesuits fashioned their own system after these
schools, than after that of Sturm in Strasburg? Assertions, like that
of Dr. Russell, that “the Society of Jesus incorporated so many of
his [Sturm’s] methods into the new Catholic schools,”[273] are highly
improbable, and certainly not substantiated by any positive proof. What
was similar in both systems, was to be found in the humanistic schools
of the Netherlands.[274]
On equally feeble grounds rests another hypothesis advanced in
recent years, namely that “what is really good in the Jesuit system
can be traced almost in detail to Luiz Vives.”[275] In proof of this
statement the fact is mentioned that Ignatius met Vives in Bruges. The
Spaniard Vives was one of the most brilliant humanists of the time,
and a distinguished writer on pedagogy. He, too, had studied at Paris
(1509-1512), and spent a great part of his life in the Netherlands.
The argument used against the dependence on Sturm, holds good in this
case as well. It is asserted that Ignatius had borrowed from Vives,
among other good things, “the physical care bestowed upon the young,
the infrequency of punishment, the systematic teaching of Latin in
a series of classes, the study of practical science, of history and
geography, in conjunction with the explanation of the texts, the use of
note books, emulation, and the like.” Now many of these points were not
inventions of Vives, but had been already mentioned by Quintilian.[276]
The words of a German writer on pedagogy are well worth being quoted on
this point: “Strange attempts have recently been made to show that the
Jesuit pedagogy which, through its unquestionably grand results, has
become famous, is to be traced back to Vives. The fact that Vives met
the founder of the Society once, for a very short time, must serve as a
proof. But if one examines the educational principles which the Jesuits
are supposed to have taken from Vives: infrequency of punishment,
physical care of the pupils, etc., it becomes immediately evident that
these are principles which all reasonable educators have followed at
all times. We should be forced to make the absurd assumption that,
until the time of Vives, Catholics never in the past had had sound
pedagogical views, if we wished to trace back these self-evident
principles to Vives.”[277]
It really looks as though some writers are determined at least to
deny all originality to the Ratio Studiorum, if they are compelled to
admit that it achieved great results. We frankly and willingly admit
that the authors of the Ratio borrowed much from existing systems, it
matters little whence and how much. We must, however, claim that their
experience from 1540-1599, and their painstaking efforts in drawing
up the Ratio, had a considerable share in the results that attended
their system.[278] Above all, what is most characteristic in the Jesuit
system, the wonderful unity and organization, was not borrowed from any
other system, but is the work of the framers of the Constitutions and
of the Ratio Studiorum.
FOOTNOTES:
[203] The Colleges of Germany are enumerated by Paulsen, _l. c._, pp.
265-281 (2nd ed., vol. I, pp. 390-406); those of Germany (Austria),
Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, by Pachtler, vol. III, pp. IX-XVI.
[204] _Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu: Monumenta Paedagogica_,
1901-1902. We quote this important collection as _Monumenta
Paedagogica_, to be carefully distinguished from Father Pachtler’s
_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_.
[205] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 8 and p. 89.
[206] _Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu_: “Litterae Quadrimestres”,
vol. I, pp. 349-358.
[207] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, pp. 10-12; and p. 141 foll.
[208] _Ibid._--Father Pachtler had published one such plan, which he
ascribed to Blessed Peter Canisius, probably written in 1560.
[209] Documents given by Pachtler, vol. II, p. 1 foll. A summary in the
_Études_, Paris, January 1889.
[210] Extracts of this Memorandum in Janssen’s _Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes_, vol. VII, pp. 100-103.
[211] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 57.
[212] In the _Catholic World_, April 1896: _Early Labors of the
Printing Press_.
[213] Huber, _Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 352.
[214] _Mon. Germ. Paed._, vol. II, pp. 19-21.
[215] _Studienordnung_, pp. 15-23.
[216] See Sacchini, _Historiae Societatis Jesu_, Pars V, _tom. prior_,
p. 337.
[217] _Woodstock Letters_, 1896, pp. 506-507.
[218] Pachtler, vol. II, pp. 25-217.
[219] Was added in 1832. In the Ratio of 1599 natural sciences were
treated as part of philosophy.
[220] See John Gilmary Shea, _History of Georgetown College_, 1891, pp.
83-84.
[221] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 102.
[222] “Before selecting the authors”, says Father Nadal, “let the
Prefect of Studies hear first the opinion of the teachers.” _Mon.
Paed._, p. 130.
[223] The following translation of these rules is mostly that of Father
Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 271 foll. These rules contain a few modifications
of the Revised Ratio of 1832. The two Ratios may be seen separately in
Pachtler, vol. II, 225 f. and Duhr, _l. c._, pp. 177-280.
[224] On _prelection_ see chapter XVI, § 1.
[225] In Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, pp.
340-348.
[226] James Pontanus S. J., _Progymnasmatum Latinitas sive dialogorum
selectorum libri quattuor_. Several works of this Jesuit were used in
most European schools for over a century.
[227] James Gretser, S. J., wrote several textbooks: a larger Greek
Grammar, and a Compendium: _Rudimenta Linguae Graecae_, both in many
editions; a Latin-Greek-German and a Latin-Greek Dictionary.
[228] James Bayer, S. J., wrote a Short Greek Grammar, a Latin-Greek
Dictionary, and a Latin-German and German-Latin Dictionary. Of the last
the eleventh edition was published by Professor Mayer, Würzburg, 1865.
[229] On this catechism see chapter XVIII.
[230] This history, comprising six volumes, was written by Max Dufrène,
S. J., (Landshut, Bavaria). It appeared first 1727-1730; several
editions followed.
[231] Pachtler, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 398.
[232] Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, pp. 144-145.
[233] Daniel, _Les Jésuites instituteurs de la jeunesse aux XVII. et
XVIII. siècles_.--Rochemonteix, _Un collège de Jésuites aux XVII. et
XVIII. siècles. Le collège Henri IV. de la Flèche_, vol. IV., pp.
123-147.
[234] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, pp. 104-106.--Pachtler, _Monumenta_, vol.
IV, p. 105 seq.--The first compendium used was that of Tursellini,
reaching down to 1598. It went through many editions in Germany, and in
1682 Father Ott supplemented it by a history of the seventeenth century.
[235] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 112 seq.
[236] Pachtler, _l. c._, p. 118 seq.
[237] Pachtler, _l. c._, p. 116; and German translation of Kropf’s work
in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, p. 422.
[238] Pachtler, _l. c._, pp. 106-107.
[239] Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_, pp. 316-318.
[240] _La géographie dans les collèges des Jésuites aux XVII. et XVIII.
siècles._ In the _Études_, June 1879.
[241] Edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites, published by Burrows Brothers,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1896-1901. The letters of the missionaries were read
by the students in the colleges. Father Nadal said they might be read
to the boarders during dinner and supper. (_Mon. Paed._ p. 612.).
[242] See _Notes upon the First Discoveries of California_, Washington,
1879.
[243] Chossat, _Les Jésuites, à Avignon_, p. 320.
[244] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 110.
[245] _Ib._, p. 109: “_Exerceant diligenter linguam germanicam, et
inveniant rationem qua id commodissime fieri possit; deligantur etiam
qui eam sunt docendi et quis docturus._”
[246] _Ib._, pp. 110-116.
[247] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[248] Duhr, _Frederick Spe_, Herder, Freiburg and St. Louis, 1901.
See the writer’s article “Attitude of the Jesuits in the Trials for
Witchcraft,” _American Catholic Quarterly Review_, July 1902, p.
500.--This Father Spe is better known as the heroic opponent of witch
persecution.
[249] _History of Education_, p. 170.
[250] See Hughes, _Loyola_, pp. 274-281.
[251] _Reg. Prof. Philosophiae_, 2.
[252] _Ib._, 12.
[253] _Ib._, 6.
[254] _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum etc._, 1901, vol.
VIII, p. 201.
[255] Professor Simon, in Baumeister’s _Handbuch der Erziehungs- und
Unterrichtslehre_, vol. IV, “Mathematik”, p. 33.
[256] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, pp. 471-478.
[257] Crétineau-Joly, _Histoire de la Compagnie_, vol. IV, ch.
3.--Hughes, _l. c._, p. 275.--See also Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 86-87;
vol. IV (16. ed.), p. 414.
[258] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 441, n. 7.
[259] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[260] _Educational Reformers_, p. 508.
[261] _Ib._, p. 49.
[262] This close adherence to Aristotle has been made a subject of
reproach against the Jesuit system. And yet Protestant universities
followed Aristotle as closely as the Ratio. Professor Schwalbe said
in the Conference on questions of Higher Education, held at Berlin in
1900: “We have grown up in the belief in the infallibility of the dogma
of Aristotle. When I was a student, Aristotle was still considered the
greatest scientist on earth. I have investigated this question most
thoroughly, and have found that the universities, even the freest,
with the one exception of Wittenberg, fined any one who dared to
contradict any of Aristotle’s propositions on scientific subjects. In
Oxford the penalty was so high that Giordano Bruno was unable to pay
it.” _Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höheren Unterrichts_ (Halle,
1902), p. 109.--This is a good illustration of the fact that there
existed a Protestant “Inquisition” as well as a Catholic, and it should
warn certain writers to speak with less religious bitterness on the
regrettable Galileo affair.--Professor Paulsen states in his latest
work: _Die deutschen Universitäten_ (1902, p. 43), that the dread of
heresy, during the seventeenth century, was probably greater in the
Lutheran universities than in the Catholic, because in the former the
doctrine was less certain, and dangers were apprehended not only from
Catholicism but also from Calvinism. Hence also in the philosophical
faculties of Protestant universities theological orthodoxy was insisted
on most rigorously. The same author says that in the frequent changes
from Lutheranism to Calvinism, and _vice versa_, which took place in
various Protestant states in Germany, careful inquiries were made as
to whether all teachers and officials had accepted the change with due
submission. _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 324.
[263] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 5.
[264] Joly, _Life of St. Ignatius_, p. 85.--_Cartas de San Ignacio_
(Madrid 1874), vol. I, p. 76.
[265] _Cartas_, vol. III, p. 178.
[266] _Ib._, vol. II, p. 292.
[267] See page 32.
[268] See Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 52.
[269] Joly, _Saint Ignatius of Loyola_, p. 70.
[270] Ch. Schmidt, Director of the Protestant _Gymnasium_ at Strasburg.
[271] _Jean Sturm_, pp. 5 and 36.
[272] _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 75.
[273] _German Higher Schools_, p. 47.
[274] After this chapter had been finished, I found that Professor
Paulsen had expressed the same conclusion in his _Geschichte des
gelehrten Unterrichts_ (vol. I, p. 412), where he states that any
dependence of the Jesuit system on Sturm’s plan is most improbable.
[275] Lange, in _Encyclopädie des gesammten Erziehungs- und
Unterrichtswesens_, IX, 776. See Duhr, _l. c._, p. 13.
[276] See Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 15.
[277] Dr. Frederick Kayser, in _Historisches Jahrbuch_, Munich 1894,
vol. XV, page 350, article: “Johannes Ludwig Vives.”
[278] “It may be said in general that the practical experience (of
the early Jesuits) exerted a greater influence on the formation of the
Order’s pedagogy than the study of pedagogical theorizers.” G. Müller,
quoted by Paulsen, _l. c._, vol. I, page 412.
CHAPTER V.
Jesuit Colleges and their Work before the Suppression of the Society
(1540-1773).
Within fifty years from the solemn approbation of the Society of
Jesus, the Order had spread all over the world, from Europe to the
Indies, from China and Japan in the East, to Mexico and Brazil in
the West. Wherever the Church was not actually persecuted, as in
England, there sprang up educational institutions. Shortly after the
death of the fifth General, Father Aquaviva, in 1615, the Society
possessed three hundred and seventy-three colleges; in 1706 the number
of collegiate and university establishments was seven hundred and
sixty-nine, and in 1756, shortly before the suppression, the number was
seven hundred and twenty-eight.[279] In 1584 the classes of the Roman
College were attended by two thousand, one hundred and eight students.
At Rouen, in France, there were regularly two thousand. Throughout the
seventeenth century the numbers at the College of Louis-le-Grand, in
Paris, varied between eighteen hundred and three thousand. In 1627, the
one Province of Paris had in its fourteen colleges 13,195 students,
which would give an average of nearly one thousand to each college.
In the same year Rouen had 1,968, Rennes 1,485, Amiens 1,430. In 1675
there were in Louis-le-Grand 3,000, in Rennes 2,500, in Toulouse
2,000.[280] Cologne began its roll in 1558 with almost 800 students;
Dillingen in Bavaria had 760 in 1607. At Utrecht in Holland there
were 1000; at Antwerp and Brussels each 600 scholars. Münster in 1625
had 1300, Munich had 900 in 1602. The absolute average is not known,
three hundred seems, however, the very lowest. This would give to the
seven hundred and more institutions a sum total of two hundred and ten
thousand students, all trained under one system. That thus the Jesuits
exercised a great influence on the minds of men, is undeniable. The
question is only, was their influence for good or evil? Was their
teaching a benefit to the individuals, and more so, was it advantageous
to the communities? Was their method considered as productive of good
results? Let us listen to contemporaneous writers in high positions,
to men known for their intellectual achievements, to men who, owing
to their religious tenets, cannot be suspected of partiality to the
Jesuits.
The testimony of Lord Bacon, the English philosopher and statesman,
is well known: “Of the Jesuit colleges, although in regard of their
superstition I may say, ‘_Quo meliores eo deteriores_,’ yet in regard
of this and some other points of learning and moral matters, I may
say, as Agesilaus said to his enemy Pharnabaces, ‘_Talis cum sis,
utinam noster esses_’.”[281] Our American historian Bancroft does not
hesitate to say of the Jesuits: “Their colleges became the best schools
in the world.”[282] And Ranke writes: “It was found that young people
gained more with them in six months than with other teachers in two
years. Even Protestants removed their children from distant gymnasia to
confide them to the care of the Jesuits.”[283]--This last fact was more
than once lamented by Protestants.
In 1625 a report of the Gymnasium in Brieg, Silesia, complains
bitterly of the lamentable condition of this school. This condition is
ascribed chiefly to the theological wranglings of the Lutherans and
the Reformed, and to the inability of the teachers, who frequently
were engaged in trades, or as inn-keepers, or acted as lawyers, and
thus neglected their duties as teachers. The report then adds: “If the
teachers knew how to preserve the confidence of the parents, then an
interest in the school would soon be manifested by those who now prefer
to send their children to the Jesuits. _For these Jesuits know better
how to treat boys according to their nature, and to keep alive a zeal
for studies._”[284]
Also in the Protestant Margravate of Brandenburg the condition of
the schools induced parents, noblemen, state officials, and citizens,
to send their sons to foreign Jesuit colleges. But then the preachers
started a violent campaign against this practice, although they had to
admit that the Jesuit pupils were better trained than those educated
in the Margravate. Consequently, the Elector John George issued
severe decrees against sending children to foreign schools (1564 and
1572).[285] Professors and preachers in Lemgo, Danzig, Königsberg,
and in other cities, denounced the “godless practice of Protestants
who sacrificed their children to the monstrous Moloch of Jesuit
schools.”[286]
Wilhelm Roding, Professor in Heidelberg, in a book: _Against the
impious schools of the Jesuits_, dedicated to Frederick III., Elector
of the Palatinate, gives expression to the following complaint: “Very
many who want to be counted as Christians send their children to the
schools of the Jesuits. This is a most dangerous thing, as the Jesuits
are excellent and subtle philosophers, above everything intent on
applying all their learning to the education of youth. They are the
finest and most dexterous of teachers, and know how to accommodate
themselves to the natural gifts of every pupil.” Another Protestant,
Andrew Dudith of Breslau, wrote: “I am not surprised if I hear that
one goes to the Jesuits. They possess varied learning, teach, preach,
write, dispute, instruct youth without taking money, and all this they
do with indefatigable zeal; moreover, they are distinguished for moral
integrity, and modest behaviour.”[287] A Protestant preacher attributed
the popularity of the Jesuit schools to magical practices of these
wicked men: “These Jesuits have diabolical practices; they anoint their
pupils with secret salves of the devil, by which they so attract and
attach the children to themselves that they can only with difficulty
be separated from these wizards, and always long to go back to them.
Therefore, the Jesuits ought not only to be expelled but to be burnt,
otherwise they can never be gotten rid of.” Of the Hildesheim Jesuits
it was said that they used some secret charms to hasten the progress of
their pupils.[288]
A most remarkable testimony to the ability of the Jesuits as teachers
was rendered by the words and actions of two non-Catholic rulers, at
the time of the suppression of the Society in 1773, namely by King
Frederick of Prussia and Empress Catharine of Russia; we shall revert
to their testimony further on in this chapter.
In a history of the Jesuit colleges mention must be made of the
literary and scientific works published by Jesuits. The colleges of
the Society were as many colonies of writers. It is impossible to
give here an adequate description of this work of the Society; the
Bibliography of the Order comprises nine folio volumes, and contains
the names of thirteen thousand Jesuit authors--many, if not most
of them, professors--who published works on almost every branch of
learning.[289] Even Dr. Huber admires the literary and scientific
activity of the Order: “More than three hundred Jesuits have written
grammars on living and dead languages, and more than ninety-five
languages have been taught by members of the Order. In mathematics
and natural sciences there are among them first class scientists.
Many astronomical observatories were erected by them, and directed
with great success.”[290] Still more striking is the testimony of the
bitterest enemy of the Jesuits, d’Alembert. He writes: “Let us add--for
we must be just--that no religious society whatever can boast of so
many members distinguished in science and literature. The Jesuits have
successfully cultivated eloquence, history, archaeology, geometry, and
literature. There is scarcely a class of writers in which they have no
representatives of the first rank; they have even good French writers,
a distinction of which no other religious order can boast.”[291]
Some of the linguistic works of the Jesuits are of the greatest
importance and even celebrity in the history of the science of
language. The first, not in time but in importance, is that of the
Spanish Jesuit Hervas. Professor Max Müller of Oxford speaks of this
Jesuit in the highest terms, and says that he wishes to point out his
real merits, which other historians have overlooked.[292] While working
among the polyglottous tribes of South America, the attention of
Father Hervas was drawn to a systematic study of languages. After the
expulsion of the Jesuits from South America in 1767, he lived in Rome
amidst the numerous Jesuit missionaries who assisted him greatly in his
researches.
His works are of a most comprehensive character; the most important
is his _Catalogue of Languages_, in six volumes. “If we compare the
work of Hervas with a similar work which excited much attention towards
the end of the last century, and is even now more widely known than
Hervas’--I mean Court de Gebelin’s _Monde primitif_--we shall see at
once how far superior the Spanish Jesuit is to the French philosopher.
Gebelin treats Persian, Armenian, Malay, and Coptic as dialects of
Hebrew; he speaks of Bask as a dialect of Celtic, and he tries to
discover Hebrew, Greek, English, and French words in the idioms of
America. Hervas, on the contrary, though embracing in his catalogue
five times the number of languages that were known to Gebelin, is
most careful not to allow himself to be carried away by theories not
warranted by the evidence before him. It is easy now to point out
mistakes and inaccuracies in Hervas, but I think that those who have
blamed him most are those who ought most to have acknowledged their
obligations to him. To have collected specimens and notices of more
than three hundred languages, is no small matter. But Hervas did
more. He himself composed grammars of more than forty languages. He
was one of the first to point out that the true affinity of languages
must be determined chiefly by grammatical evidence, not by mere
similarity of words. He proved, by a comparative list of declensions
and conjugations, that Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopie, and
Aramaic are all but dialects of one original language, and constitute
one family of speech, the Semitic. He scouted the idea of deriving
all languages of mankind from Hebrew. He had perceived clear traces
of affinity between Chinese and Indo-Chinese dialects; also between
Hungarian, Lapponian, and Finnish, three dialects now classed as
members of the Turanian family. He had proved that Bask was not, as was
commonly supposed, a Celtic dialect, but an independent language....
Nay, one of the most brilliant discoveries in the history of the
science of language, the establishment of the Malay and Polynesian
family of speech ... was made by Hervas long before it was-worked out,
and announced to the world by Humboldt.”[293]
Great are also the merits of Jesuits in regard to the study of
Sanskrit. “The first European Sanskrit scholar was the Jesuit Robert
de Nobili,”[294] a nephew of the famous Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.
According to the words of Max Müller, he must have been far advanced
in the knowledge of the sacred language and literature of the
Brahmans.[295] The first Sanskrit grammar written by a European is
commonly said to be that of the German Jesuit Hanxleden († 1732).
However, this honor belongs to another German Jesuit, Heinrich Roth
(† 1668), who wrote a Sanskrit grammar almost a century before
Hanxleden.[296] Father Du Pons, in 1740, published a comprehensive and,
in general, a very accurate description of the various branches of
Sanskrit literature.[297] Of Father Coeurdoux Max Müller writes that
he anticipated the most important results of comparative philology by
at least fifty years; at the same time the Oxford Professor expresses
his astonishment that the work of this humble missionary has attracted
so little attention, and only very lately received the credit that
belongs to it.[298] Father Calmette wrote a poetical work in excellent
Sanskrit, the _Ezour Veda_, which gave rise to an interesting literary
discussion. Voltaire declared it to be four centuries older than
Alexander the Great, and pronounced it the most precious gift which
the West had received from the East. On account of the Christian
ideas contained in the poem, the atheistic philosophers of France
thought they had found in it a most effective weapon for attacking
Christianity. Unfortunately for these philosophers, an English traveler
discovered Father Calmette’s manuscript in Pondichery.[299]
Various important works on the dialects of India were written by
Jesuits, among others several grammars and dictionaries of the Tamil
language, for which the first types were made by the Spanish lay
brother Gonsalves. The works written in the Tamil language by Father
Beschi († 1740) have received the most flattering criticism by modern
Protestant writers. The Anglican Bishop Caldwell, in his _Comparative
Grammar of the Dravidian Languages_ (London 1875), styles them the best
productions in modern Tamil, and other scholars, as Babington, Hunter,
Pope, and Benfey, concur in this eulogy.[300] Beschi’s grammar and
dictionary are praised as masterpieces. Father Stephens’ grammar of
the Konkani language is called an admirable achievement.[301] It was
republished as late as 1857, and was used extensively in the nineteenth
century.
Not less noteworthy were the labors of the Jesuits in the Chinese
language. In the fourth International Congress of Orientalists, Father
Matteo Ricci was called “the first Sinologue”.[302] When not long
ago the Protestant missionaries in Shanghai published an edition of
Euclid, they took as the basis of their work the translation made by
Ricci. His works were written in the best Chinese, and, according to
the eminent Orientalist Rémusat, were even in the nineteenth century
highly esteemed by Chinese scholars, for their elegance of diction and
purity of language.[303] Father Prémare († 1736) is called by Morrison
the most thorough and profound grammarian of the Chinese language.
And Rémusat asserts that the two Jesuits Prémare and Gaubil have not
been surpassed or equalled by any European in sound and comprehensive
knowledge of Chinese, and that both belong to the number of great
literary luminaries that form the pride of France.[304] Prémare’s
most important work, the _Notitia Linguae Sinicae_, was published in
1831, by the Protestant _Collegium Anglo-Sinicum_ in Malakka. Rémusat
styles this work the best ever produced by a European in the field of
Chinese grammar.[305] And a German scholar writes: “We possess no work
on Chinese grammar which, in comprehensive and judicious treatment of
the subject, can be compared to that of Prémare’s _Notitia_. Some may
acquire a better understanding of the Chinese language than the French
Father, but it may be said that not easily will any European so fully
and so thoroughly master the spirit and taste of the Chinese language;
nor will there soon be found an equally capable teacher of Chinese
rhetoric. In this I recognize the imperishable value of this work,
a value which in some quarters is recognized more in deeds than in
words.”[306] By the last remark the author seems to imply what another
German writer has stated more explicitly, namely, that “several of the
best works of these Jesuits have been published by another firm,”[307]
i. e., they have been largely used by other writers without receiving
the credit due to them. Other distinguished Chinese scholars were the
Fathers Noel, Gerbillon, Parrenin, de Maillac, and Amyot.[308]
Great praise has also been bestowed on works of Jesuit authors on
the languages of Japan, South America, etc.[309] Thus we read in the
_Narrative and Critical History of America_, by Justin Winsor: “The
most voluminous work on the language of the Incas has for its author
the Jesuit Diego Gonzales Holguin.... He resided for several years in
the Jesuit College at Juli, near the banks of Lake Titicaca, where
the Fathers had established a printing-press, and here he studied the
Quichua language.... He died as Rector of the College at Asuncion.
His Quichua dictionary was published at Lima in 1586, and a second
edition appeared in 1607, the same year in which the grammar first
saw the light. The Quichua grammar of Holguin is the most complete
and elaborate that has been written, and his dictionary is also the
best.”[310]--Similar commendations have been bestowed on the linguistic
works of the Fathers Rubio, de Acosta, Barzena, Bertonio, Bayer,
Febres (whose grammar and dictionary of the Auracanian dialect were
republished for practical use in 1882 and 1884 at Buenos Ayres and
Rio de Janeiro), Anchieta, Figueira, Ruiz, and others. Ruiz’ grammar
and dictionary of Guarani, in the words of Mulhall, are a lasting
monument to his study and learning.[311] Many most valuable books and
manuscripts of the Jesuits were ruthlessly destroyed, when the Fathers
were expelled from their colleges and missions in South America.
Protestant writers, as Bach and Kriegk, lament that this vandalism
of the enemies of the Society has destroyed for ever most valuable
literary treasures.
In the field of mathematics and natural sciences several Jesuit
professors have attained to high distinction. We mention the names of
a few. Clavius († 1610), who was called the “Euclid of his age”, was
the leading man in the reformation of the calendar under Pope Gregory
XIII. Professor Cajori says with reference to this work: “The Gregorian
calendar met with a great deal of opposition both among scientists and
among Protestants. Clavius, who ranked high as a geometer, met the
objections of the former most ably and effectively; the prejudices of
the latter passed away with time.”[312] One of his pupils was Gregory
of Saint-Vincent († 1667), whom Leibnitz places on an equality with
Descartes as a geometrician. “Although a circle-squarer, he is worthy
of mention for the numerous theorems of interest which he discovered in
his search after the impossible, and Montucla ingeniously remarks that
no one ever squared the circle with so much ability, or (except for his
principal object) with so much success.”[313]
Another disciple of Clavius was Matthew Ricci († 1610), the illustrious
mathematician and apostle of China, who published also a vast number
of valuable observations on the geography and history of China. Father
Schall of Cologne († 1669), a prominent mathematician and astronomer,
was appointed director of the “Mathematical Tribunal” in Pekin, and
revised the Chinese calendar.
Within the last few years the attention of mathematicians has been
drawn to the Jesuit Father Saccheri, Professor of mathematics at Pavia.
Non-Euclidean mathematics is now recognized as an important branch of
mathematics. The beginnings of this system have sometimes been ascribed
to Gauss, the “Nestor of German mathematicians”. But recent research
has proved that as early as 1733 Father Saccheri had published a book
which gives a complete system of Non-Euclidean geometry. Beltrami, in
1889, and Staeckel and Engel in 1895, pointed out the great importance
of the work of Saccheri.[314]
Father Grimaldi († 1663), professor of mathematics in the College at
Bologna, gave an accurate description of the moon spots, discovered
the diffraction of light, and, in his work _Physico-Mathesis de
Lumine, Coloribus et Iride_, advanced the first attempt of a theory of
undulation. This work was the basis of Newton’s theory of light.[315]
Father Scheiner († 1650) was one of the first observers of the sun
spots; it is disputed whether he or Galileo discovered them first.
Scheiner also invented the pantograph, and, in his work _Oculus,
hoc est Fundamentum Opticum_, laid down opinions of lasting value
(especially on the _accommodation of the eye_).[316]
More famous than these was Athanasius Kircher († 1680), a man
of most extensive and varied learning who wrote on mathematics,
physics, history, philology, and archaeology. He is the inventor
of the magic lantern and other scientific instruments. He was the
first who successfully studied the Coptic language and deciphered
the Egyptian hieroglyphics. The very variety and universality of
his learning was naturally a danger, to which he not unfrequently
succumbed. He often betrays a lack of critical spirit, and proposes
phantastic theories. Still, in spite of these defects, his works are
of the greatest importance, and his _Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta_
has been styled indispensable even at the present day for the study
of the Egyptian language.[317] Father Kircher founded also the
famous _Museo Kircheriano_ in the Roman College, and if he had done
nothing else, this alone would secure him a place of honor in the
world of science. The services rendered to mathematics, astronomy,
physics, and geography, by the Jesuits in China, especially by Ricci,
Schall, Verbiest, Koegler, Hallerstein, Herdtrich, Gaubil, have been
generously acknowledged by Lalande, Montucla, and more recently by the
Protestant scholars Mädler,[318] and Baron von Richthofen.[319] On the
astronomical observatories of the Jesuits a few words will be said when
we come to speak of the suppression of the Order.
Of the geographical works of the Jesuits in China Baron von Richthofen
writes: “If the Jesuits had not applied their scientifically
trained minds to practical subjects, we would not possess the great
cartographic work on China, and that country would still be a _terra
incognita_ for us, and the time would be very far off in which it would
become possible to obtain as much as that picture of China which the
Jesuits have given us, and which is now well known to everybody....
It is the most important cartographic work ever executed in so short
a time, the grandest scientific achievement of the most brilliant
period of Catholic missions in China.” The same author says of the
Tyrolese Father Martini († 1661): “He is the best geographer of all
the missionaries, and by his great work, the _Novus Atlas Sinensis_,
the best and most complete description which we possess of China, he
has become the ‘Father of Chinese geography.’” Father Du Halde gave an
accurate description of Mongolia, and his great work on China (1735)
is still one of the most important sources available on the geography,
history, religion, industry, political organization, customs, etc.,
of that country.[320] Some of the geographical labors of the Jesuits
in America have been mentioned previously.[321] Justin Winsor states
that the _Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias_ of Father de Acosta,
“the Pliny of the New World,” is much relied on as an authority by
Robertson, and quoted 19 times by Prescott in his _Conquest of Peru_,
thus taking the fourth place as an authority with regard to that
work.[322]
All these works are as many testimonies to the efficiency and the
_practical_ character of the system under which these men had been
trained; most of them had entered the Society at a very early age. How
could they have produced such works, if what Compayré says, were true,
that the Society devotes itself exclusively to “purely formal studies,
to exercises which give a training in the use of elegant language, and
leaves real and concrete studies in entire neglect”?[323]
In history the Society must yield the palm to the Order of St.
Benedict, particularly to the celebrated Congregation of St. Maur.
Still, some Jesuits produced works of lasting value. We mention first
the _De Doctrina Temporum_ by Father Petavius († 1652), of which
a great authority on chronology said that it was superior to the
work of Scaliger, and an invaluable mine of information for later
chronologists.[324] Father Labbe († 1667) began the _Collection
of the Councils_ which is much used up to the present day. A more
complete Collection of the Councils, in fact the most complete that
exists, was published by Father Hardouin († 1729). He wrote also a
most valuable work on numismatics, in which six hundred ancient coins
were, for the first time, described and with wonderful sagacity used
for solving intricate historical problems. In other historical and
critical works he proceeded with an almost incredible boldness and
arbitrariness, denying the authenticity of a great number of the
works of the classical writers and the Fathers of the Church. In many
questions of criticism he was far in advance of his age, but some of
his hyper-critical and eccentric hypotheses have, to a great extent,
obscured his reputation.[325] The greatest historical work of the
Jesuits is the collection of documents called _Acta Sanctorum_, or
the _Bollandists_, so named after the first editor, Father Bolland (†
1668). The most distinguished of the Bollandist writers was Father
Papenbroeck († 1714). Fifty-three folio volumes appeared before the
suppression of the Society. This gigantic collection is a work of prime
importance for the history of the whole Christian era, a _monumentum
aere perennius_. Leibnitz said of it: “If the Jesuits had produced
nothing but this work, they would have deserved to be brought into
existence, and would have just claims upon the good wishes and esteem
of the whole world.”[326]
In literature we find the names of several distinguished Jesuits. The
odes of Matthew Sarbiewski († 1640) were praised as successful rivals
of the best lyrics of the ancients; Hugo Grotius even preferred them
to the odes of Horace,[327] although we must call this an exaggerated
estimate. Sarbiewski was surpassed by James Balde († 1668), who for
many years taught rhetoric in Ingolstadt and Munich, and was styled not
only the “Modern Quintilian”, but also the “Horace of Germany”. His
Latin poems manifest a variety, beauty, warmth of feeling, and glowing
patriotism unrivalled in that period. He was, however, not altogether
free from the mannerisms of his age. Protestant critics, as Goethe
and others, have admired the productions of this highly gifted poet,
and Herder,[328] who translated a selection of Balde’s lyrics into
classical German, speaks of him in enthusiastic terms.[329]
The classical German writings of Denis and Spe have been mentioned
previously. We may add here the name of Father Robert Southwell, who
was executed for his faith in 1595. Saintsbury says of him that he
belonged to a distinguished family, was stolen by a gipsy in youth,
but was recovered; “a much worse misfortune befell him in being sent
for education not to Oxford or Cambridge but to Douay, where he
fell into the hands of the Jesuits, and joined their order.”[330]
Yet notwithstanding this terrible misfortune, he must have greatly
profited from this education; for the same critic admits that Southwell
produced not inconsiderable work both in prose and poetry; that his
works possess genuine poetic worth; that his religious fervor is of the
simplest and most genuine kind, and that his poems are a natural and
unforced expression of it.
Father Perpinian wrote most eloquent Latin discourses, which,
as the philologian Ruhnken affirms, compare favorably with those
of Muretus, the greatest Neo-Latinist. The philological works of
Pontanus, Vernulaeus, La Cerda (the famous commentator of the works
of Virgil), and others, were held in high repute. Sacchini, Jouvancy,
Perpinian, Possevin, Bonifacio, and Kropf wrote valuable treatises on
education.[331]
We have purposely abstained from mentioning any writer on theology or
scholastic philosophy. For it is admitted on all sides that the Society
produced a great number of most distinguished writers in scholastic
philosophy and in the various branches of theology: dogmatics,
apologetics, exegesis, moral theology, etc.
Many good schoolbooks were written by Jesuits.[332] The number of
grammars, readers, books on style, on poetics, rhetoric, editions of
classics, etc., is very great. De la Cerda published one of the best
editions of Virgil. The editions of La Rue (Ruaeus) were famous; of
course, they are not what we _now_ consider standard works on the
classics. Father Tursellini’s book _De Particulis Linguae Latinae_
appeared in fifty editions; the last edition was prepared by Professor
Hand, the philologist of Jena. The celebrated Gottfried Hermann, of
Leipsic, published a revised edition of Father Viger’s _De Idiotismis
Linguae Graecae_.[333] This is an honor which not many old books have
received at the hand of German scholars, who boast of such achievements
in the field of philology. It is needless to add that the two works
of the Jesuit philologians thus singled out must be of considerable
excellence.
One department of the activity of the Order deserves a more detailed
treatment: the Jesuit school-drama.[334] At present there is no need of
defending the usefulness of dramatic performances, given by students,
provided the subject and the whole tone of the play are morally sound
and elevating. Still, there were times, when the Jesuits had to defend
their practice, especially against the rigorists of Port Royal, the
Jansenists in general, and in the eighteenth century against several
governments, which were swayed by a prosaic bureaucratic spirit of
utilitarianism.[335] The principles according to which the drama in
Jesuit schools was to be conducted are laid down by Jouvancy in his
_Ratio Docendi_, and by Father Masen; a book on the technique of the
drama was composed by Father Lang.[336] The Institute of the Society
had taken precautions that the school dramas should neither interfere
with the regular work, nor do the least harm to the morals of the
pupils. The fifty-eighth rule of the Provincial reads: “He shall only
rarely allow the performance of comedies and tragedies; they must be
becoming[337] and written in Latin.” The vast majority of plays were
consequently given in Latin,--the language, in those times, understood
by every man of culture. Many Protestant educators and preachers were
altogether opposed to dramas in the vernacular “which, as they said,
were good enough for the common people and apprentices, but unbecoming
students.” In Jesuit colleges plays were occasionally, and after 1700
more frequently, performed in the vernacular.[338] Of Latin plays a
programme and synopsis in the vernacular was, at least in Germany,
distributed amongst those who did not know Latin.
In many Protestant schools of this period, for instance in the
celebrated schools of Sturm and Rollenhagen, and also in a few
Catholic schools, the comedies of Plautus and Terence were exhibited,
not, however, without strong opposition of earnest men, who rightly
considered some of these plays as dangerous for young people. Von
Raumer says: “It seems incredible that the learning by heart and acting
of comedies, so lascivious as those of Terence, could have remained
without evil influence on the morality of youth, and we find it
unintelligible that a religious-minded man like Sturm did not consider
Terence really seductive. If the mere reading of an author like Terence
is risky, how much more risky must it be, if pupils perform such pieces
and have to familiarize themselves altogether with the persons and
situations.”[339] No wonder that serious complaints were made against
such pernicious practices.[340] The biblical and historical plays
performed in Protestant schools were mostly directed against “Popish
idolatry”.[341]
The drama of the Jesuits stood in sharp contrast to that of the
Protestants. As their whole literary education, so also their drama
was subordinate to the religious and moral training. The Ratio
Studiorum prohibited the reading of any classical books which contained
obscenities; they had first to be expurgated; expressly mentioned were
Terence and Plautus. This must reflect most favorably on the Jesuits,
in a time when vulgarity and obscenity reigned supreme in literature
and drama.
As the nature and function of the theatre the Jesuits considered the
stirring up of the pious emotions, the guardianship of youth against
the corrupting influence of evil society, the portrayal of vice as
something intrinsically despicable, the rousing up of the inner man to
a zealous crusade for virtue, and the imitation of the Saints. Even
in the treatment of purely secular subjects, the plot was always of
a spiritually serious, deeply tragic, and morally important nature.
The aim of the comic drama was to strike at the puerilities and
ineptitudes, which could be treated on the stage without any detriment
to the moral conscience. Vulgar jokes and low comedy were once and
for all excluded, and the Jesuit authorities were indefatigable in
thus guarding the moral prestige of the plays. In general, only such
plays were written and produced as were in harmony with the moral ends
and moral limits of dramatic art itself: a meritorious achievement in
an age when every sentiment of moral delicacy, every prescription of
social decorum, every dictate of ordinary modesty--both in the school
and on the stage--was being outraged. And this fact produced a healthy
reaction in favor of all the fine arts in general. The intermittent
efforts of Jesuit dramatists could not, it is true, completely stem the
tide of public degeneracy, could not even remain altogether unscathed
by the time-serving fashions and foibles of the age: from the grosser
and more revolting aberrations they were happily preserved.[342]
The subjects of Jesuit dramas were frequently biblical or allegorical:
as “The Prodigal Son” (Heiligenstadt 1582), “Joseph in Egypt” (Munich
1583), “Christ as Judge”, “Saul and David” (Graz 1589-1600), “Naboth”
(Ratisbon 1609), “Elias” (Prague 1610). Or historical subjects were
chosen: “Julian the Apostate” (Ingolstadt 1608), “Belisarius” (Munich
1607), “Godfrey de Bouillon” (Munich 1596), “St. Ambrose”, “St. Benno”,
“St. Henry the Emperor”, etc.[343] Favorite subjects were the lives of
the Saints with their rich, beautiful, touching and morally ennobling
elements, and the Christian legends. In these the Catholic Church has
preserved, as Professor Paulsen aptly remarks, a poetical treasure
which in many respects surpasses the stories of the Old Testament, both
in purity and dramatic applicability.[344]
Many of their dramas were exhibited with all possible splendor, as
for instance those given at La Flèche in 1614 before Louis XIII.
and his court.[345] But it seems that nowhere was greater pomp
displayed than in Munich, where the Court liberally contributed to
make the performances as brilliant as possible. In 1574 the tragedy
“Constantine” was played on two successive days. The whole city was
beautifully decorated. More than one thousand persons took part in the
play. Constantine, after his victory over Maxentius, entered the city
on a triumphal chariot, surrounded by 400 horsemen in glittering armor.
At the performance of the tragedy “Esther” in 1577, the most splendid
costumes, gems, etc. were furnished from the treasury of the duke; at
the banquet of King Assuerus 160 precious dishes of gold and silver
were used.[346]
We may now understand the following assertions of a German writer.
“The Jesuits, as Richard Wagner in our own days, aimed at and succeeded
in uniting all the arts within the compass of the drama. The effects
of such dramas were, like those of the Oberammergau Passion Play,
ravishing, overpowering. Even people ignorant of the Latin tongue were
transported by the representations of subjects usually familiar to
them, as at present no one travels to the village of Ammergau to be
edified by the poetic beauties of the _text_. And no one can deny that
the liturgy of the Catholic Church makes a deep impression, even on the
uncultured, although the Latin language is unknown to them. It is in
the first place the power of _what is seen_ that affects the mind so
forcibly.”[347]
The concourse of people was often immense. In 1565 “Judith” was played
before the court in Munich, and then repeated before the people on a
public square; not only was the whole square densely crowded, but even
the surrounding walls and the roofs of the houses were thickly filled
with eager spectators. In 1560 the comedy “Euripus” was given in the
court-yard of the College of Prague before a crowd of more than 8000
people. The play had to be repeated three times, and when further
exhibitions were demanded, the Rector of the college urgently requested
the petitioners to desist from such demands, as “after all it was not
the task of the Society to exhibit comedies.”
Catholic writers of the time speak enthusiastically of the salutary
effects of such performances. “They do more good than a sermon”, writes
the Italian physician Guarinoni, who saw many Jesuit dramas at Hall
in Tyrol. At Munich, on one occasion, in 1609, the impression of a
play--it was “Cenodoxus, the Doctor of Paris”, (or the “Conversion
of St. Bruno”)--was overpowering. A spectator wrote that a hundred
sermons could not have produced the same effect; fourteen of the
foremost members of the Bavarian court, on the following day, withdrew
themselves into solitude, to enter upon the “Spiritual Exercises” of
St. Ignatius, and to change their manner of life.[348]
Protestant preachers lamented that “high personages, princes and
counts, no less than townspeople and rustics take such delight in
the dramas of the Jesuits, contribute money to them, and honor the
actors, whereas ours have nothing of the kind. Thus the Jesuits have
an opportunity of propagating their idolatry and of gaining the good
will even of the Evangelicals.”[349] This result would certainly have
been impossible, if the Jesuit dramas had contained invectives against
non-Catholics. They were free from insulting and abusive attacks with
which those of the other side were teeming. This is established by
the standard authors on this subject, Karl von Reinhardstöttner, and
Holstein. The latter, speaking with offensive and bitter language of
the Jesuit dramas as means of defending “idolatry”, must admit that
their object was exclusively pedagogical, not at all polemical. Another
Protestant, Francke, states as the difference between Protestant and
Catholic school dramas, that the former sank more and more to a mere
form for political and ecclesiastical controversies, chiefly directed
against Popery, whereas the Jesuits were working quietly in their
schools and performed their biblical and historical plays.[350]
That not all dramatic productions of the Jesuits were of very inferior
quality may again be inferred from testimonies of competent Protestant
critics. K. von Reinhardstöttner writes: “In the first century of their
history the Jesuits did great work in this line. They performed dramas
full of power and grandeur and although their dramatic productions did
not equal the fine lyrics of (the Jesuits) Balde and Sarbiewski, still
in the dramas of Fabricius, Agricola and others there is unmistakably
poetic spirit and noble seriousness. How could the enormous success
of their performances be otherwise explained?... Who could doubt for
a moment that the Jesuits by their dramas rendered great services to
their century, that they advanced culture, and preserved taste for
the theatre and its subsidiary arts? It would be sheer ingratitude to
undervalue what they have effected by their drama.”[351]
We have testimonies proving that not only in the first century of its
existence did the Order produce good plays, but that it kept up a high
standard to the very end. One witness is Goethe, the first of German
writers, assuredly no mean critic in dramatic matters. He was present
at a play given in 1786 at Ratisbon, where the traditions of the Jesuit
schools were kept up after the suppression of the Order. He bestows
high praise on the performance and on the skill with which the Jesuits
knew how to make the various arts subservient to their dramatics.[352]
If the number of great men be taken as a just criterion of the merit
of an educational system, the Society could exhibit a long roll of
pupils, who in their after-life were among the most prominent men in
European history: poets like Calderon, Tasso, Corneille, Molière,
Fontenelle, Goldoni; orators like Bossuet; scholars like Galileo,
Descartes, Buffon, Justus Lipsius, Vico, Muratori, Montesquieu,
Malesherbes; statesmen like Richelieu and Emperor Ferdinand; generals
like Tilly, Wallenstein and Condé; Church dignitaries like the great
St. Francis de Sales, Pope Benedict XIV, called “the most learned of
the Popes.” These are but a few of the host of Jesuit pupils who rose
to the highest distinction in Church and State, or in the domain of
science and literature.[353] However, the Society does not lay much
stress on the fact of having educated these brilliant men. It might
be said with Count de Maistre, that “Genius is not the production of
schools; it is not acquired but innate; it recognizes no obligation
to man; its gratitude is due to the creative power of God.” Still,
a system of education may contribute much to foster and quicken the
development of genius. But the Society can justly claim to have made
excellent men of pupils with only ordinary abilities, and these count
by thousands, nay by hundreds of thousands: lawyers, professors, state
officials, officers of the army, priests and bishops.
Considering the number and work of the Jesuit schools, we may
conclude that they wielded a very great influence in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. This influence led to the persecution and
finally the suppression of the Order; not as if the Order had abused
its influence, but because the power which the Society exercised in the
intellectual and moral world, was an eye-sore to the numerous enemies
of the Jesuits. At last, after the middle of the seventeenth century,
the hated Order fell a victim to the intrigues of its opponents.
We cannot here enter on a lengthy account of the history of the
destruction of the Society, but must refer the reader to special works
on this subject.[354] Suffice it to mention briefly the opinions of a
few impartial witnesses.
Prince Hohenlohe wrote at the time of the suppression that the
destruction of the Order was “_une cabale infernale_.”[355] Theiner,
who was a bitter enemy of the Society, calls the suppression a
“disgraceful warfare, a deplorable drama, in which too many impure
elements played a leading part.”[356] Many prominent Protestant
historians, as Ranke, Schoell, J. v. Müller, Sismondi, Leo, declare the
charges brought against the Society as calumnies of its enemies, and
maintain that the suppression of the Order was not due to any crimes
of the Jesuits, but entirely to the tyrannical violence of ministers
of State.[357] In Portugal it was Pombal who aimed at separating
his country from Rome and introducing infidelity; the Jesuits, for
their unflinching loyalty to the Papacy and the staunch defence
of revealed religion, were to be the first victims. Pombal hired
pamphleteers to calumniate them systematically. Spain and France at
the same time began to persecute the Society. In the latter country
the Jansenists and Huguenots had always borne a deadly hatred to the
Order. The names of the chief enemies of the Jesuits show clearly, in
what direction the warfare against them tended: the Duke of Choiseul,
the ill-famed Madame de Pompadour, Voltaire, d’Alembert and other
French infidel philosophers. They had always regarded the Jesuits
as the most formidable and dangerous enemies of their revolutionary
designs. Voltaire wrote to Helvetius, in 1761, in a tone of exultant
anticipation: “Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, that ‘infamous
thing’ (the Christian religion) will be only child’s play for us.”[358]
However, he could not and would not calumniate the hated Order in
the style of others: “While doing my very best to realize the motto:
_Écrasez l’infâme_, I will not stoop to the meanness of defaming the
Jesuits. The best years of my life have been spent in the schools of
the Jesuits, and while there I have never listened to any teaching
but what was good, or seen any conduct but what was exemplary.”[359]
Neither could J. J. Rousseau be induced to lend his pen to decry the
Society, although he confessed that he did not like the Jesuits.
Pope Clement XIV. at last yielded to the threats of the ministers of
the Bourbon kings, and in 1773, by a Brief he suppressed the Society,
“in order to preserve peace.” “This letter”, says a Protestant
historian, “condemns neither the doctrine, nor the morals, of the
Jesuits. The complaints of the courts against the Order are the
only motives alleged for its suppression.”[360] When recently Sir
Henry Howorth represented this Brief as an infallible _ex-cathedra_
pronouncement of the Pope, he thereby showed that he has not even
the most elementary notion of what is meant by Papal infallibility.
Succeeding events proved that--to use the words of one of the enemies
of the Jesuits--a peace treaty was struck between the wolves and the
shepherd, and that the latter had sacrificed the best watch-dogs of the
flock. The dreadful French Revolution opened the eyes of many to the
real purport of the persecutions of the Jesuits. True, the Church is
not built on the Society, but on the rock of Peter. Still the Church
suffered immensely by this sacrifice of its most zealous defenders,
and well might Pope Pius VII., in the Bull of the Restoration of the
Society in 1814, speak of the “dispersion of the very stones of the
sanctuary,” which had followed the destruction of the Society and the
consequent calamities.
It was at this juncture that a Protestant and a Schismatical court
rendered homage to the services of the Jesuits, and gave a brilliant
testimony to their educational abilities. Frederick the Great, King
of Prussia, being determined to preserve them in his kingdom,[361]
wrote to Abbé Columbini, his agent at Rome, a letter dated from
Potsdam, September 13, 1773, in which the following passage occurs:
“I am determined that in my kingdom the Jesuits shall continue to
exist and maintain their ancient form. In the treaty of Breslau I
guaranteed the _status quo_ of the Catholic religion; nor have I ever
seen better priests, from any point of view, than the Jesuits. You
may add that since I belong to a heretical sect, His Holiness holds
no power to dispense me from the obligation of keeping my word, or
from my duty as a king and an honest man.”[362] On May 15th, 1774,
writing to d’Alembert, who was dissatisfied that the Jesuits were not
completely exterminated, and feared that other kings moved by the
example of Prussia might demand of Frederick seed to cultivate in
their own kingdoms, he replied: “I view them only as men of letters,
whose place in the instruction of youth it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to supply. Of the Catholic clergy of this country they
alone apply themselves to literature. This renders them so useful
and necessary that you need not fear any one shall obtain from me a
single Jesuit.” In 1770 he had written in similar terms to Voltaire.
Speaking of Pope Clement XIV., he says: “For my own part I have no
reason to complain of him; he leaves me my dear Jesuits, whom they are
persecuting everywhere. I will save the precious seed, for those who
should wish to cultivate a plant so rare.”[363] On May 15th, 1775, he
wrote to d’Alembert: “In their misfortune I see in them nothing but
scholars whose place in the education of youth can hardly be supplied
by others.” Again on Aug. 5, 1775: “For the good Jesuit Fathers I have
a d-- tenderness, not as far as they are monks but as educators and
scholars, whose services are useful to civil society.” Now, if the
Jesuits were dangerous to the welfare of the state, as their enemies
make them, how strange that the Atheist on the Prussian throne, the
shrewdest and most keen-sighted monarch of his time, should have failed
to see it? But he was not the man to let himself be influenced by silly
prejudices.
The second ruler of Europe who endeavored to protect the Society was
Catharine II., Empress of Russia.[364] In 1783 she wrote to Pope Pius
VI. “that she was resolved to maintain these priests for the welfare
of her states against any power, whatsoever it was.” In the same year
the Russian court in a note to Mgr. Archetti, Papal Nuncio to Poland,
thus expressed its sentiments on the Jesuits: “The Roman Catholics of
the Russian Empire, having given unequivocal proofs of their loyalty
to the Empress, have thereby acquired a right to the confirmation of
their former privileges. Of this number is the instruction of youth,
which has heretofore been committed to the Jesuits. The zeal animating
these religious, and the success crowning their efforts, have been
marked by the Imperial Government with the utmost satisfaction. Would
it be just to deprive the inhabitants of White Russia of this precious
Institution? In other countries where the Order was suppressed, no
substitutes have been found. And why single out for destruction, among
the many religious orders, that which devotes itself to the education
of youth, and consequently to the public welfare?”[365]
These testimonies refute also a charge sometimes made even by Catholic
writers. Theiner, for instance, asserts or implies that, for a space of
time preceding the suppression, the Society had fallen away from the
station it had held originally in literary and educational matters,
that their system had become useless to the interests of science,
that education suffered in their hands, that youth issued from their
colleges unprotected against the assaults of error, etc.[366] These
charges are ably refuted by Abbé Maynard in his work just quoted:
_The Studies and Teaching of the Society of Jesus at the Time of its
Suppression 1750-73_. But as we said, the appreciation of the Jesuits’
educational labors, as shown by Frederick II. and Catharine II.,
exonerates them completely. These two were the most sagacious monarchs
of Europe at the time, and what could have influenced them, atheists as
they were, to show such favors to the persecuted Society, had it not
been its superiority as an educating body? All attempts to weaken the
testimonies of the words and actions of these two rulers have proved
unsuccessful.[367]
Besides, Maynard points out in detail that the Jesuits at that time
had among their number _hundreds_ of able writers in all branches
of learning. The Society could boast of great mathematicians
and scientists, as the famous Roger Boscovich († 1787), who was
despatched by the Royal Society of London to California to observe
the second transit of Venus. During the heat of the French Revolution
the French astronomer Lalande, who took pride in the title “the
atheist astronomer”, ventured to write Father Boscovich’s eulogy in
the “_Journal of Men of Science_” (February 1792). Then there was
Maximilian Hell († 1792), for thirty-six years director of the Imperial
Observatory at Vienna. In 1768 he was invited by Christian VII.,
King of Denmark, to observe in Lapland the transit of Venus. Of the
result of Father Hell’s expedition Lalande wrote: “This was one of
the five complete observations made at great distances apart.”[368]
Father Hell was a worthy successor to the great Jesuit astronomers and
mathematicians Clavius, Kircher, Riccioli, Scheiner, Grimaldi, and a
precursor of the famous Father Secchi, one of the greatest astronomers,
at least in spectroscopy, of the nineteenth century.
Lalande, in his _Bibliographie Astronomique_, enumerates forty-five
Jesuit astronomers and eighty-nine astronomical publications for the
short period of 1750-1773. The same author, in the continuation of
Montucla’s _History of Mathematics_, pays the following tribute to
the Society: “Here I must remark to the honor of this learned and
cruelly persecuted Society, that in several colleges it possessed
observatories, for instance in Marseilles, Avignon, Lyons, etc.” There
were other observatories in Rome, Florence, Milan, in fact in every
country where Jesuits had colleges. Of Germany and Austria, Lalande
remarks: “There were in Germany and the neighboring countries few large
colleges of the Society which had no observatory.” He mentions those of
Vienna, Tyrnau, Ingolstadt, Graz, Breslau, Olmütz, Prague, etc., and
speaks highly of the scientific work done by the Jesuit astronomers. He
adds that after the “deplorable catastrophe of the Society,” most of
these observatories shared the fate of the Order.[369]
Quite recently Professor Günther of Munich[370] called attention
to the important scientific works of three Jesuits of that period,
three relatives of the name Zallinger: John Baptist, Professor in
the Jesuit college at Innsbruck, who wrote a remarkable treatise on
the growth of plants; James Anton, Professor in Munich, Dillingen,
Innsbruck, and Augsburg, a zealous defender of the Newtonian system,
who “published works of such importance that it is surprising that
they could have been buried in oblivion.” The greatest of the three
was Francis Zallinger, who published several important works with new
views, which partly are held at present, on electricity, meteorology,
mechanics, and with particular success on hydrology. Professor Günther
repeatedly expresses his astonishment that such works could have been
so completely ignored, that no modern work on the history of sciences
does justice to them. Very few mention the names of these writers. We
may be convinced that careful research will bring to light many more
distinguished Jesuit scientists of that period.
Also in literature, shortly before the suppression, the Jesuits had
among their numbers distinguished writers. Father Tiraboschi († 1794)
wrote the _History of Italian Literature_, in thirteen volumes, up to
this day one of the most valuable works on this subject. In France,
men like Father Porée and many others were admired even by Voltaire
for their literary accomplishments. In Germany, the Jesuit Denis (†
1800) rendered the so-called poems of Ossian into his native tongue,
and this with such success as to win the highest praise from Goethe.
About this time Father Hervas began to write his great “_Catalogue of
languages_”, of which we spoke before. But as we are not writing a
literary history of the Society, it is enough to have mentioned these
few names. A host of other distinguished men, who flourished towards
the end of the seventeenth century, may be found in Abbé Maynard’s
work. Thus the assertion that the Society had become useless to science
and literature, is a pure calumny.
As groundless is the charge that the Jesuits had failed in their lofty
mission with respect to teaching. We have heard what Frederick II. and
Catharine II. thought of them. Most of the celebrated writers mentioned
before were engaged as teachers in the collegiate or university
establishments of the Order. A cloud of witnesses stands forth to
testify that the work of education was carried on with unabated zeal
and with great success, not only in languages and literature, but also
in mathematics and sciences. Thus Deslandes, commissary of the navy
at Brest, testified, in 1748, that the Jesuits had furnished the navy
excellent professors of mathematics.[371]
It may be well to quote what the historian of the University of
Paris has to say about the educational labors of the Society in France
up to the time of its suppression: “If one rises above prejudices
and narrow professional jealousies, how can one deny the eminent
services which the Society rendered to youth and the family, from its
reestablishment under Henry IV.? Those of its enemies who want to be
impartial and sincere admit that its colleges were well conducted, that
the discipline was at once firm and mild, strict and paternal; that the
scholastic routine was improved by wise innovations, cleverly adapted
to the progress in manners and social demands; that the teachers
were unassuming, devoted to their work, well instructed, and for the
greater part masters in the art of elevating youth; some were perfect
humanists, others, scientists of the first rank, so regular in their
lives that never has any reproach of misdemeanor been uttered against
them. Should one say that, in spite of showy appearances, the education
given by the Jesuits lacked solidity, that they too often substituted
frivolous practices or worldly exercises for serious work,--a charge
frequently made by the University--the Jesuits could answer by pointing
to their pupils who held honorable positions in the domain of science
and literature, at the court and in the armies, in the ranks of the
_bourgeoisie_ and among the nobility.... As instructors of youth, the
Jesuits were above reproach, and more worthy of recommendation than
of persecution.... We do not inquire whether in other rôles played by
the disciples of St. Ignatius, they did not allow themselves to be
carried away to excesses of pride, ambition, and intolerance, which
necessarily brought upon them cruel retaliation; in connection with our
subject, suffice it to state that in the field of studies and public
education, their activity was, in general, beneficial. The inexorable
sentence which suddenly destroyed their colleges is explained, from the
historical point of view, by the prejudices and the hatred existing
against the Society. But after having related the biased acclamations
of contemporaries, must this sentence, so sadly renowned, be confirmed
by the equitable judgment of history? We think not; for it is against
truth and justice in many regards, and, as the events that followed
have proved, it served neither the Church, nor the State, nor even the
University, in spite of the hopes which the latter had based on the
ruin of its adversaries.”[372] The author, in the chapter following,
then describes the fatal consequences for education in France,
resulting from the destruction of the Society.
This much is certain that it was not its inability, but, on the
contrary, its great success for which the Society was doomed by the
Catos of the eighteenth century, whose _ceterum censeo_ was that the
hated Order was to be destroyed. What the Jesuits had been doing for
education and learning became apparent after the destruction of their
Order, and it was openly declared by many that the ruin of the Society
was followed by a fatal decline of learning among the Catholics. The
Bishops of France represented to the King, that “the dispersion of
the Jesuits had left a lamentable void in the functions of the sacred
ministry and the education of youth, to which they consecrated their
talents and their labors.”[373] In 1803 Abbé Emery wrote: “The Jesuits
have been expelled, their system of teaching has been rejected. But
what substitutes for them have we discovered, and in what have the new
theories resulted? Are the youth better instructed, or their morals
purer? Their presumptuous ignorance and depravity force us to sigh for
the old masters and the old ways.”[374]
About the same time Chateaubriand in his famous work, _The Genius
of Christianity_, exclaimed: “In the destruction of the Jesuits
learned Europe has suffered an irreparable loss. Since that unhappy
event education has never been in a state of prosperity.” And in his
_Mélanges_ he expresses himself to the same effect: “The Jesuits
maintained and were increasing their reputation to the last moment
of their existence. Their destruction has inflicted a deadly wound
on education and letters: as to this, at the present time, there is
no diversity of opinion.” And even Theiner does not hesitate to say
that “the wound inflicted on education was incurable.”[375] In Lord
Stanhope’s conversation with the great Duke of Wellington we find a
striking passage on the same subject. Speaking at Walmer in October
1833, the Duke said to Lord Mahon: “On the whole I think it is very
doubtful whether, since the suppression of the Jesuits, the system of
education has been as good, or whether as remarkable men have appeared.
I am quite sure that they have not in the south of Europe. It was a
great mistake.”[376] In Treves the Jesuits possessed, besides the
novitiate and the university, a flourishing college. When the news of
the suppression of the Society arrived, the Archbishop Elector, Clement
Wenceslaus of Poland, is said to have exclaimed: “_Cecidit corona
capitis nostri_”--“The crown of our head is fallen;”[377] and, as the
historian of the Royal Gymnasium of Treves adds, his outcry of sorrow
was justified. A few years after the Jesuits had left the college, the
pernicious leaven of French infidelity had permeated the faculty and
was undermining the faith of the young.
And such was the case everywhere. German scepticism, French atheism,
Jansenism, and Josephism began to reign supreme. Let us add here that
the Protestant cause was never strengthened by any persecution of the
Society; the only gainer was always infidelity. The statement of Mr.
Browning, that the governments on the whole have done well to suppress
the Jesuit colleges,[378] is proved utterly false by history. At the
same time it advocates an intolerable state absolutism. If parents wish
to send their children to the schools of the Jesuits, and of religious
in general, it is a violation of parental rights, and an infringement
of religious and political liberty, to make the attainment of such
wishes impossible. In the light of this consideration, the legislation
of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, and the recent proceedings against the teaching
congregations in France must appear to all fair-minded men as tyranny
and a new “reign of terror”.
To all students of history who are not blinded by fanatical hatred,
the downfall of such a society of men who had devoted their lives to
the propagation of religion and the advancement of science, must appear
most pathetic. Such it appeared to the atheist astronomer Lalande.
“The mention of a Jesuit,” he writes, “awakens all the feelings of my
heart, my mind and my gratitude. It harrows all my sore feelings at the
blindness of the ministers of 1762. Mankind has irretrievably lost, and
will never recover, that precious and surprising union of twenty-two
thousand individuals, devoted incessantly and disinterestedly to the
functions of teaching, preaching, missions, to duties most serviceable
and dearest to humanity. Retirement, frugality, and the renunciation
of pleasure, constituted in that Society the most harmonious concord
of science and virtue. I had personal knowledge of them: they were an
assemblage of heroes for religion and humanity.”[379]
We close this chapter with the following sympathetic lines of a recent
writer: “The rise of the Jesuits had been astonishing. Their fall was
august. Annihilation could not shake their constancy. No tempests of
misfortune could attaint their magnificent obedience. Defamation,
incarceration, banishment, starvation, death, unthankfulness, fell
upon them, and could not alter, and could not dismay. To the cabals
of courtiers and the frenzy of kings, to the laugh of triumphing
harlots, and the rebuke of solemn hypocrites, to the loud-voiced joy
of the heretic and the unbeliever, to the poisonous sneer of banded
sectaries, exulting in their secret confederation, to the gibes of
traitors, to the burning sympathies of unpurchased and unpurchasable
multitudes, the only response of the Jesuits was superb and indomitable
duty. Girt round by cruelty and frivolity, more cruel still; as in the
centre of a vast amphitheatre of the antique which they had taught
so well, they remained as high resolved, as unflinching as Sebastian
before the archers of the Palatine, or the virgin Blandina amid the
beasts at Lyons. It was hardly a marvel that the victorious monarch
of Prussia, outside the Church though he was, but accustomed to see
men die at the call of honor and discipline, half owned a thrill of
warrior emotion, and paid a captain’s salutation, to that infrangible,
that devoted army. _The Jesuits were not only the ablest of Renaissance
schoolmasters_, they were great priests, great missionaries, great
civilizers, great practicians of the supreme art of persuading and
leading men. And the sentence of destruction smote them in the
midst of their activity, in a hundred regions where they had become
indispensable or almost impossible to replace.... Never was such a
famous company of scholars in all the records of former civilizations,
deep-read in philosophies; famous for sacred eloquence; masters
of languages, editors of the lore of antiquity, of the writers of
Byzantium, of the obscure dialects of Malaysia and the Upper Amazon;
historians, philologists, restorers of chronology.... To gain the
lying promise of a lying peace, they were demanded as a holocaust to
the licentious puppets on the thrones of the Bourbons, to the dark
powers behind the veils of the lodge. And their loss to civilization,
their loss to France, was not to be computed even by the largest
enumeration of what they had done, and what they were capable of doing.
The Christendom to which they had become so necessary, and which in an
hour was forced to do without them, was yet to learn the unspeakable
significance of such a deprivation. In proportion to the services
of the Jesuits was the void of their disappearance, the calamity of
their fall. When main pillars of an edifice are shattered, more may be
shattered than the pillars alone.”[380]
FOOTNOTES:
[279] See Hughes, _Loyola_, pp. 69-77; and especially Hamy, S. J.,
_Documents pour servir à l’histoire des domiciles de la Compagnie de
Jésus_, Paris, Alphonse Picard.
[280] Du Lac, _Jésuites_, p. 297.
[281] _Advancement of Learning_, book 1.
[282] _History of the United States_, vol. III, page 120 (18th edition,
Boston 1864).
[283] _History of the Papacy_, vol. I, book V, sect. 8 (Ed. London
1896, p. 416).
[284] Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 447 (note 55).
[285] Döllinger, _l. c._, p. 543.
[286] _Ib._, pp. 544-545.
[287] Further testimonies see Janssen, vol. IV (16th ed.), pp. 473-476;
vol. VII, pp. 80-82.
[288] Janssen, vol. VIII, p. 650.
[289] _Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus_, par Carlos Sommervogel.
Brussels, 1890-1900. On the writers of the old Society see
Crétineau-Joly, _Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus_, vol. IV, ch. IV
(3rd ed., pp. 214-296).
[290] Huber, _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, pp. 418-420.
[291] _La destruction des Jésuites_, p. 43; quoted by De Badts de
Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p. 9.
[292] _Lectures on the Science of Language_ (6th ed. 1871), vol. I, p.
157, note 40.
[293] _Ib._, pp. 154-157.
[294] _Ib._, p. 174.
[295] _Ib._, p. 174.
[296] Max Müller, _l. c._, p. 175. _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde
des Morgenlandes_, XV, 1901, pp. 313-320. Father Roth’s grammar was
extant in the Roman College, when Hervas wrote his _Catalogue_.
[297] Max Müller, _l. c._, p. 179.
[298] _Ib._, p. 183.
[299] Dahlmann, _Die Sprachkunde und die Missionen_ (Herder, 1891), p.
19.
[300] Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp. 12-15.
[301] Truebner’s _American and Oriental Literary Record_, London 1872,
p. 258. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 15.)
[302] Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 27.
[303] _Mélanges Asiatiques_, vol. II, p. 11. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 28.)
[304] Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp. 40-41.
[305] _Ib._, page 42.
[306] _Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, XXXII,
p. 604. (Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 45.)
[307] Neumann, quoted by Dahlmann, p. 25; a specimen of such plagiarism
which occurred quite recently, shall be mentioned in chapter VII.
[308] _Ib._, pp. 29-56.
[309] _Ib._, pp. 57-144.
[310] Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_, Boston,
1889, vol. I, p. 279. See also pp. 262-264.
[311] Mulhall, _Between the Amazon and Andes_, London, 1881, p. 263.
(Dahlmann, _l. c._, p. 85.)
[312] _A History of Mathematics_, by Florian Cajori, Professor in
Colorado College. Macmillan, 1894, p. 155.
[313] Ball, _A Short Account of the History of Mathematics_, Macmillan,
1888, p. 275.
[314] Professor Halsted of the University of Texas published a
translation of Saccheri’s work in the _American Mathematical Monthly_,
and Professor Manning of Brown University states that he has taken
Saccheri’s method of treatment as the basis of the first chapter of his
recent book _Non-Euclidean Geometry_, Boston, Ginn and Company, 1901,
p. 92. See also Cajori, _A History of Mathematics_, p. 303.--Hagen,
_Synopsis der höheren Mathematik_, vol. II, p. 4.
[315] Meyer’s _Conversations-Lexicon_ (1895), vol. VII, p.
983.--Cajori, _A History of Physics_, Macmillan, 1899, pp. 88-89.
[316] _Ib._, vol. XV, p. 400; XVI, p. 475; and _Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie_, vol. XXX, p. 718.
[317] _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, vol. XVI.
[318] Mädler, _Geschichte der Himmelskunde_.
[319] Ferdinand von Richthofen, _China_, Berlin, 1877.
[320] _China_, vol. I, pp. 650-692.--See Dahlmann, _l. c._, pp.
35-37.--Huonder, _Deutsche Jesuiten-Missionäre des 17. und 18.
Jahrhunderts_ (Herder, 1899), pp. 86-89.
[321] Chapter IV, pp. 127-129.
[322] _Narrative and Critical History of America_, vol. I, pp. 262-263.
On the works of Father Clavigero on Mexico see _ib._, p. 158.
[323] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[324] Ideler, _Handbuch der Chronologie_, vol. II, pp. 602-604. See
Weiss, _Weltgeschichte_ (2nd ed.), vol. V,II, pp. 544-552.
[325] It is a rather curious fact that some have blamed the Jesuit
Superiors for allowing the publication of several of Father Hardouin’s
works, curious I say, because it is said again and again that the
severe censorship of the Order suppresses all original and independent
works of its subjects. “Do what you may, we shall find fault with you,”
seems to be the principle guiding some critics of the Order.
[326] Quoted by De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p.
34.
[327] See Baumgartner, _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, pp.
642-644.
[328] Of Herder’s works, the whole twelfth volume (Cotta, 1829),
“Terpsichore”, is devoted to Balde.
[329] The extensive literature on Balde’s works is given by
Baumgartner, _l. c._, p. 645. A most flattering estimate of this Jesuit
is to be found in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie für protestantische
Theologie, vol. II. (3. edition, 1897), article “Balde”, by List, where
it is said that “one always likes to return to the perusal of the
lyrics of this God-inspired man.”
[330] Saintsbury, _A History of Elizabethan Literature_, London, 1887,
pp. 119-120.
[331] Compayré asserts: “The Jesuits have never written anything on
the principles and objects of education. We must not demand of them
an exposition of general views or a confession of their educational
faith.” _L. c._, p. 142. Voltaire called Jouvancy’s _Method of
Learning and Teaching_ the best work written since Quintilian’s famous
_Institutes_.--Sacchini, Jouvancy and Kropf were published again in
1896, as vol. X of Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_;
selections from the works of Perpinian, Bonifacio and Possevin in 1901
as vol. XI.
[332] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 40. That also in the
nineteenth century the Jesuits were able to write good text-books
may be seen from a statement of Thomas Arnold, son of Dr. Arnold of
Rugby. During his sojourn in New Zealand, he used to borrow books
from Frederick Weld, a Jesuit pupil of Fribourg (afterwards Governor
of Western Australia.) “One of his text-books,” says Arnold, “which
he had brought with him from Fribourg, was a history of philosophy by
the Jesuit professor Freudenfelt [the name is Freudenfeld, died at
Stonyhurst 1850]. This book seemed to me more genially and lucidly
written than similar works that had been put in my hands at Oxford.”
_Passages in a Wandering Life_, London, 1900, p. 99.
[333] See Professor Dr. Lotholz, _Pädagogik, der Neuzeit_, 1897, p. 323.
[334] On this subject see Baumgartner, _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_,
vol. IV, pp. 623-637.
[335] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 358.
[336] Jouvancy, _l. c._, ch. II, art. II, §3, §6.--Masen, _Palaestra
Eloquentiae Ligatae Dramatica_, Cologne, 1664.--Lang, _Dissertatio de
Actione Scenica_ etc., Munich, 1727.
[337] That is, “the subject should be pious and edifying”, as the 13th
_Rule of the Rector_ has it.
[338] Duhr, pp. 136 foll.--In France many dramas were given in French
since 1679. Rochemonteix, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 189.--The report of
1832 says dramas should be in the vernacular. Pachtler, _op. cit._,
vol. IV, p. 479.
[339] _History of Pedagogy_, vol. I, p. 272. (Janssen’s _History of the
German People_, vol. VII, p. 108.)
[340] _Ibid._, p. 113 sq.
[341] _Ibid._, p. 117.
[342] Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 120-121.
[343] Titles and programmes of dramas in French colleges by
Rochemonteix, _l. c._, vol. III, pp. 189-195 and 215-353. The names of
the best Jesuit dramatists are given by Baumgartner, _l. c._, vol. IV,
pp. 627-637.--Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 130-134.
[344] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 418.
[345] Rochemonteix, _l. c._, pp. 96-99.
[346] Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 128-129.
[347] K. Trautmann, _Ober-Ammergau und sein Passionsspiel_ (1890).
“This play is an offshoot of the Munich Jesuit drama”, p. 47.
[348] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 133.
[349] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 125.
[350] Quoted by Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 120-121.
[351] Janssen, vol. VII, p. 133.
[352] Goethe writes: “This public performance has convinced me anew
of the cleverness of the Jesuits. They rejected nothing that could
be of any conceivable service to them, and knew how to wield their
instruments with devotion and dexterity. This is not cleverness of
the merely abstract order: it is a real fruition of the thing itself,
an absorbing interest, which springs from the practical use of life.
Just as this great spiritual society has its organ builders, its
sculptors, and its gilders, so there seem to be some who, by nature and
inclination, take to the drama; and as their churches are distinguished
by a pleasing pomp, so these prudent men have seized on the sensibility
of the world by a decent theatre.” _Italienische Reise_ (Goethe’s
Werke, Cotta’s edition, 1840, vol. XXIII, pp. 3-4).
[353] Many more are commemorated by Crétineau-Joly, _l. c._, vol. IV,
ch. III.
[354] See particularly the series of articles by the Rev. Sydney Smith,
in the _Month_ (London), 1902.
[355] Letter of August 4, 1773, in the Royal Archives at Munich.
[356] _Geschichte des Pontificats Clemens XIV._, vol. I, p. 3.
[357] So Körner in his _History of Pedagogy_.--See also the _Open
Court_, Chicago, January 1902, p. 21 foll.
[358] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. III, p. 566.
[359] _Ibid._, p. 570.
[360] Schoell, _Cours d’histoire des États européens_, vol. XXXXIV, p.
83.
[361] See documents given by Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la
Russie-Blanche_, vol. I, livre II, ch. IV, “Frédéric II. et les
Jésuites.” Frederick strictly forbade the Bishops of his kingdom to
promulgate the Papal Brief of suppression.
[362] Maynard, _The Study and Teaching of the Society of Jesus_, p. 246.
[363] _Lettre à Voltaire_, 7. Juillet, 1770. _Oeuvres de Voltaire_,
tom. XII.
[364] See Zalenski, _l. c._, pp. 239-429.
[365] Maynard, _l. c._, p. 240.
[366] _History of the Pontificate of Clement XIV._
[367] Most flattering testimonies as to the educational success of the
Jesuits in Russia and Galicia, at the time of the suppression, are
given by Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la Russie Blanche_, Paris 1886.
[368] _Bibliogr. Astron._, 1792, p. 722; see Maynard, p. 205.--For many
decades it was suspected that Father Hell had tampered with the figures
of his observations after others had been published, so as to make his
square with the rest. In the _Atlantic Monthly_, Nov. 1900, Professor
Simon Newcomb, of the Washington Naval Observatory, completely
exonerates Father Hell from this malicious charge. The distinguished
American Astronomer, who professes in his article a personal affection
for the Jesuit scientist, has examined the manuscripts of Father Hell,
in Vienna, and found that the accusation was groundless, and based on
the assertion of a man whose sight was defective. Professor Newcomb
further affirms that Father Hell’s observations gave figures somewhat
different from those of other astronomers, but that recent discoveries
have proved the Jesuit’s observations to have been the more correct
ones.
[369] _Histoire des Mathématiques_, par J. F. Montucla, tome IV, achevé
et publié par Jérôme de la Lande, Paris, 1802, pp. 347 foll.
[370] _Bibliotheca Mathematica, Zeitschrift für Geschichte der
mathematischen Wissenschaften_, 3. Folge, 3. Band, 2. Heft, 1902
(Leipzig, Teubner), pp. 208-225.
[371] De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p. 11.
[372] Jourdain, _Histoire de l’Université de Paris_, vol. II, pp.
298-300.
[373] Abbé Maynard, _l. c._, p. 237.
[374] _Pensées de Leibnitz_, p. 429. (Maynard, _l. c._, p. 238.)
[375] Maynard, _l. c._, p. 242.
[376] _Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington_, by the Earl
of Stanhope, London, Murray, 1888, p. 42.
[377] _Historisches Jahrbuch_, Munich 1885, vol. VI, p. 420.
[378] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article “Education”.
[379] Quoted in the _Annales Philosophiques, Morales, et Littéraires_,
by M. de Boulogne, vol. I, p. 221.
[380] The London _Tablet_, Dec. 7, 1901, p. 884.
CHAPTER VI.
The Revised Ratio of 1832 and Later Regulations.
The Society had been suppressed by Clement XIV. The historian Dr.
Brück says: “The Pope’s conduct was harsh and unjust”, as he had not
a single crime to lay to their charge;[381] and even Dr. Döllinger,
however hostile to the Society, must have considered its suppression
unjust; for he calls its restoration an act of justice.[382]
Documentary evidence proves that the Jesuits heroically submitted. Even
in Silesia, where Frederick II. wanted to maintain them, “they were
unwilling to hold out against the papal bull”,[383] and laying aside
whatever was specifically characteristic of the Society, they directed
the schools as secular priests. Catharine II. of Russia stubbornly
refused to allow the Papal Brief of suppression to be published in her
dominions. As the publication was required before the Brief could take
effect, the Jesuits continued their work in the two colleges at Mohilev
and Polotzk in White Russia. Five years after the suppression, in 1778,
the new Pope Pius VI. granted them permission to establish a novitiate.
Thus, as Frederick II. expressed it, “the seed had been preserved for
those who should wish to cultivate a plant so rare.” In 1801, Pius
VII., the successor of Pius VI., allowed the Jesuits to establish
themselves as a Congregation in Russia, and in 1804 he authorized the
introduction of this Congregation into the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
At length, in 1814, Pius VII., who had been educated by the enemies
of the Jesuits, reestablished the Society of Jesus. The Pope gives as
the motive of this step, that “he acted on the demand of all Catholic
Christendom”. “We should deem ourselves guilty of a great crime towards
God, if amidst the dangers of the Christian republic, we neglected
the aids which the special providence of God has put at our disposal;
and, if placed in the bark of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual
storms, we refuse to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who
volunteer their services, in order to break the waves of a sea which
threatens every moment shipwreck and death.”[384] In this Bull, Pius
VII. expressly says: “We declare besides, and grant power that they may
freely and lawfully apply themselves to the education of youth in the
principles of the Catholic faith, to form them to good morals, and to
direct colleges and seminaries.”
The Society immediately took up this work so dear to its founder and
ever cherished by the Fathers of the Old Society. New fields had been
opened in the meantime for establishing colleges, especially in England
and her dependencies, and in the United States of America.
As regards the system of studies it was found necessary, soon after
the restoration of the Society, to accommodate the Ratio to the new
conditions of the time. The changes were undertaken with the same
calm circumspection with which the old Ratio had been drawn up under
Father Aquaviva. As early as 1820 suggestions and observations were
sent to Rome from the different provinces. In 1830, the General of the
Society, Father Roothaan,[385] himself an excellent classical scholar
and experienced teacher, summoned to Rome representatives of all the
provinces. After careful deliberations the Revised Ratio appeared
in 1832. It was not a new system; nothing had been changed in the
essentials, in the fundamental principles. It was an adaptation to
modern exigencies of the old methods which had been approved by such
great success in former times.
The changes referred mainly to those _branches_ of study, which had
become important in the course of time. In the colleges Latin and
Greek should remain the principal subjects, but more time and care
should henceforth be devoted to the study of the mother-tongue and
its literature, although this had by no means been neglected in the
Old Society.[386] Thus to the 23. Rule of the Provincial was added:
“He shall take great care that the pupils [in the colleges of his
Province] are thoroughly instructed in their mother-tongue, and he
shall assign to each class the amount and kind of work to be done.” The
speaking of Latin in the lower classes was no longer possible; special
care of idiom in translating is recommended, as also correctness
of pronunciation of the mother-tongue. In the higher classes the
cultivation of style in the vernacular, according to the best models,
is insisted on. The rules concerning dramatic performances are left
out; exhibitions are neither encouraged nor forbidden. In the report
of the commission it is said that, if dramas are given, they should
be in the vernacular.[387] For the grammar classes, other authors are
introduced; in the highest grammar class, Sallust, Curtius and Livy
are read besides Cicero, the elements of mythology and archaeology
are to be taught. Xenophon takes the place of Aesop and Agapetus. In
the middle grammar class Caesar is added; in the lowest, Cornelius
Nepos.[388]
As mathematics and natural sciences, history and geography claimed
more attention, the Revised Ratio prescribed accordingly that more
time should be devoted to these branches,[389] although they were to
be considered rather as “accessories” in the literary curriculum. For
the study of more advanced mathematics and of natural sciences was even
then thought to belong properly to the course of philosophy. Still
the new Ratio left to Provincial Superiors considerable liberty in
this matter, and the Jesuit colleges, conforming to the customs of the
respective countries, have introduced some of these branches also in
the lower classes.
The greatest change was made in the rules concerning the teaching
of philosophy and natural sciences. Aristotle, _the_ Philosopher of
former times, could no longer hold his place in the schools. So the
Revised Ratio does not mention him, although the speculative questions
of logics and general metaphysics are mostly treated according to
Aristotelian principles. And rightly so; for as a modern Professor of
Philosophy says, “Aristotle’s doctrine forms the basis of traditional
logic even to this day.”[390]
It may be safely said that after the vagaries of Hegel and others,
there was manifested, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, a
greater appreciation of Aristotelian philosophy. The most prominent
advocate of this revival, Professor Trendelenburg of Berlin, expressly
declares that “the organic theory of the universe, the basis of which
was laid by Plato and Aristotle, is the only philosophy which has a
future before it; and that speculation done by fits and starts and by
every man for himself, has proved itself to have no permanence.”[391]
A remark of Professor Paulsen may not be without interest. “There are
people who are inclined to use the names of Thomas Aquinas and Scotus
as synonymous with nonsense and craziness. To such it may be well to
say that even at the present day there are men who think similarly
as Saint Thomas, whom they consider the prince of philosophers, and
on whom they base their whole philosophical instruction. And these
are the men to whom the despisers of scholasticism give credit for a
great amount, if not of wisdom, at least of extraordinary prudence and
cunning, I mean the Jesuits. Has not the See of Rome restored Saint
Thomas, the philosopher whom the Society of Jesus has chosen as its
guide, as the philosopher of the Church? Has this been done in order to
stultify the clergy? Can this be the intention of those who, through
the clergy, wish to domineer over the world?”[392]
Physics, chemistry, physiology, psychology, astronomy, geology, and
cosmology are taught according to the established principles of modern
science. The basis of this study is thus laid down: “The professor
of physics is to expose theories, systems, and hypotheses, so as
to make it clear what degree of certitude or probability belongs
to each. Since in this faculty new progress is made every day, the
professor must consider it part of his duty, to know the more recent
discoveries, so that in his prelections he may advance with the science
itself.”[393] Higher mathematics (analytic geometry and calculus) are
to be taught not only in one but in two, if possible in three, years of
the philosophical course. We may now invite the reader to judge about
Compayré’s assertions: “The sciences and philosophy are involved in the
same disdain as history. Scientific studies are entirely proscribed
in the lower classes, and the student enters his year in philosophy,
having studied only the ancient languages. Philosophy itself is reduced
to a barren study of words, to subtile discussions, and to commentaries
on Aristotle. Memory and syllogistic reasoning are the only faculties
called into play; no facts, no real inductions, no care for the
observation of nature. In all things the Jesuits are the enemies of
progress. Intolerant of anything new, they would arrest the progress of
the human mind and make it immovable.”[394] It seems almost impossible
to crowd more falsehoods into so small a space. There are at least ten
flagrant misrepresentations in these six short sentences.[395]
Philosophy has been discarded from most modern programs of college
instruction, but to the great detriment of solid learning. A thorough
philosophical training is of the greatest value for the lawyer,
physician, and scientist, and for every man who wishes to occupy
a higher position in life. Paulsen, and many other leading German
schoolmen, express their regret that in the new systems philosophical
training has been entirely relegated to the university. Two objections
are made against this method: First, the form of instruction proper
to the university is of the continuous lecture. But this method
presupposes instruction in form of question and answer, in philosophy
as well as in other branches. We should consider it a failure to try
to teach grammar from the beginning by lectures, as given at the
university. It seems as little promising of success to teach logic in
this manner. Exercises in logic must be _practised_ as well as must the
forms of grammar. By giving a boy a definition of the Subjunctive or
of the Ablative Absolute, you will not enable him to write correctly.
Similarly by lecturing about the definition or by giving a definition
of definition, even when illustrated by examples, you will not enable
the student to handle these formulas logically. To a certain extent
this applies also to psychology, ethics and civics. The elementary
notions must be practised by concrete examples, so that they are ready,
and as it were, handy in mind; then it is possible to use them for more
complicated operations.[396]
The second reason for not relegating philosophy entirely to the
university, has been well stated by Professor Elsperger. “If the
gymnasia do not wish to leave to chance the sort of ideas the pupils
get from a reading that is often enough desultory, and from intercourse
with others, then they need, in the highest classes, a branch of
study which gives them the ideas needed. This can be attained only by
elementary training in philosophy. Mathematics can do nothing in this
direction, the study of Latin and Greek literature does something,
but is not sufficient, and unfortunately, religion is to some extent
mistrusted by not a few teachers. Thus it happens that many of our
older pupils not only suffer shipwreck in their faith, but leave
college with that lamentable scepticism of the uneducated, which views
every nobler idea with suspicion. This tendency of very many of our
young men can be counteracted only by a branch of study which attacks
that sceptical disposition, and forces the pupil to obtain a deeper
view of things.”[397]
It is exactly for such reasons that the Society of Jesus has kept the
course of philosophy in its curriculum of higher education. It agrees
with Professor Paulsen that elementary training in philosophy is
possible and necessary in higher schools.[398] About the possibility,
the Jesuits never could entertain the least doubt, as for centuries
they carried it out successfully, and at present are giving a solid
philosophical training in all their larger colleges.
The Revised Ratio of 1832 was in no way considered final. In the
letter accompanying this Ratio, Father General Roothaan, writes to
the provinces: “We offer to you the result of careful examinations
and discussions. You must test it practically that it may be again
corrected, if necessary, or enlarged, and then be sanctioned as a
universal law (for the Society).”[399] Only by a decree of a General
Congregation of the Order is this sanction possible. Such a decree,
however, was not passed; consequently, the Revised Ratio has not the
force of a law in the Society, but is merely to be considered as a
regulation of the General. So much liberty is left to Provincials
that the teaching in Jesuit colleges can easily be adapted to the
educational needs of all countries. In 1853, the XXII. Congregation
of the Order passed a decree that “the Provincials should be free to
exercise the power granted them by the 29th rule of making changes
in the studies, according to the demands of various countries and
times.”[400] The same decree ordered that “new proposals for amendments
be sent from the single provinces and that the Ratio (of 1832) be
revised with the advice of learned and experienced men.”
In the XXIII. Congregation, 1883, the study of natural sciences was
especially recommended. Among others the following regulation was
passed: “Those scholastics [the younger members of the Order engaged in
studies] who seem to have a special talent for any of these sciences,
should be given a fourth year, or special hours in the third year of
their philosophical course, to perfect themselves in that science under
the direction of a professor.”[401] “It is advisable to destine select
younger members of the Society for the acquisition of the degrees which
empower them to act as authorized public teachers.” (State examinations
in the European Universities.) These special subjects are to be pursued
after the regular course of studies has been finished.[402] Finally, it
was asked “that some regulations should be made as to special studies
in ancient languages, philology, ethnology, archaeology, history,
higher mathematics and all natural sciences.” It was decreed that no
“general prescription could be made in this matter, but the Provincials
should confer with the General as to how these studies should be
arranged in the different provinces. At the same time the Congregation
decrees that, provided the customary studies of the Society, and as
far as possible, the preeminence of literary studies remain intact in
the classical schools, the progress and increased cultivation of those
[special] branches should be earnestly recommended to the Provincials.
It is also their duty to select those young men, who have a special
talent for these branches, that they may devote themselves to them
entirely.”[403]
From all that has been said so far, it becomes evident that the Society
is continually improving its system, and adapting it to the conditions
of the age. It would also seem that it was inadvertence to these more
recent legislations which betrayed President Eliot into the statement:
“The curriculum of the Jesuit colleges has remained almost unchanged
for four hundred years, disregarding some trifling concessions made
to natural sciences.”[404] As the Ratio of 1832 has not been ratified
by a Congregation, and as a further revision has been demanded, we
may expect to hear in the future of further development in the Jesuit
system.
FOOTNOTES:
[381] _History of the Catholic Church_, (Engl. transl.) vol. II, p. 306.
[382] See _Historische Zeitschrift_, 1900, vol. LXXXIV, p. 300.
[383] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. III, p. 571. Against Theiner’s
charge of disobedience see Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la Russie
Blanche_, vol. I, pp. 169-213.
[384] The Papal Bull: _Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum_. This Bull
and that of the suppression of the Society are translated in the
_Protestant Advocate_, vol. III, pp. 13 and 153 etc.
[385] J. A. Thym, S. J., _Life of Father Roothaan_. (In Dutch; German
Translation by Jos. Martin, S. J.) pp. 110-113.
[386] See above pp. 129-131, and the chapter on the study of the
mother-tongue in Jouvancy’s _Ratio Disc. et Doc._, part I, ch. I, §
3.--_Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 309.--Father Duhr, _Studienordnung_,
pp. 107-118.
[387] Pachtler, _op. cit._, vol. IV, p. 479.
[388] Other changes see Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 459-469.
[389] _Reg. Prov._, 23, sect. 3.--_Reg. Praef. Stud. Inf._, 8, sect. 11.
[390] Windelband, _History of Philosophy_, p. 135.
[391] Erdmann, _History of Philosophy_, vol. III, p. 278.
[392] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 38.
[393] _Reg. Prof. Phys._, 34-35.--Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 275.
[394] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 145.--It is beyond my comprehension how
Mr. Payne, the translator, can style this book “a model, in matter and
form, for a general history of education”, nor is it intelligible how
such a superficial production could be received so favorably by the
American educational public.
[395] 1. History, as has been proved before, is not disdained; 2.
sciences and philosophy are not disdained; 3. scientific studies are
not entirely proscribed in the lower classes; 4. there are ordinarily
two years of philosophy, not one; 5. the student, entering philosophy,
has studied much more than only the ancient languages; 6. philosophy
is not merely a barren study of words; 7. nor is it reduced to a
commentary on Aristotle; 8. facts, inductions, the observation of
nature are not neglected; 9. the Jesuits are not enemies of progress
in all things (see what has been said by Protestant scholars on their
writers, above pp. 149-173, 179-182, and below, chapter VII); 10. far
from being intolerant of everything new, the professors are expressly
told to study carefully the new discoveries and to keep abreast of the
advance of science; etc., etc.
[396] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 771. (2. ed.
vol. II, p. 668.)--See also Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. II, pp. 142 foll.
[397] _Blätter für das bayerische Gymnasialwesen_, vol. VII, p.
41. (Paulsen, _l. c._, II, 667.)--In recent years educators demand
more and more that college education should terminate in a solid
course of philosophy. See Lehmann, _Erziehung und Erzieher_, Berlin,
1901.--Paulsen, _l. c._, II, 664-670.
[398] _L. c._, vol. II, p. 666: “The lack of philosophical training
makes itself felt more painfully every day among the scientists, and in
public life.”
[399] Pachtler, vol. II, pp. 228-233. There it is also stated
expressly: “Some of these regulations are merely temporary”; p. 232.
[400] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 115.
[401] _Decr._ XVII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 121.
[402] _Decr._ XXII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[403] _Decr._ XXIII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[404] _Atlantic Monthly_, October 1899.
CHAPTER VII.
The Educational Work of the Jesuits in the Nineteenth Century.
It cannot be denied that the Jesuits have not had the same brilliant
success as educators in the nineteenth century, as during the centuries
preceding the suppression of the Order. How is this to be explained?
The opponents of the Order are ready with an answer: “It is because
the Jesuits have not kept up with the progress of the age. Their whole
system is not suited to modern times.” Even such as are not hostile to
the Society, have said that the Old Society took with it into its grave
the secret of its educational success. However, a short reflection will
give us the true explanation.
The time of the suppression, a period of forty years, forms a gap in
the educational history of the Society. These blank pages, as Father
Hughes says, signify the total loss of property and position, with a
severance in many places of the educational traditions for almost sixty
years, and the entire destruction of them in many other parts.[405]
Restored, the Society had to struggle into existence under altered and
unfavorable conditions. The schools in about seven hundred cities and
towns, which the Order had possessed before its suppression, were now
largely in the hands of State authorities. And besides, the nineteenth
century was not a time of undisturbed peace for the Jesuits. There was
a persecution going on against them nearly all the time in one country
or other. They were expelled from Spain in 1821, re-admitted, but
driven out again in 1835 and 1868; expelled from Belgium 1818, from
Russia 1820, from Naples 1820, from France 1830 and 1880, from Portugal
1834, from the Argentine Republic 1848, from Switzerland 1847, from
Austria 1848, from Italy 1848 and 1859, from New Granada 1850 and 1859,
from Guatemala 1871, from Germany 1872, from Nicaragua 1881, from Costa
Rica 1884, harassed in Spain and Portugal during the last years, and
driven out of France owing to the “Laws of Associations.”
All these persecutions seriously hampered the educational work of
the Jesuits. They frequently lost a number of flourishing colleges
forever, others had to be commenced anew, when they were allowed to
return. Besides, in many cases, expulsion meant the loss of libraries,
observatories, and laboratories. Still, in spite of these difficulties,
at the end of the nineteenth century, they possess a respectable number
of colleges, scattered all over the world, from Zi-ka-wei in China to
Beirut in Syria, from Australia to England and Ireland, from Argentina
and Chili to Canada.
The development of the colleges of the Society in the United States
deserves a brief sketch. The first Jesuit school in this country was
opened in New York. A Jesuit was the first priest, so far as records
go, who ever visited (1644) the island of Manhattan, now a part of
the city of New York.[406] He was the saintly French missionary,
Father Isaac Jogues, who was put to death in 1646 by the Mohawks at
Auriesville. Forty years after the martyrdom of Father Jogues, three
other Jesuits, Thomas Harvey, Henry Harrison, and Charles Gage, were
invited to New York by Governor Dongan. These Fathers, true to the
spirit of the Society, soon established a classical school in New
York. It was situated apparently in what then was called “King’s
Farm;” the site was subsequently leased to Trinity Church. Governor
Dongan, himself an Irish Catholic, heartily patronized this school,
which was frequented by the sons of the best families on Manhattan
Island; the bell of the Dutch church in the fort was rung to summon the
pupils.[407] But the clergy and the people of the Church of England,
not as friendly to the Jesuits as the Dutch Protestants, attacked the
school, and penal laws were passed expelling the Jesuits and other
Catholic priests from the island. It was enacted that priests “be
deemed and accounted incendiaries, disturbers of the peace and safety,
and enemies to the true Christian religion, and shall be adjudged to
suffer perpetual imprisonment.”[408] This law put an end to the Latin
school of the Jesuits. The second attempt made by the Jesuits to found
a classical school in New York occurred about the year 1808. The
learned Father Kohlmann opened a little school in Mulberry Street, but
in 1817 the Jesuits were recalled from New York to Washington, and it
was only in 1847, that the College of St. Francis Xavier in New York
was founded.
It is, however, not New York, but Maryland where the first Jesuit
school in the colonies and the first Jesuit college in the United
States was founded. In 1634 two Jesuit Fathers landed in the province
which George Calvert, Lord Baltimore, had obtained from the English
crown. It was this province, Maryland, “the asylum of the Papists,” as
Bancroft says, “where Protestants were sheltered against Protestant
intolerance.”[409] But not long after, ungrateful men who had fled
from other colonies, and who had been welcomed in this province,
turned on those who showed hospitality to them, and a relentless war
of persecution was waged against the Catholic settlers of Maryland.
This hampered the development of Catholic education greatly. Still,
zeal for higher studies was never lacking. In 1638, Father Poulton had
been sent from England as Superior of the Maryland Mission. One of
his first acts was the project of a seat of learning in the colony.
This was about the same time when the initial movement was made to
establish Harvard College. But how different were the circumstances in
which Harvard and the Jesuit school developed! The one protected by
the government, the other persecuted. And yet, amidst all the trials
and annoyances, the Jesuits never ceased to labor for the intellectual
training of the Catholics as well as for the religious. In 1651 we find
their academy near Calvert Manor, in 1677 in or about Newtown Manor;
for the trials of the times did not permit the school to be stationary.
In 1746 the Jesuits were driven out of Southern Maryland; they crossed
the Chesapeake Bay and immediately opened their academy on the Eastern
shore, at Bohemia Manor.
In this school two men studied who became famous in the history
of America: Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of the signers of
the Declaration of Independence, and his cousin John Carroll, the
first Archbishop of Baltimore. As the institutions of learning in
the colonies and the great universities of England were in those
days closed to Catholic pupils, those who could afford it, went to
the European Continent. Thus John and Charles Carroll went to the
famous Jesuit college at St. Omer in Flanders, where they won a high
reputation for their brilliant scholarship. After six years study in
that school, John entered the Society of Jesus. Later on he spent a
series of years as professor in the colleges of St. Omer, Liège and
Bruges. The suppression of the Society filled his heart with the
deepest grief. He went to England, where he was received most heartily
by Lord Arundell and other English noblemen. But when he saw that
measures were adopted by the English government, which more and more
alienated the American colonies from the sovereign and parliament of
Great Britain, Father Carroll patriotically resolved to return to his
native country and share its trials and fortunes. The services which
he rendered to the nascent republic during the war of the Revolution,
especially his mission to Canada with Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase
and Charles Carroll, need not be dwelled on here.[410]
In 1784 Carroll was appointed Prefect Apostolic for the Catholics
in the United States. He immediately planned the establishment of an
academy for higher studies. The outcome of this plan was the foundation
of the College of Georgetown, near Washington, in 1789. In 1791 the
doors of the college were opened to students. The first pupil to enter
was William Gaston of North Carolina, who became a profound scholar
and a great orator. He entered the House of Representatives in 1813,
was a distinguished member of the Federal party, and for many years
adorned the judicial bench of his native state.[411] Among others of
the pioneer pupils of Georgetown were Philemon Charles Wederstrandt
(later on commandant of the “Argus”), Robert Walsh, an eminent writer
who ably defended American affairs against the misrepresentations of
English writers, and founder of the first American Quarterly: _The
American Review of History and Politics_.[412] When Washington honored
Georgetown College by a formal visit, Robert Walsh was chosen to
address him.
The college had been founded by Ex-Jesuits. Many of the professors had
joined the Society of Jesus, which had been revived in Russia, and,
at last, in 1814, Archbishop Carroll and the Fathers in Georgetown
received with joy and exultation the news of the complete restoration
of the Society. After this event, Jesuit colleges began to multiply. In
the year 1900 the Jesuits conducted twenty-six colleges, the principal
ones, besides Georgetown, being in Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Fordham (New York), New
Orleans, New York, Omaha, St Louis, St Mary’s (Kansas), San Francisco,
Santa Clara (California), Spokane, Spring Hill (Mobile), Washington,
Worcester (Massachusetts). In that same year over fifty-two thousand
boys were educated in Jesuit high schools and colleges all over the
world, that is nearly twice as many as in Harvard, Yale, Princeton,
Columbia, Cornell, the Universities of Chicago, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, combined.
Some of the Jesuit institutions rank very high, both for the number of
pupils and for the excellent results which they exhibit. The German
Jesuits, expelled from the “land of science and _Lehrfreiheit_,”
impart a higher education to more than five thousand students in
foreign countries. Their Francis-Xavier College at Bombay, in 1897,
numbered fifteen hundred and twenty-six students; ten hundred and two
Christians; two hundred and ninety Parsis; one hundred and seventy-one
Hindoos; fifty-four Mahometans; nine Jews. French Jesuits have two
colleges in Trichinopoli, East India. The one is frequented by eighteen
hundred students, among them five hundred and fifty of the Brahmin
caste. The English government in India shows the Jesuits many favors
for their educational work. Not unfrequently the Viceroy, or the
Governor, visits the colleges and praises the work of the teachers, and
not a few Jesuits have been appointed University examiners.
In Syria, the Jesuits conduct St. Joseph’s University, Beirut. They
have a printing establishment there which probably holds the first rank
among those of the Orient. A French admiral calls it “a creation which
is the symbol of the union of the two greatest forces in the world,
religion and science; an establishment which is the pride of France, as
well as of the Catholic Church.”[413] A Protestant Review in Germany
writes: “The progress which, owing to this establishment, the Arabic
literature has made, cannot be ignored.”[414] The latest catalogue has
four hundred and four numbers, of all sorts of Arabic and Syriac works,
grammars, dictionaries, etc. Some of the works edited by these Jesuits,
are at present used in the lectures in the University of Berlin.[415]
Another great Jesuit school in the East is Zi-ka-wei, near Shanghai,
China. The educational labors of the Jesuits in this institution have
been acknowledged by distinguished Protestant visitors. In 1898 Prince
Henry of Prussia, on his first landing in Shanghai, paid a visit to
this establishment. He spent nearly a whole day with the Fathers, and
frankly expressed his admiration at the splendid work they were doing.
In fact, he was so impressed by what he had seen, that again and again
after his visit, he would return to the subject and talk about the work
of “those excellent French Jesuits.” It soured a few German fanatics
somewhat against him, when reports began to be printed in the German
papers, to the effect that Prince Henry had spoken kindly of the hated
Jesuits. But this bigotry did not influence Prince Henry. Princess
Irene, his wife, having the next year rejoined her husband in China,
they paid a second visit to Zi-ka-wei, which is briefly related in the
following terms: “On the 12th of March, 1899, Prince Henry of Prussia,
and the Princess, his wife, arrived at Shanghai; the next morning
they hastened to pay a visit to Zi-ka-wei. The Prince told us that he
had said such nice things to the Princess about the establishments at
Zi-ka-wei that she wished to visit them at once.”[416]
The following comparison, made by an English Protestant, Laurence
Oliphant, speaks well for the educational labors of the Jesuits: “I was
struck with the intelligent expression of the youths’ countenances in
the Jesuit school at Shanghai, and at the evident affection they had
for their teachers. Instead of cramming nothing but texts down their
throats, they teach them the Chinese classics, Confucius, etc., so as
to enable them to compete in the public examinations. The result is,
that even if these native youths do not all become Christians, they
have always gratitude enough to protect and love those to whom they
owed their education, and perhaps consequent rise in life. A few days
later I went over the school of the Protestant Bishop. The contrast
was most striking. The small boys gabbled over the Creed in what was
supposed to be English, but which Lord Elgin, who was with me, was
firmly persuaded was Chinese. They understood probably about as clearly
as they pronounced. Then instead of the missionaries living among them,
and really identifying themselves with the lads, as the Jesuits do,
they have gorgeous houses, wives and families. A Protestant missionary
here, with a wife and four children, gets a house as big as Spring
Grove, rent free, and £500 a year. And that is what they call ‘giving
up all for the sake of the heathen’.”[417]
This is clearly another proof for what was said in a previous
chapter,[418] that the religious state affords many advantages for
educational work, at least in missionary countries. Here we must add
that the educational labors of the Jesuits in those countries are not
confined to higher instruction. Many lay-brothers give elementary
instructions in the schools,[419] and the priests give catechetical
instruction in hundreds of such schools, which in many other ways
are directed by them. In February 1901, fifteen scholars of Paris,
Professors in the University or members of the _Institut de France_,
among them the celebrated Paul Sabatier, Dean of the Protestant
Theological Faculty, issued a declaration in favor of the religious
associations. A list is added about the educational work in foreign
countries under the direction of French Jesuits. The total given there
is 3,923 schools, or orphan asylums, with 156,256 children, and all
this is done by the French Jesuits alone. Of their 193 schools in
Syria in particular, the Protestant _Literarische Centralblatt_ of
Leipsic says, “that they are now the best in Syria.”[420] Therefore,
that the Order is doing very great work for civilization, is evident.
Of the 15,160 members of the Order (in 1900) about 4000 were laboring
in foreign missions; and this work, in most cases, means also work
directed toward the education of the native people.
In this connection we may quote the striking tribute, paid by an
American politician to the educational work of the Jesuits among
the Indians. On April 7, 1900, Senator Vest of Missouri, during the
discussion of the Indian Appropriation Bill before the United States
Senate, made the following remarkable statements: “I was raised a
Protestant; I expect to die one; I was never in a Catholic church
in my life, and I have not the slightest sympathy with many of its
dogmas; but, above all, I have no respect for this insane fear that
the Catholic church is about to overturn this Government. I should be
ashamed to call myself an American, if I indulged in any such ignorant
belief. I said that I was a Protestant. I was reared in the old Scotch
Presbyterian Church; my father was an elder in it, and my earliest
impressions were that the Jesuits had horns and hoofs and tails, and
that there was a faint tinge of sulphur in the circumambient air
whenever one crossed your path. Some years ago I was assigned by the
Senate to examine the Indian schools in Wyoming and Montana. I visited
every one of them. I wish to say now what I have said before in the
Senate, and it is not the popular side of the question by any means,
that _I did not see in all my journey a single school that was doing
any educational work worthy the name of educational work, unless it was
under the control of the Jesuits_. I did not see a single Government
school, especially these day schools, where there was any work done at
all.... The Jesuits have elevated the Indian wherever they have been
allowed to do so without interference of bigotry, and fanaticism, and
the cowardice of insectivorous politicians who are afraid of the A. P.
A. and the votes that can be cast against them in their district and
States. They have made him a Christian and, above even that, have made
him a workman able to support himself and those dependent upon him.
Go to the Flathead Reservation in Montana ... and look at the work of
the Jesuits, and what is seen? You find comfortable dwellings, herds
of cattle and horses, intelligent, self-respecting Indians.... I am
not afraid to say this, because I speak from personal observation,
and no man ever went among these Indians with more intense prejudice
against the Jesuits than I had when I left the city of Washington to
perform that duty.... Every dollar you give to these [Government] day
schools might as well be thrown into the Potomac River under a ton of
lead.”[421]
When men who have been able to achieve the almost impossible, the
education and civilization of the Indian, undertake the task of
secondary education among civilized nations with the same zeal and
energy, must we not expect that they will perform this successfully?
If we add that, owing to their studies, special training and natural
inclinations, they are even better fitted for the work of higher
education, than for that of civilizing the Indian, is it then likely
that they are so inefficient as some represent them?
Let us, then, see the results of a number of Jesuit colleges. I wish
to remark, however, that the account in no respect can be called
complete, or even satisfactory. What is given on the next pages, was
found, sometimes accidentally, in various publications. More material
was available about the schools of the British Empire, where the
relative efficiency of a school can be fairly tested by the University
Examinations.[422]
The _Tablet_ (London), April 26, 1902, prints the following:
“The following Catholic names appear on the Classical Honours list
issued in April by the Moderators at Oxford. The names appear in
alphabetical order.
“CLASS I.--J. W. Glasson, Corpus Christi; C. C. Lattey, Pope’s Hall;
I. C. Scoles, Pope’s Hall.
“CLASS II.--H. E. Tulford, Balliol; E. J. Kylie, Balliol; C. D.
Plater, Pope’s Hall.
“From this it will be seen that the Jesuit students from Pope’s
Hall, formerly Clarke’s Hall, achieved a success which, considering
the size of the Hall, is probably a record in the history of the
University. The Hall which has room for only a dozen students,
distributed over the whole four years’ course, was represented by
three candidates at the recent examination, and all these were
successful. Indeed, the Hall, which was opened by the late Father
Richard Clarke, S. J., only six years ago, has had a history during
that time of which very large colleges in the University might be
justly proud. Starting with four students in 1896, of whom two broke
down in health, the first examination at which the Hall presented
candidates was Moderations in 1898, when one of the two obtained 1st
class honours, and the other 2nd class honours in Classics. In 1899
the Hall secured one 1st class honours in Mathematical Moderations,
one 2nd class honours and one 3rd class honours in Classics. In 1900
the score was one 1st class and one 2nd class honours in Classical
‘Greats’--the final degree examination; one 1st class in Mathematical
Moderations, and one 2nd class in Classical Moderations. In 1901,
one 1st in Mathematical Greats, and one 1st and one 2nd in Classical
Moderations. As nearly all these young Jesuits have been educated
either at Stonyhurst, at Beaumont, or at Mount St. Mary’s, such
excellent results, as soon as they are brought into open competition
with the picked students of all the leading public schools, who are
the holders of the innumerable scholarships in the University, go
to show that after all our Catholic colleges are, to say the least,
not so very far behind the best Protestant schools in the country,
either in the soundness of their general education, or in the special
culture of the classics.”
In Ireland there are several richly endowed Protestant foundations:
the Queen’s Colleges of Cork, Galway, and Belfast, the last, one of
the best equipped institutions of learning in the British Empire; the
three Colleges draw an annual revenue of about $125,000 to support a
score of distinguished Professors in each. The Jesuits conduct the
University College of Stephens Green, Dublin. For many years University
College routed from the field the Queen’s Colleges of Cork and Galway,
and was surpassing gradually that of Belfast, although this one made a
noble fight. In the two examinations of the Royal University of 1895,
the Jesuit college won 67 distinctions, while the Queen’s College of
Belfast gained a total of 57. University College bore off all the first
places in mathematics, the first two places in English, and the first
honors in mathematical physics and chemistry, in classics the first
place in First Arts, and the first and second places in Second Arts. Of
the sixteen medical honors awarded, University College secured nine,
the remaining seven were divided between her Majesty’s privileged
institutions. This despite the many disadvantages of University College
through the lack of laboratories and museums, which the Government at
lavish expense has provided for the Protestant rivals.[423] The success
of the following year was equally brilliant. In the first and second
Arts Examination of 1897 University College gained 51 distinctions,
Belfast 46, Galway 18, Cork 6. Of the 51 distinctions 32 are in the
first class (only 16 of Belfast’s), and among them first place in
no fewer than 9 subjects. In the M. A. Examination three out of the
four studentships awarded, five out of the six first class honors
awarded, the only two special prizes awarded, two out of the three gold
medals, all went to University College. It bore away 13 out of the 18
distinctions conferred.
_In the B. A. Examinations_:
1st Honors. 2nd Honors. Total.
University College 4 13 17
Queen’s College, Belfast 3 13 16
” ” Cork nil. nil. nil.
” ” Galway nil. 4 4
Taking the whole of the arts examination for the Academic year, we find
University College first on the list with 82 distinctions, as compared
with 63 for Belfast, 25 for Galway, and 7 for Cork. And University
College has a comparatively small number of students, many of whom can
attend only the night classes.
In Autumn 1898 once again the little unendowed University College
of the Jesuits outdistanced the endowed rivals, and this time more
than ever. But it is not merely in the number of distinctions, though
that exceeds the combined results of all its three rivals, but in
their quality that University College stands pre-eminent. The College
got first and second places over all competitors in classics and
mathematics, first place in history and political economy, and in
modern literature. This last distinction is enhanced by the fact that
the standard has been growing higher year after year, and this year the
papers exceeded in difficulty any hitherto set.
The following list tells best the result:
AUTUMN:
Scholarships.
| Studentships.
Honors and Exhibitions. | | Fellowships.
1st Class. 2nd Class. | | | Total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
University
College 13 4 3 1 1 22
Queen’s Coll.,
Belfast 4 6 1 1 1 13
Queen’s Coll.,
Galway 0 3 0 1 0 4
Queen’s Coll.,
Cork 0 2 1 0 0 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUNE AND AUTUMN COMBINED:
Scholarships.
| Studentships.
Honors and Exhibitions. | | Fellowships.
1st Class. 2nd Class. | | | Total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
University
College 35 37 3 1 1 77
Queen’s Coll.,
Belfast 25 37 1 1 1 65
Queen’s Coll.,
Galway 4 9 0 1 0 14
Queen’s Coll.,
Cork 0 23 1 0 0 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 1896 the Jesuit college of Clongowes, in the Intermediate
Examination, where 8877 students presented themselves, held the
foremost place of all the schools and colleges of Ireland with a total
of 45 distinctions. Also in 1897 it outdistanced all competitors in
the highest grade, winning the “Blue Ribbon” of the examination, the
highest honor in the senior grade.
From India similar results are reported from various Jesuit colleges,
for instance from St. Xavier’s College, Calcutta, the College of
Darjeeling, St. Francis Xavier’s College, Bombay. Last year (1901),
the number of candidates for “matriculation examination” in the whole
Presidency of Bombay was 3806; of these only 1217 passed (32 per
ct.). The Jesuits of St. Francis Xavier’s, Bombay, had sent for the
examination 43; of these 34 passed (79 per ct.). In 1899 St. Joseph’s
College, North Point, Darjeeling, secured the only vacancy, at the
“Opium Examination,” and the first place at the “Accounts Examination,”
with these two ten first places at the Public Examinations, which is
all the more creditable as the College is but seven or eight years old.
Most gratifying successes are reported also from the Jesuit colleges in
Australia.
Coming nearer home, we have to speak of little St. Boniface College,
Manitoba. In 1897 it could insert the following advertisement in the
“_North-West Review_,” which is carefully read by the Protestants of
Winnipeg, who could not challenge the advertisement:
“_St. Boniface College._ The only Catholic College in America
that competes annually with half a dozen Protestant Colleges and
Collegiate Institutions. In proportion to the number of its pupils,
_St. Boniface College has won more scholarships_ than any of its
Protestant competitors.”
The Governor’s Bronze Medal has been awarded twenty-two times from
1879 to 1900. Seven out of these twenty-two times it has been won by a
student from St. Boniface College. Considering that, during all these
years, the candidates from St. Boniface College were in an extremely
small minority--about one in twenty-two, or four and one-half per
cent on an average,--this proportion of seven out of twenty-two,
almost a third, struck every one, especially the opponent, as very
extraordinary. Had St. Boniface won that medal, the most highly valued
of all the University distinctions, once in twenty-two years, the
Catholic college would have been doing well, would have had its fair
share of success. Manitoba College (Presbyterian), the largest of all
the colleges, which sometimes boasts of as many students as all the
other colleges put together, has won the medal only three times. Then
the proportionate value of Latin and Greek was lowered; the classics
were a strong point at St. Boniface. But St. Boniface nevertheless
secured the medal two years in succession. Then Greek, hitherto
obligatory on all, was made optional after a long fight, in which
St. John’s College (Anglican) sided with St. Boniface against this
innovation. The result of this move, coupled with the preponderance
of mathematics and chemistry over Latin alone, prevented St. Boniface
from winning the medal for seven years, although its students often
headed the list in special subjects. But 1899 and 1900 the St. Boniface
students forged ahead again, and won the medal two years running.
During the vacation of 1900, a change has occurred in the statute
that concerns the University scholarships. Hitherto the winners of
scholarships had been listed in the order of merit, with the mention
of the college or school to which they belonged. Now all the winners
were to be arranged alphabetically, with no mention of the institutions
to which they belong. Several reasons were given for this change, but
the suspicion has been expressed that the real motive was to prevent
the Jesuit college from occupying so large a place in the public
eye.[424] It may appear unfair to make such a charge; however, such
suspicions have been expressed by men who are not Jesuits, nor biased
towards the Society. Thus, about twenty years ago, Albert Duruy said
of the movement against religious orders in France and the Jesuits
in particular: “Without proofs, without thorough inspection, they
slander and accuse the congregations.... _They do not try to compete
with them, they find it simpler to suppress them._”[425] In fact, the
recent movement in France against religious orders has been ascribed,
undoubtedly with good reasons, to the same motive.
A few years ago there was an attempt made in France to introduce
a Bill to suppress the religious schools, which (at the expense of
the State schools) were gaining more and more in public favor. A
Parliamentary commission was then appointed which was presided over
by M. Ribot, and which took a quantity of very valuable evidence
from various witnesses. Nothing, however, as may be seen from M.
Ribot’s report,[426] was established against the Jesuits or any other
religious schools; on the contrary, they were in several respects
held up as an example to the State schools, even by distinguished
adherents of the latter. Such results were naturally deemed highly
unsatisfactory by the anti-religious party, and accordingly for
the time being the contemplated legislation was shelved. When M.
Waldeck-Rousseau undertook it and enlarged it, he was careful to
avoid anything so dangerous to his designs as another judicial
inquiry into the facts.[427] Now, if any proofs could have been found
showing the inefficiency of the Jesuit schools, it is certain that M.
Waldeck-Rousseau would have made the best of such evidence.
The fact that he says nothing of it, is a sure sign that no such proofs
are procurable even by the minutest examinations. Hence it follows that
the Jesuit schools were, at the very least, as efficient as the State
schools.
Instead of proofs, such hollow and absurd declarations were made:
“Religious possess an independence which gradually will lead to the
usurpation of all authority. They dare even the dignitaries of the
Church. The education which they give separates a part of youth from
the rest, and thus the moral unity of the country is rent.”[428] The
question ought to have been: “Are the youths, educated by religious,
by Jesuits, less instructed, less moral, less patriotic?” To this
question the answer has been given decidedly in the negative. We shall
have occasion to speak of the patriotism of French Jesuit pupils; their
morality has been most favorably compared to that of pupils of other
schools--whereas in M. Ribot’s report a distinguished adherent of the
State school system declares that in these State schools the pupils are
“_moralement abandonnés_”. As regards the intellectual ability shown
by Jesuit pupils, it will suffice to see the lists of the successes
obtained by them in the _École Centrale_, the _Polytechnique_, the
_Military Academy of Saint-Cyr_, and the _École Navale_.[429]
The following statement will illustrate how the anti-clerical press
fabricated proofs of the inefficiency of Jesuit colleges; it shows
also that Jesuit pupils are not behind others in branches other than
classics, mathematics and sciences. In 1875 a student in the law school
at Poitiers published these facts: “A short time ago the journal of
M. Gambetta, the _République française_, had taken the trouble to
occupy itself with the Law Faculty at Poitiers and its students.
According to M. Gambetta the said school comprises two clearly distinct
classes of students: those from the _Lycées_, and those from the
Jesuit colleges. The latter are good for nothing and obtain no prizes,
whereas the former carry off all the laurels. Now in point of fact,
at the distribution of prizes in the law school for 1874-75, which
took place last Thursday, the reports show the following results:
In the 3rd year, the 2nd prize for French Law and the 2nd prize for
Roman Law were awarded to a Jesuit pupil. In the 2nd year, of the four
distinctions two were given to Jesuit pupils. In the 1st year, all five
distinctions, two medals and three honorable mentions, were awarded to
Jesuit pupils.”[430]
Within the last two or three decades, neither the Jesuit colleges
nor the schools of the other Congregations in France were inferior to
the State schools. The very contrary is true, as may be seen from the
remarkable testimony of an anti-clerical writer in the _Contemporary
Review_.[431] The article, “Monastic Orders up to Date,” is filled with
virulence against the religious orders, the Roman Congregations, and
the Catholic Church in general. Yet the superiority of the schools of
the religious over the State schools is candidly admitted. Speaking
of the charges brought against the religious orders in France, the
writer says: “The members of these communities have, it is said, taken
elementary, intermediate, and technical education into their own
hands, are successfully preparing youths for schools, professions, and
university degrees, and supply both army and navy with officers. The
official report on the Budget of Instruction for 1899, querulously
affirms that they and their schools act as a sort of drain upon the
natural clients of the University. But why should they not? They are
more successful than their lay competitors, and more deserving of
success. If the education which they give be very imperfect, and it
is sometimes this and more, it is on the whole the best that is to be
had in the country. Lay instruction in France is purely mechanical,
that given by the Congregations is living and human. Both aim at
cramming, but the religious teachers do their work efficiently and
successfully, their rivals with a degree of slovenliness which is
incredible.... Under such conditions one is not surprised to learn that
the Congregations supply one-fourth of the pupils of the famous _École
Polytechnique_, one-third of the students of Saint-Cyr, and one-half
of the graduates of the Naval School. The religious communities have
fairly won these triumphs by dint of hard work under conditions laid
down by their enemies and applied by their opponents.”
Twenty years ago the London _Times_ had made a statement to the same
effect, when Ferry tried to suppress the Jesuit schools in France. “We
should have liked to see a frank admission on the part of prominent
members of the Left, of the real causes of the success of the
ecclesiastical schools. It is no use of putting it down to wiles and
artifices of any kind. The perversity, or bad taste, or stupidity of
the multitude will not explain it. The simple truth seems to be that
the schools of the Jesuits and other religious bodies are better in
many respects than their competitors. They satisfy parents and boys
more than the _Lycées_ do. The traditional skill in teaching of the
Jesuits is not extinct. They are, as a rule, at more pains than lay
professors, with many interests to occupy them, to know and study the
nature of their pupils. It is their habit to pay attention to the
morals as well as the intellectual training of the lads committed
to their charge.”[432] Such admissions, coming from such sources,
speak volumes for the schools of the religious and of the Jesuits in
particular.
These are a few facts about the results obtained by Jesuit colleges in
recent years. As they concern colleges in various countries over the
globe, directed by Jesuits of different provinces of the Order, they
bespeak certainly no inefficiency of the Jesuits’ teaching. Can we not
conclude that, were there a similar system of public examination in
this country, the Jesuit colleges in the United States would exhibit
similar success?
On December 12, 1900, the Juniors of a Jesuit Institution, of
Holy Cross College, Worcester, Massachusetts, defeated in a debate
the Juniors of Harvard. The victory of Holy Cross was all the more
remarkable as Harvard a week before had won the debate from Yale on
the very same question, “On the permanent retention of the Philippine
Islands.” On April 8, 1901, the Freshmen and Sophomores of the same
College again came off victorious in a debate with a Freshman-Sophomore
team of Brown University.[433]--Although we do not want to draw
from such debates any conclusions for the superiority of the Jesuit
college, still they deserve to be recorded, because the Jesuit college
was victorious over Harvard, shortly after the President of Harvard
University had charged the Jesuit colleges with inefficiency.[434]
The _American Ecclesiastical Review_, August 1900, gave an account of
the controversy between President Eliot and the Jesuit colleges, in
which it was proved that the President’s charges were not based on any
facts which could justify his measures against the Jesuit institutions.
Professor Eliot had declared, “we have had experience at the Law School
of a considerable number of graduates of Holy Cross and Boston, and
these graduates have not, as a rule, made good records at the School.”
Now the truth is that in the ten years preceding the time of the final
decision of the Law School regarding Boston College (March, 1898),
there were only three graduates of Boston College in the Law School, of
whom one left after two years, one left with an excellent record after
one year on account of ill-health, and one completed the course and
received his diploma. In all the time before these ten years, only two
or three graduates of Boston College entered the Law School. The facts
in the case, therefore, do not bear out President Eliot’s statement
that “a considerable number of Boston College graduates have been at
the Law School and have made poor records.” President Eliot has at
several times given as his reason for the rejection of Boston College
and Holy Cross, that their students were inferior. This charge has been
answered by Father Brosnahan in his paper on _The Relative Merits of
Courses in Catholic and non-Catholic Colleges for the Baccalaureate_,
read before the conference of Catholic Colleges April 1901 at
Chicago.[435] From the preceding data we may certainly conclude that so
far the “inferiority” of Jesuit schools has not yet been proved, and
that the facts do not warrant the assertions about the “inefficiency of
the Jesuit system for modern times.”
In connection with the educational labors of the Jesuits in the
nineteenth century, we must not fail to mention briefly their literary
and scientific work during that period. There are several reasons for
treating of this in a work on Jesuit education. _First_, because the
Jesuit scholars are a product of the Jesuit system; _secondly_, because
some of them were teachers in colleges during the greater part of their
lives, and all for at least five or six years; _thirdly_, because their
case proves how highly the Society values, and how freely it cultivates
the various departments of science. It is easy to understand that the
frequent persecutions and expulsions from many countries are most
injurious and unfavorable to the cultivation of science, which requires
above all what the Romans called _otium_. Moreover, as the Jesuits lost
in several expulsions even their libraries, museums, and observatories,
v. g. the famous _Museo Kircheriano_ in Rome, and the observatory where
Secchi had served the cause of science for so many years, they were
greatly hampered in their researches. It is all the more remarkable to
see that the Jesuits achieved so much in the various fields of science,
in spite of these difficulties. It betokens almost a heroic enthusiasm
for science that these men patiently continue their investigations and
start new enterprises, even in countries where the hostile attitude of
legislative assemblies is like the sword of Damocles hanging over them.
In this brief sketch of Jesuit scholars we mention only such as were
distinguished for productive scholarship within the last twenty-five
or thirty years. Among the scientists of this period we mention
first Father Angelo Secchi, who was one of the foremost astronomical
observers of the nineteenth century. Educated and trained from early
youth by the Jesuits, he soon became known by his publications on
solar physics and meteorology.[436] He wrote several important works,
among them _Le Soleil_, a standard work on the sun, _Les Étoiles_,
_L’Unité des Forces physiques_, and more than eight hundred articles
in scientific periodicals of Italy, France, England and Germany.[437]
He has been called “the Father of Astro-physics”, on account of his
spectro-scopical observations of the sun and the fixed stars. The
ingenious meteorographic apparatus, a self-recording instrument for
meteorological observations, which Father Secchi constructed, caused a
sensation in the Paris exposition of 1867, and received the first prize
(100,000 francs). The interesting instrument is now in St. Ignatius
College, Cleveland, Ohio, where it is used by Father Odenbach, S.
J., for meteorological observations. When the Piedmontese took Rome
in 1870, the Roman College and its observatory were taken from the
Jesuits. The new government did all in its power to separate Father
Secchi from the cause of the Pope and from his Order. He was offered
the position of Director-General of all astronomical observatories in
Italy, the dignity of senator, etc. But all these flattering offers
could not estrange the noble priest from his benefactor Pius IX., and
his persecuted Order. He preferred to remain loyal to them, although he
had to suffer mean and paltry annoyances. For the rest, the indignation
roused in Italy and all over Europe, prevented the government from
expelling Father Secchi from his beloved observatory. During an earlier
expulsion of the Jesuits from Italy 1848-9, Father Secchi had been
Professor of physics and astronomy in Georgetown College, Washington,
D. C. This College possesses at present in Father Hagen a scholar who
is highly esteemed in mathematical and astronomical circles. His great
works, the _Atlas Stellarum Variabilium_ and his _Synopsis der höheren
Mathematik_, are most favorably spoken of by scientists.[438]
Another prominent astronomer was Father Perry, Professor of higher
mathematics and Director of the observatory of Stonyhurst College,
England. He is especially known, as was Father Secchi, for his labors
in the domain of solar physics. The English Government and learned
societies sent him frequently on scientific journeys, and at the time
of his death it was stated that he had been employed on more scientific
expeditions than any living astronomer. He was sent--as Father Hell in
1769--to observe the Transit of Venus (in 1874 and 1882), further, to
observe the total eclipses in 1870, 1886, 1887, and 1889. It was on
the expedition of 1889, on H. M. S. _Comus_, that Father Perry died, a
martyr for the cause of science. Scientific men spoke with admiration
of the painstaking preparations of his expeditions, his accuracy and
skill in observations, and his enthusiastic love for science.[439]
Among the living astronomers in England Fathers Sidegreaves and Cortie
deserve to be mentioned.
In recent years the Society has extensively gone into the field of
meteorology. Seventeen stations are devoted exclusively to meteorology,
or at least making it a prominent feature. They are: Stonyhurst
(England), Jersey (Channel Islands), Rome, Kalocsa (Hungary), Malta,
Burgos, Manila, Zi-ka-wei (China), Calcutta, Ambohidempona (near
Tananarivo, Madagascar), Bulawayo, Boroma, La Granada, Havana,
Cleveland (Ohio), Saltillo, Puebla (Mexico). Some of them have a name.
A few details about the observatory of Manila will interest American
readers. It consists of four departments: astronomical, meteorological,
seismical, and magnetic. The scientific publications of this
observatory have been praised in scientific journals (v. g. _American
Meteorological Journal_, vol. X, June 1893, p. 100; _id._, vol. XII,
Febr. 1896, p. 326.--_Meteorologische Zeitschrift_, Nov. 1887, p.
366; Oct. 1898, p. 64, etc.). The commercial world in Eastern Asia
appreciates its typhoon warnings. During the Spanish-American War, Dr.
Doberck, Director of the Observatory at Hongkong, addressed the Weather
Bureau of the United States Government, saying that “the Observatory
of Manila is in the hands of men who possess very little scientific
education and cause scandal by communicating sensational typhoon
warnings to the newspapers in Hongkong.” The effect of this accusation
was that the Jesuits were forbidden to send out any such warnings.
When matters were investigated, it turned out that the Manila warnings
had indeed very often contradicted those of Mr. Doberck, but that the
events invariably proved the correctness of the Manila observations.
The Eastern newspapers: _The Hongkong Telegraph_, _China Mail_, _Manila
Times_, _Daily Press_, strongly denounced Dr. Doberck, and rendered
a brilliant testimony to the labors of the Jesuits, and especially
their invaluable typhoon warnings. On November 2, 1898, the Rev. Jos.
Algué, Director of the Observatory, received the following notice:
“Rear-Admiral Dewey desires me to thank you for your courtesy in giving
him such complete information concerning your typhoon predictions,
which he has found in every case to be correct. (Signed) Flag
Secretary.” On February 2, 1899, a letter was sent to the Director of
the Observatory, from the Flag-ship Olympia, which concludes: “I trust
that the United States Government will make the necessary provisions
for the continuance of the institution which you conduct in such an
able manner, and which has proved itself to be so great a benefit to
maritime interests in this part of the world. Very truly yours, George
Dewey, Rear-Admiral U. S. N.”[440]
The work done by the Jesuits at the Manila Observatory and all over
the islands, may be seen from two volumes with accompanying atlas of
thirty maps.[441] The work treats of the geography of the islands,
climatology, seismology, and terrestrial magnetism. Professor Henry S.
Pritchett, the Superintendent of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey,
tells us that “to the admirable work of the Jesuits is due practically
all of our present knowledge of the interior of Mindanao.” Father
Algué’s work on the cyclones of the Philippine Archipelago is the
standard work on that subject.[442]
In 1891 the French Academy of Sciences awarded prizes to the Jesuits
in Madagascar, in recognition of their great service rendered by their
astronomical and meteorological observations. Two years previous
another Jesuit had received a prize of ten thousand francs for his
geographical maps of the interior of the island; and last year, 1901,
the very year which witnessed the expulsion of the Jesuits from the
Republic, another Jesuit, Father Stanislaus Chevalier, by unanimous
vote of the commission of the French Academy, received the prize of
3000 francs for his meteorological and astronomical publications.[443]
In a recent work, “Kiautschou”, published with the co-operation of
the German Emperor, a high tribute is paid to the scientific labors,
_especially the astronomical and meteorological observations_, of the
Jesuits in Zi-ka-wei, and the German official who bestows this eulogy
on them, declares that he is not a friend of the Jesuits.
In other fields of natural sciences, the Jesuits are working most
diligently, and their labors are appreciated by the scientific world.
“The best book on mechanics is that of the Jesuit Jullien,” so says
a Protestant scholar.[444] Another writes of an Austrian Jesuit:
“Father Braun, the distinguished Director of the Observatory of Kalocsa
in Hungary, furnished some of the most ingenious experiments for
establishing the density of the earth. His works are a remarkable proof
for the scientific energy of the man, and the spirit of sacrifice for
the sake of science.”[445] In June 1900, Father Hillig of Canisius
College, Buffalo (New York), published a catalogue of the most
prominent Jesuit museums. He enumerates about sixty, scattered all over
the world.
Several Jesuits are distinguished biologists, among them the German
Father Erich Wasmann, one of the foremost entomologists of modern
times. His numerous publications on the beetles living commensally
with ants and termites, have been styled “classic” by the leading
English, German and French scientific reviews.[446] Of his work on
“Arthropoda” the _Canadian Entomologist_ says: “Dr. Wasmann has given
us the greatest contribution on this interesting subject ever made, and
one that must become a classic in Entomology.”[447] Other prominent
biologists are the French Father Panthel who received the _prix de
Thore_ from the _Institut de France_ for an anatomical work published
in 1898; the Dutch Father Bolsius, an authority in microscopic anatomy;
the Belgian Father Dierkx, whose important researches on morphology are
published in _La Celulle_ (Louvain, 1890-1900). These names suffice
to prove that the Jesuits are by no means “enemies of progress and
intolerant of everything new,” as M. Compayré represents them.
Other departments of modern science are successfully cultivated
by Jesuits. We mention only Father Strassmaier, who by experts is
called one of the first Assyriologists.[448] Recently Father Dahlmann
is becoming very prominent by publications on Indian and Chinese
philosophy. His works have been greatly praised by Professor Max Müller
of Oxford and other Orientalists. On the field of literature we call
attention to a recent production of the German Jesuit Baumgartner:
_History of Universal Literature_.[449] Seldom has a work been praised
so highly by men of the different creeds and nationalities. Protestant
reviews have been, we may say, as enthusiastic as those of Catholics,
on this “_opera gigantesca_”, as an Italian reviewer has styled it. One
Protestant Review (_Westermann’s Monatshefte_) says: “No similar work
can be compared to Baumgartner’s in thoroughness, variety, and above
all in directness.”[450] The same author has published some splendid
volumes on Goethe (3 vols.), Lessing, Calderon, Jost van den Vondel,
and Longfellow. Father Longhaye’s _Histoire de la littérature française
au XVIIe siècle_ (2 volumes) was awarded a prize by the French Academy
in 1901.
A very distinguished historian is Father Ehrle, Prefect of the
Vatican Library, author of the great _Historia Bibliothecae
Pontificum_ and co-editor of the _Archiv für mittelalterliche
Geschichte und Litteratur_. Father Grisar is a leading author on
Christian Archaeology. His latest work on the _History of Rome_ is a
worthy rival of Gregorovius’s famous work.[451] The Belgian Jesuits
continue the colossal work of the Old Society, the “Bollandists”, or
_Acta Sanctorum_, a work of prime importance for the history of the
whole Christian Era. Of the sixty-two folio volumes of this gigantic
collection, nine were published since 1845.[452]
As writers on Ethics we mention Father Castelein and Father
Cathrein[453]; on philosophy the English Jesuits Clarke, Rickaby, Maher
(Stonyhurst Series). Father Maher’s _Psychology_ recently received the
note “Special Excellence” by the University of London, and the author,
the degree of “Doctor of Literature”. And this in spite of the fact
that the book contains a very energetic criticism of the works most
favored by the University, including, indeed, the writings of both the
examiners themselves. We could add scores of distinguished writers
on theology, but we wish to confine ourselves to publications which
have favorably appealed to Protestants. In 1900 the Society conducted
more than one hundred periodicals. Although a great number of them
are chiefly religious magazines (as the ably written _Messenger_, New
York), there are also several scientific periodicals. Some reviews,
as the _Month_ in England, the _Études religieuses_ in France, the
_Civiltà Cattolica_ in Italy, the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_ (with
valuable scientific supplements), the _Theologische Zeitschrift_
(Innsbruck), the _Razón y Fe_ in Spain, the _Analecta Bollandiana_ in
Belgium, are representative literary and scientific periodicals.
A splendid tribute was paid, in January 1902, to the scientific
activity of the German Jesuits. Deputy Spahn, Judge of the Supreme
Court of the Empire, and a prominent member of the German Parliament,
pleaded in the _Reichstag_ for the re-admission of the Jesuits into
Germany. In the course of his brilliant speech he spoke thus of the
literary and scientific work of the German Jesuits: “In whatever branch
scientific progress has been made during the nineteenth century, the
German Jesuits are distinguished contributors. In history we have
Father Ehrle, Prefect of the Vatican Library, one of the editors of
the _Archives for Medieval History and Literature_, and author of the
great _Historia Bibliothecae Pontificum_; Father Braunsberger, whose
_Epistulae et Acta Canisii_ have been called by Protestant historians a
most valuable contribution to the history of the Reformation. Then we
have Father Beissel’s numerous publications on Christian art; Father
Baumgartner’s magnificent _History of Universal Literature_, and
many other literary productions by the same author. Father Kreiten’s
critical essays; the many volumes of the _Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi_
by Fathers Dreves and Blume; the five volumes on Aesthetics by Fathers
Gietmann and Sörensen; the philological writings of Father Fox on
Demosthenes. Father Strassmaier, the Assyriologist, deciphered over
three thousand Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, more than any German
Academy has ever done in that line. Father Epping found the key to the
astronomical computations and observations of the Babylonians, and his
work is successfully continued by Father Kugler. Father Dahlmann is one
of the very first authorities in the field of antiquities of India. In
natural sciences we have the famous Father Wasmann, the entomologist.
In physics Father Dressel is eminent, and in pure mathematics and
astronomy Father Hagen, director of the Georgetown Observatory,
author of the _Synopsis of Mathematics_ and of the _Atlas Stellarum
Variabilium_. We find among these Jesuits several prominent writers
on geography, and it is only a few months ago that Father Fischer,
Professor of geography at Feldkirch, discovered the map on which the
New World bears for the first time the title ‘America’. The well-known
moralist Father Lehmkuhl has written an excellent commentary on the new
code of Germany, and was one of the first to advocate this new code.
The various publications of the German Jesuits on the social question
are continually working for the maintenance of the existing social and
political order.”
Many other names deserve to be added to these mentioned by Deputy
Spahn. Father Meyer, by his German writings, has exerted a great
influence on Catholic writers in Ethics. Father Cathrein has published
various important works on the same subject, and one of the very best
works extant on the social question. On the latter subject we possess
several excellent works from the pen of Father Henry Pesch. Father
Stiglmayr’s critical studies of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius
Areopagita (he assigns these works to the fifth century), have recently
been called “brilliant researches which have definitely settled this
long discussed question.”[454]
Between 1881 and 1900 the German Jesuits alone published six hundred
and seven books, some of which are, as we heard before, classics in
their respective fields. Three of these writers have, within the last
few years, been elected members by celebrated Academies of Science:
Father Wasmann by the Russian Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg;
Father Baumgartner by the Belgian Royal Academy of Ghent; and Father
Ehrle, in November 1901, by the Prussian Royal Academy of Göttingen.
The favorable criticisms on Jesuit publications, quoted on the
preceding pages, are almost exclusively by Protestant scholars of
highest repute. Are these facts unknown, or are they studiously
ignored, by certain writers who are so loud in belittling Jesuit
education and scholarship? We readily confess that Jesuit scholarship
has not yet regained that brilliant position which it enjoyed in the
first centuries of the existence of the Order; the reasons for this
have been mentioned. We also admit that the eulogies bestowed on the
literary and scientific success of the older Jesuit institutions are
not a sufficient guarantee that the Jesuit system is equally efficient
in modern times. But we think this last point is proved by what has
been said in this present chapter. It certainly proves that the Jesuits
do not rest satisfied with the laurels of their predecessors, but that
they strenuously struggle to keep abreast with the scientific progress
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The testimonies adduced
are all the more remarkable, if we keep in mind the most discouraging
circumstances under which the Jesuits had to labor, and the coldness
and antipathy with which the works of the Jesuits are ordinarily
viewed by non-Catholic writers. This leads us to a rather sad chapter
in the history of Jesuit education, in which we have to speak of the
opposition which the educational work of the Society had to encounter
in all centuries.
FOOTNOTES:
[405] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 266.
[406] Rev. Henry A. Brann, D. D., in _The College of St. Francis
Xavier_, p. 1 foll.
[407] Shea, _The Catholic Church in Colonial Days_, p. 91.
[408] Brann, _l. c._, p. 2.
[409] _History of the United States_, vol. I, pp. 244-248 (18th ed.,
Boston, 1864).--However, on the “toleration” in Maryland see Griffin,
_Historical Researches_, 1902, vol. XIX, No. 4.
[410] See Shea, _Life and Times of the Most Reverend John Carroll_, ch.
IV.
[411] Shea, _History of Georgetown College_, p. 15.
[412] Shea, _l. c._
[413] _A terre et à bord_, par l’amiral Aube, 1894, p. 45.
[414] _Literarisches Centralblatt_, 1890, No. 42.
[415] Braunsberger, S. J., _Rückblick auf das katholische Ordenswesen
im 19. Jahrhundert_, (Herder, 1901) p. 150.
[416] _The Messenger_, New York, March 1902, p. 335.
[417] _Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant_ (New York, Harper,
1891), vol. I, p. 229.
[418] See chapter III, pp. 89-98.
[419] See above pp. 104-106.
[420] Braunsberger, _l. c._, p. 115.
[421] From the _Congressional Record_ for April 7, 1900, page 4120
(Italics ours).
[422] The data, unless stated otherwise, were communicated to the
_Woodstock Letters_.
[423] _Woodstock Letters_, 1895, p. 504.
[424] From the _North-West Review_, August 22, 1900.
[425] _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1880, I.
[426] _La réforme de l’enseignement secondaire._ Armand Colin, Paris.
[427] _The Tablet_, Nov. 2, 1901, p. 698.
[428] Speech of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, quoted by du Lac, _Jésuites_, pp.
88 sq.
[429] Du Lac, _Jésuites_, p. 250 foll.
[430] _Univers_, Paris, December 2, 1875. For high praise bestowed on
Jesuit pupils by University Examiners in France, see _Figaro_, April 5
and June 2, 1879; De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_,
pp. 17, 19 foll.
[431] March, 1900, p. 441.
[432] London _Times_, July 8, 1879, p. 9.
[433] The judges of the debate were G. Stanley Hall, President of Clark
University; Hon. John R. Thayer, member of Congress, and Professor
Charles P. Adams of the Massachusetts State Normal School. President
Abercombie of Worcester Academy presided. None of these gentlemen is a
Catholic.
[434] The unqualified slurs of President Eliot against the Jesuit
colleges were ably refuted by Rev. Timothy Brosnahan, S. J., Professor
of Ethics at Woodstock College, Maryland, in his pamphlet: _President
Eliot and Jesuit Colleges_, Messenger Press, New York, p. 36. The
reception given to this booklet was remarkable. We refer the reader to
a criticism in the _Bookman_, April 1900, by Professor Peck of Columbia
University, N. Y. We quote only one little passage from Prof. Peck’s
article: “Altogether we have not in a long time read anything which
compacts into so small a compass so much dialectic skill, so much crisp
and convincing argument, and so much educational good sense. We hope
that President Eliot has been reading this over very carefully himself.
He has been so long an autocrat in his own particular microcosm as
apparently to make him somewhat careless when he addresses a larger
public. In this case he has certainly been evolving argumentative
material out of his inner consciousness, in the spirit of the person
who first said _tant pis pour les faits_; and it is just as well that
for once in a way he should have been brought up with a good round
turn. As the information would probably never reach him from Harvard
sources, we may gently convey to him the information that throughout
the entire country professional educators, and men and women of
cultivation generally, are immensely amused at the cleverness with
which his alleged facts and his iridescent theories have been turned
into a joke.”
[435] This paper has been published separately with the title _The
Courses leading to the Baccalaureate in Harvard and Boston Colleges_.
[436] See _Nature_, London 1878, vol. XVII, p. 370.
[437] Bibliography in Sommervogel’s _Bibliothèque_, vol. VII, columns
993-1031. Biography and criticism of Secchi’s greater works, by Moigno,
_Vie de Père Secchi_, Paris, 1879.--Pohle, _P. Angelo Secchi_, Cologne,
1883.
[438] Father Hagen’s _Synopsis_ has been called a “splendid
contribution to the history and progress of mathematics,” _Nature_,
London, June 7, 1894; “a colossal enterprise,” _Revue Bibliographique
Belge_, Sept. 30, 1891; “a really grand work,” Professor Cantor, in
_Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik_ (_hist.-lit. Abth._), XXXVII,
4, p. 151. “One must be astonished how one man can master such an
amount of learning,” _Zeitschrift für math. und naturw. Unterricht_,
XXVII, p. 43. The _American Annals of Mathematics_ (1893, vol. VII,
No. 3) call it a “monumental work” and say: “A more useful labor
than this in the present condition of mathematical literature can
hardly be imagined; moreover, it calls for all but the very highest,
that is creative mathematical power; in particular, for immense
erudition; an unerring logical instinct ..., but above all for untiring
industry, etc.”--Father Hagen’s _Atlas Stellarum Variabilium_ was
also highly praised, v. g. in the _Bulletin Astronomique_, 1900;
in the _Vierteljahrsschrift_, XXXV; in the Leipzig _Litterarische
Centralblatt_, 1900, No. 4, and 1902, No. 26.
[439] See the encomiums bestowed on him by Protestant writers in the
_English Mechanic_ (Jan. 25, 1890); _Nature_, vol. XXXXI, pp. 279-280.
_The Observatory, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_,
vol. L, n. 4.
[440] From a letter of Father Algué, _Woodstock Letters_, 1899, pp.
213-225.
[441] _A Collection of Geographical, Statistical, Chronological, and
Scientific Data relating to the Philippine Isles, either collected from
former works, or obtained by the personal observation and study of some
Fathers of the Society of Jesus_. Printed at the Government Press,
Washington, D. C., 1900.
[442] The best recommendation for this work is the fact that the French
Ministry of Marine had it immediately translated into French. In 1900
there appeared an English and a German work (Bremen and Shanghai) on
the same subject, “based on that of J. Algué,” as the preface has it.
But as the name of the author is given that of Professor Bergholz. Now
this work--it sounds almost incredible--is nothing but an abridged
translation of Father Algué’s work. This has quite recently been
pointed out by Professor Nippoldt of the Magnetical Observatory of
Potsdam, in _Petermann’s Mittheilungen_, September 1902. (_Kölnische
Volkszeitung_, Wochenausgabe, Oct. 23, 1902, p. 3.) This is evidently a
proof of what we said above, p. 154, note 307.
[443] _Kölnische Volkszeitung_ (Wochen-Ausgabe), January 2, 1902.
[444] Budde, _Allgemeine Mechanik_, vol. II, p. 496. (Berlin, 1892.)
[445] _Himmel und Erde_, Berlin, June 1898.
[446] See, v. g., _Nature_, London 1901, Dec. 12, p. 136; and Professor
Wheeler of Texas University in the _American Naturalist_, 1901, vol.
XXXV, 414-418.
[447] _Canadian Entomologist_, January 1895, p. 23.
[448] See Oppert in _Le Télégraphe_, Nov. 27, 1887.--Dr. Bezold in
_Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. II, p. 78.--Hugo
Winkler in the _Berliner philosophische Wochenschrift_, 1888, p. 851.
[449] _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_. Up to 1900 four volumes were
out: 1) _Literature of Western Asia and the Countries of the Nile_. 2)
_Literature of India and Eastern Asia_ (China and Japan). 3) _Greek
and Latin Literature of Classical Antiquity._ 4) _Latin and Greek
Literature of Christian Nations._ The coming volumes will treat of the
Literature of Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Poland, Russia, Holland,
Sweden, Norway, Iceland, England, Germany.
[450] See some other criticisms of leading Protestant papers in _The
Review_, St. Louis, June 6, 1901: “Protestant Criticism of a Recent
Catholic Work.”
[451] _Geschichte Roms und der Päpste_, “a publication of the very
first rank, as indispensable as the work of Gregorovius.” (_Allgemeine
Zeitung_, Munich 1899, No. 45.)--_Neue Preussische Zeitung_, Berlin
1900, No. 608.
[452] See above p. 161.
[453] Cathrein, _Moralphilosophie_, 2 vols.--_Socialism_. The English
translation of the latter work is by Father James Conway, S. J.
Cathrein’s works are highly praised by Cossa-Dyer, _Political Economy_,
London, 1893, where it is said that “they cannot easily be valued too
highly.”
[454] Bardenhewer, _Patrologie_ (1901), p. 474.
CHAPTER VIII.
Opposition to Jesuit Education.
Nothing in the whole history of education after the Reformation is
more striking than the difference of opinions about, and the attitude
assumed towards, the educational system of the Society. We have heard
that the Protestant King Frederick II. of Prussia, and the Schismatical
Empress Catharine II. of Russia, protected the Jesuit schools, at a
time when the Bourbon Kings ruthlessly destroyed all Jesuit colleges
within their realms. In the nineteenth century the Jesuits were
repeatedly expelled from Catholic countries, as from France, and were
allowed to labor undisturbedly within the vast British Dominion and in
other Protestant countries. However, this tolerant attitude was not
always taken by Protestant rulers. The penal laws of England against
the Catholics are well known. The Jesuits were always mentioned as
particularly hateful. Thus one statute under Elizabeth (27 Eliz. c. 2),
provided that “all Jesuits and other priests, ordained by the authority
of the See of Rome, should depart from the realm within forty days, and
that no such person should hereafter be suffered to come into or remain
in any of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain, under penalties
of high treason.”
Special laws were enacted to prevent Catholics from sending their
children to foreign schools. “Any other of her majesty’s subjects,”
says the same statute, “who hereafter shall be brought up in any
foreign popish seminary, who within six months after proclamation
does not return into the realm, shall be adjudged a traitor. Persons,
directly or indirectly, contributing to the maintenance of Romish
ecclesiastics or popish seminaries beyond the sea incur the penalties
of _praemunire_. And still further this statute enacts, that no one
during her majesty’s life shall send his child or ward beyond the sea,
without special license, under forfeiture of one hundred pounds for
every offence.”[455] James I. had a law passed providing that “persons
going beyond sea to any Jesuit seminary were rendered, as respects
themselves, incapable of purchasing or enjoying any lands etc.”[456]
The same laws were enacted again under William III.[457] The schools of
the Jesuits on the continent which were chiefly affected by these laws,
were the great colleges of St. Omer and Liège.
In various places on the continent laws were made forbidding
parents to send their children to Jesuit schools. Thus Duke Ulrich
of Brunswick, “moved by his paternal care and affection for all his
subjects, high and low, in order to counteract the cunning plans and
bloody designs of the enemies of the Gospel, particularly of the
Jesuits,” issued a decree in 1617, strictly forbidding his subjects to
send their children to Jesuit schools, as not a few had done before.
Those who should in future “act so inconsiderately,” were threatened
with confiscation of all their property and other penalties.[458]
Similar laws, enacted in Brandenburg and Prussia, have been mentioned
in a previous chapter.[459]
But the difference in public opinion is not less remarkable than that
manifested by the attitude of governments and rulers towards the
Society. No other institution has been so often the theme of the most
high-flown panegyric and of the most bitter invective as the Society of
Jesus. Its admirers, and not a few Protestants were among these, have
proclaimed it as an establishment of the utmost utility to learning,
morals, religion, and state. It may even be admitted that some have
been extravagant in their praises of the Society and its labors. On the
other hand, its enemies see in it an assemblage of ambitious men who,
under the disguise of hypocrisy, aim at nothing but universal dominion,
which they endeavor to obtain by most odious and criminal means, to the
detriment of morality, religion and society. “Perhaps no body of men in
Europe,” says Quick, “have been so hated as the Jesuits.”[460]
So many accusations have been advanced against the Jesuits that it
would take a volume of considerable size merely to enumerate them.
Years ago Bishop Ketteler of Mentz publicly remonstrated against
“that continued crime of systematic calumny against the Society.”
The Jesuits have been defended and exonerated of the charges by
thousands of prominent Catholics and by distinguished Protestants,
and yet the muddy stream of calumny flows on; the old charges are
repeated and new ones are fabricated almost daily, and believed. It is
customary now-a-days to sneer at the credulity of former ages, at the
superstition of the Middle Ages, and the witch panic of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. However, our age has little reason to look
down superciliously on the benighted people of times gone by, for there
is among us, and even in circles that lay claim to enlightenment,
a great deal of superstition and credulity; only the forms and the
objects of credulity are different from those of former ages. In fact,
the “Jesuit panic” has been called a chronic disease of modern times,
and the credulity manifested in accepting implicitly the most absurd
charges against the Society is stupendous.
Whenever a person is indicted for a crime we demand that he be given
a fair trial; we want to hear and examine impartially the whole of
the evidence against him, before we pronounce him guilty. In the case
of the Society of Jesus, we have a body of fifteen thousand men, who
devote their lives to the propagation of Christianity, the civilization
of savages, and the education of youth. Almost every day they are
maligned in books, papers and public speeches. No evidence is asked
for; the ordinary demands of prudence and justice are set aside; it is
enough to hurl accusations against the Jesuits, and thousands and tens
of thousands willingly believe them. This is no exaggeration. One need
only read the most popular books on education to become convinced of
this fact. The open calumnies and malicious insinuations against that
work of the Society, which is especially dear to every Jesuit, viz. the
education of youth, are simply appalling.
It is impossible for us to mention all the charges made against the
educational system of the Jesuits; nor do we think it necessary. For,
some accusations are so ridiculous that to hear them stated, should
be enough for any thoughtful man to disbelieve them. Further, they
are so clearly opposed to the fundamental principles of the Order,
and so emphatically contradicted by its official documents, that it
is difficult to see how men can, for a moment, consider them even
probable. Lastly, they are so varied and so contradictory that they
easily elude us. What one says, is directly or indirectly denied
by another. It will be very instructive to put a few statements in
parallel columns.
“They [the Jesuits] completely revolutionized education
by fearless innovations.”--Rev. W. M. Sloane (Princeton),
_The French Revolution and Religious Reform_, p. 11.
“They were indeed far too much bent on being popular to be
innovators.”--Quick, _Educ. Reformers_, p. 506.
* * * * *
The curriculum of Jesuit colleges “has remained
almost unchanged for four hundred years, disregarding
some trifling concessions made to natural
sciences.”--President Eliot, _Atlantic Monthly_, October
1899.
“The shrewd disciples of Loyola adapt themselves
to the times, and are full of compassion for human
weakness.”--Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 140.
Since 1832 “in mathematics and natural sciences proper
attention is to be given to the recent progress made in
those branches. In the lower classes new provisions are
made for learning modern languages, both the vernacular and
foreign, and for the study of history.”--Kiddle and Schein,
_The Cyclopedia of Education_, article “Jesuits,” p. 492.
* * * * *
“Another instance of uniform prescribed education may be
found in the curriculum of Jesuit colleges”.... But “the
immense deepening and expanding of human knowledge in
the nineteenth century and the increasing sense of the
sanctity of the individual’s gifts and will-power have
made uniform prescriptions of study in secondary schools
impossible and absurd.”--President Eliot (in 1899).
“A uniform course of study for all schools of a particular
grade, and a common standard for promotion and graduation,
can be made most serviceable in a national scheme of
education.”--Dr. Russell, Columbia University, (in 1899),
_German Higher Schools_, p. 409.
* * * * *
“The Ratio Studiorum is antiquated and difficult to
reform.... We have little to hope for them in the
improvement of education at present.”--Oscar Browning,
_Encyclopedia Britannica_, article “Education.”
“A republic is a field far more inviting than a monarchy
for the agency of an organization so vast, so able, so
secret, so _adaptive_ as that of the Jesuits.”--Prof.
N. Porter, (Yale College), _Educational Systems of the
Puritans and Jesuits compared_, p. 79.
* * * * *
“For the Jesuits, education is reduced to a
superficial culture of the brilliant faculties of the
intelligence.”-Compayré, _l. c._, p. 139.
“Thoroughness in work was the one thing insisted
on.”--Quick, _l. c._, p. 46.
“With such standards of scholarship the methods of
instruction will naturally be rigorous and thorough.”--Cf.
Porter, _l. c._, p. 55.
* * * * *
“To write in Latin is the ideal which they propose to
their pupils ... the first consequence of this is the
proscription of the mother tongue.”--Compayré, _H. of
P._, p. 144.
“The Jesuits were hostile to the mother tongue, and
distrusting the influence of its association they
studiously endeavored to supplant it.”--Painter, _A Hist.
of Ed._, p. 120.
“Instruction in the vernacular language was incorporated
with the course of instruction in 1703, and in 1756
the colleges in Germany were advised to devote as much
attention to German as to Latin and Greek.”--Kiddle and
Schem, _The Cyclopedia of Education_, p. 493.
* * * * *
“Preoccupied before all else with purely formal studies,
the Jesuits leave real and concrete studies in entire
neglect. History is almost wholly banished from their
programme.”--Compayré, _l. c._, p. 144.
“The sciences and philosophy are involved in the same
disdain as history.”--_Ib._, p. 145.
“In mathematics and the natural sciences, he [the Jesuit
pupil] will be the master of what he professes to know....
In logic and grammar, in geography and history he will be
drilled to such a control of what he learns, that it shall
be a possession for life.”--Porter, _l. c._, p. 55.
* * * * *
“The Jesuits maintain the abuse of the memory.” _Ib._, p.
140.
“The Jesuits wished the whole boy, not his memory only,
to be affected by the master.”--Quick, _Educational
Reformers_, p. 507.
* * * * *
“What the Jesuits did in the matter of secondary
instruction, with immense resources and for the pupils
who paid them for their efforts, La Salle attempted ...
for pupils who did not pay.”--Compayré, _l. c._, p. 258.
“Their instruction was always given gratuitously.”--Quick,
_ib._, p. 38.
The Jesuit schools “were gratuitous. The instruction was
imparted freely, not only to pupils of the Romish faith,
but to all who chose to attend upon it.”--Porter, _l. c._,
p. 29.
“Finally they imparted their instruction
gratuitously.”--Ranke, _History of the Popes_, vol. I.
* * * * *
“They sought to reach sons of princes, noblemen and
others who constituted the influential classes.”--Seeley,
_History of Education_, p. 185.
“They administer only the aristocratic education of the
ruling classes, whom they hope to retain under their own
control.” Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, p. 143.
“Faithful to the traditions of the Catholic Church, the
Society did not estimate a man’s worth simply according
to his birth and outward circumstances. The constitutions
expressly laid down that poverty and mean extraction were
never to be any hindrance to a pupil’s admission ...
and Sacchini says: ‘Do not let any favoring of nobility
interfere with the care of meaner pupils, since the
birth of all is equal in Adam, and the inheritance is
Christ.’”--Quick, _l. c._, p. 39.
These quotations may suffice to show how little the adversaries of the
Jesuits agree in their estimations of most important points of the
educational system of the Society. We need not examine all charges in
detail; we can leave them to themselves, reminding the reader of a
passage in the Gospel of St. Mark (14, 56): “Many bore false witness
against him, and their evidences were not agreeing.” If in no other
point, at least in this one, the Jesuits resemble him whose name they
bear, and whom they profess and endeavor to follow.
A few accusations, however, must be examined here on account of their
serious character. The first is that the Jesuits did not care for the
instruction of the people, because they thought “the ignorance of the
people the best safeguard of faith;” that they “administered only the
aristocratic education of the higher classes.”[461] This is utterly
false. That the Jesuits could not devote themselves extensively to
elementary education has been accounted for in a previous chapter.[462]
As to the other charge, in their higher schools there were always
many poor pupils; it is frequently inculcated in the documents of the
Society to treat the poor pupils with equal, if not with greater, care
than the rich.[463] Father Jouvancy exhorts the teacher “to exhibit a
parent’s tender care particularly towards needy pupils.”[464] Further,
the Society had special boarding schools for poor scholars; _domus
pauperum_, or _convictus pauperum_, were attached to nearly all larger
colleges; in Germany and Austria at Würzburg, Dillingen, Augsburg,
Munich, Prague, Olmütz, Brünn etc.[465] The Jesuits not unfrequently
begged money for poor scholars. Peter Canisius in one year supported
two hundred poor boys. Moreover, they had special libraries to supply
books for poor students and fed poor day scholars. In several places
the Jesuits were at times severely censured “for favoring too much poor
students and the sons of the lower classes,” as was said in Graz in
1767. In 1762 they were ordered by the Bavarian government to admit in
future fewer poor scholars.[466] The judgment of Quick echoes the real
spirit of the Society on this point: “Faithful to the traditions of the
Church, the Society did not estimate a man’s worth simply according to
his birth and outward circumstances. The constitutions expressly laid
down that poverty and mean extraction were never to be any hindrance to
a pupil’s admission ... and Sacchini says: ‘Do not let any favoring of
nobility interfere with the care of meaner pupils, since the birth of
all is equal in Adam and the inheritance is Christ’.”[467]
It is said that the Jesuits “labored for those pupils who could pay
them for their efforts.”[468] In the Constitutions of the Society it
is laid down as a strict rule that “no one is to accept anything which
might be considered as a compensation for any ministry,” [education
included].[469] How this principle was applied to the colleges can be
best seen from the following regulations made by Father Nadal: “The
Rector cannot receive anything either for any instruction, or degree,
or matriculation; nothing as a remuneration for the teacher, nor any
present from a scholar. In short, nothing can be received, not even as
alms or on any other grounds. Should the Rector hear that any one else
has accepted anything, be he a teacher or an official of the school,
he must see that it is returned to the person who gave it; and he must
severely punish the person who received it.”[470]
In fact, this regulation caused the Society many serious difficulties.
The rival faculties of other schools, who received payments from the
pupils, saw in the gratuitousness of instruction in the Jesuit schools
a great danger. By various machinations the Jesuits were forced in some
cities to accept fees from the students.[471] It is well known that
at present most Jesuit schools are compelled by sheer necessity to
accept a tuition fee, because few of their colleges are endowed. But
it was different in former centuries, when the liberality of princes,
ecclesiastics and cities furnished all that was necessary for the
maintenance of the colleges. Nearly all historians testify that the
Jesuits imparted all instructions gratuitously; some even blame the
Jesuits for thus using an unfair means of competing with other schools.
The accusation of estranging the children from their families is
as ungrounded as the former charges.[472] It is also refuted by the
fact that the Jesuits opened boarding schools unwillingly and only
where it was absolutely necessary.[473] They everywhere preferred
day schools, because they appreciated the importance which the home
influence--provided it was good and religious--has on the training of
the character. Aside from cases in which a boy has to go to a boarding
school for want of a higher school near his home, especially in the
country, it cannot be denied that other cases are rather numerous
in which it is better for young people to receive their education
away from home. In not a few families the father has no time to look
after the education of his sons; mothers are frequently too indulgent
to control self-willed lads. In such cases it is a blessing for a
boy to be entrusted to a good boarding school in which not only the
intellectual, but, above all, the moral and religious training receive
due attention. Besides, much may be said of the advantages derived
from the discipline and subordination insisted on in good boarding
schools.[474]
Of all the charges and imputations heaped upon the Jesuit schools,
the most formidable is that they seek only the interest of the Order,
cripple the intellect of their pupils, and teach them a corrupt
morality. I am almost ashamed to refute such charges; for any such
attempt seems to be an insult not only to the Society, but to the
Catholic Church herself, who has so often praised and recommended the
educational labors of the Society. However, as such charges are made
in historical and educational works used extensively in this country,
I think it necessary to say a few words about them. Hallam says: “The
Jesuits have the credit of first rendering public a scheme of false
morals, which has been denominated from them and enhanced the obloquy
that overwhelmed their order.”[475] And von Raumer, in his History of
Pedagogy, frightens the readers with a dreadful picture of the “dismal
and perfidious colleges of the Jesuits, of these men of wickedness,
with their dark, treacherous tendencies, so fatal to the souls of the
young.” Dr. Huber, the inveterate enemy of the Society, remarks on
this charge: “Raumer condemns Jesuit education from the specifically
‘confessional’ [_i. e._ Protestant] point of view.”[476] On the other
hand, the accusations which Dr. Huber himself made against the Society,
are not more justified, and they have been discredited by a leading
Review in Germany: “The opinion of some ‘Old-Catholic’ scholars, that
the education of the Jesuits is a sort of diabolical system, tending to
enslave the conscience and suppress every free movement of the mind,
can no longer be maintained.”[477]
Mr. Painter’s charges are among the worst and unfairest that have
ever been hurled against Jesuit education; summing up his criticisms
on the Jesuit system, he says, it is “based not upon a study of man,
but on the interests of the order ... the principle of authority,
suppressing all freedom and independence of thought, prevailed from
beginning to end. Religious pride and intolerance were fostered.
While our baser feelings were highly stimulated, the nobler side
of our nature was wholly neglected. Love of country, fidelity to
friends, nobleness of character, enthusiasm for beautiful ideals were
insidiously suppressed.”[478] These terrible charges are made, but not
proved. We can only ask with astonishment: How can a critical scholar,
a cultured gentleman, a truth-loving Christian act in such manner? Who
does not think of the striking parallel instance in ancient history,
when the great teacher of Athens, whose life work it was to elevate
and ennoble the youths of his city, was arraigned before a court for
corrupting youth? He was condemned and had to drink the cup of hemlock.
How many modern writers on Jesuit education are faithful imitators of
the unjust accusers of Socrates and the unjust judges of Athens? They
cannot despatch the hated Jesuits out of the world, but they poison
public opinion and the minds of non-Catholic teachers. But there is
another question which we cannot suppress here: How is it possible
that enlightened American educators put any faith in such monstrous
imputations? And how can they trust books which contain such frightful
misrepresentations and calumnies? Wise people should suspect such
charges, because of their very enormity; and they should naturally
think that, when some charges are so ridiculous, others may turn out
equally groundless.
Those who are so positive in asserting that the aim of Jesuit
education was “the interest of the Order,” might well be advised
to ponder over a page or two of the work of a scholar of the first
rank,--we mean Professor Paulsen who at present is equalled by few
as a writer on pedagogy, and who has studied the Jesuit system more
carefully than any of those writers who have the hardihood to raise
such charges. In spite of his opposition to the fundamental principles
of the Society, this writer severely censures those who represent the
Society as a body of egoists and ambitious schemers. “It would be a
gross self-deception,” he writes, “to imagine that the members of the
Society were attracted to, or kept in the Order by any selfish motives
or personal gratifications. He who should have sought a life of ease
and pleasure in this Order, would soon have been disappointed. What
was put before them on entering, was first a humble novitiate, then a
prolonged course of rigorous studies, finally, the toilsome work of
the classroom, or the self-sacrificing labors of preaching or giving
missions. Suppose the powerful and influential position of the Order
whetted the ambition of some individual; but he would soon have found
out that, for every one without exception, not commanding but life-long
obedience was the summary of the Jesuit’s career. He had to be ready
to accept any position without murmur, and give it up the moment the
Superior should command. This law of absolute obedience was enforced
in the case of men of such merit and consideration as Canisius, the
first German Provincial.... Besides, the Order would never have been
persecuted and prohibited, had it served the ease of its members;
associations for such purposes have never been considered dangerous;
those societies only are dangerous that try to realize ideas.” The
author then adds: “Why do I insist so much on this? Because it disgusts
me to hear again and again that men who, with the sacrifice of all
personal interests, live for an idea, are accused of selfishness and
ambition, and that by dull Philistines, who throughout their lives were
seeking their own comfort and pleasure, or by ambitious place-hunters
who think of nothing else but how to please those in power and to
flatter public opinion.”[479] These words sound severe; but have the
men, whom they are meant for, not provoked this severity by unjust and
venomous accusations?
Not a few writers call the Jesuit schools dangerous to the
public welfare; one styles the whole Order “international and
anti-national.”[480] By the way, the same slander has been hurled
against the Catholic Church; moreover, we know that long ago a great
Teacher arose and founded a society. A certain class of learned men
wanted to get rid of him, but did not dare to come forth with the
real motive. Then they denounced the teacher as “anti-national”: “He
forbids to give tribute to Caesar; he makes himself king and opposes
Caesar.” And the judge was told that “if he acquitted that man, he was
not Caesar’s friend.” The disciples of this Teacher were told that
they would ever share the fate of their Master, and more than once
in history the same futile accusations were made against those who
professed to follow the great Master.
Not a shadow of proof has ever been advanced that the Jesuits in
their principles and teaching are unpatriotic, but more than one
testimony has been given, proving that they possess true patriotism
and instil it into the hearts of their pupils, and that Jesuit
students yield to none in ardent and self-sacrificing love of country.
Of course, there is no lack of assertions to the contrary. But
recently Sir Henry Howorth stated that the English Jesuits shared the
anti-English views of their brethren on the continent, and he entreated
English parents to keep their children away from Jesuit schools where
they imbibed hatred against their own country.[481] A Roman Catholic
layman in England wrote to the London _Times_, December 4, 1901, with
reference to this attack on the Jesuits: “The moral and religious
teaching of the Jesuits is the same in England as on the Continent, but
it does not follow that their political opinions or their estimate of
public affairs in this country are identical. The English Jesuit is a
loyal subject of his Majesty, and all his sympathies are with his own
country. Sir Henry Howorth informs English fathers and mothers that it
is nearly time they considered how much longer they are going to permit
their fresh and ingenuous children to imbibe hatred and contempt for
their country at Jesuit establishments. Here I can speak from personal
experience of the hatred and contempt for their country which my three
sons imbibed at the Jesuit College of Beaumont, near Windsor, and how
it has influenced their after lives. The principles which the Jesuits
inculcated upon them may be summed up in five words--‘Fear God; honor
thy king.’ The result in after life was that they all three volunteered
to fight for England and her Sovereign in her hour of need. One of
them has fallen on the battlefield; the other two have survived to
serve their country, and our name is known to-day to most loyalists in
South Africa.” In fact, more than one hundred students from the Jesuit
College of Stonyhurst fought in the South African war; three have
received the Victorian Cross, and many of them have lost their lives;
and more than one hundred have gone from the College of Beaumont.[482]
Another utterance, and that from a non-Catholic Review, deserves to
be quoted in this connection. In the last number of the _Westminster
Review_, Mr. Reade, speaking of the appointment of Dr. Parkin to draw
up the scheme for the Rhodes Scholarships, adds: “It is just possible
that, if he will pay any attention to the teachings of history, he may
find food for meditation in the system on which the _Propaganda Fide_
and the English College at St. Omers [Jesuit College] were recruited
during their best years. The latter school (now Stonyhurst) kept the
English Catholics loyal English Gentlemen during the worst times of
the Penal Laws. Many of them accompanied James II. into his exile at
St. Germain, but it would be hard to find one who held a commission,
as the Irish and Scotch exiles did, in the French service, when France
was at war with his own country. We had no Regiment de _Howard_ firing
on the English Guards at Fontenoy, as the Regiment de _Dillon_ did, and
Wellington’s chief secret agent in Spain was a Stonyhurst boy.”[483]
The whole history of the Society refutes the imputation of want of
patriotism. Is it not significant that the two shrewdest monarchs of
the eighteenth century, Frederick the Great of Prussia, and Catharine
II. of Russia, protected the Jesuits? Would they have done so if there
had existed even the slightest doubt about their patriotism? And, as
to France, Dr. Huber admits that “the greatest generals, as Condé,
Bouillon, Rohan, Luxembourg, Montmorency, Villars, and Broglie, have
come from the schools of Jesuits.”[484] The same may be said of many
great men in Austria, Bavaria, and other countries where the Jesuits
conducted schools. Also in the nineteenth century their patriotism
has been publicly acknowledged. We quote the words addressed to the
Jesuits by King Leopold I. of Belgium. Visiting their college at Namur
he praised them especially for giving the youth under their charge a
truly national education. “I am much pleased,” he said to the Fathers,
“to be among you. I know that you give the students a wise direction.
Youth needs sound principles. There is nothing more important in our
days, when men endeavor to stir up the passions. It is of the greatest
moment strenuously to fight against the spirit of lawlessness which now
threatens all order and the very existence of the states. What pleases
me most in your work is that _you impart to the young a truly national
education_. If you continue to educate them in this spirit, they will
become the support and the mainstay of the country.”[485]
When in 1846 the French Minister Thiers publicly attacked the
education of the Jesuits on similar grounds, six hundred former pupils
of the Jesuits, who then held high positions in the administration,
in literary and industrial circles, came forth with the solemn
declaration: “Our Jesuit professors taught us, that God and His
religion have to enlighten man’s intellect and guide his conscience;
that all men are equal before God and before the law which is an
expression of God’s will; that the public powers are for the nations,
not the nations for the public powers; that every one has the sacred
duty to make all sacrifices, even that of property and life, for the
welfare of the country; that treason and tyranny alike are sins against
God and crimes against society. Would that all France knew that this
calumniated education is solid and truly Catholic, and that we, by
learning to unite our Catholic faith with patriotism, have become
better citizens, and more genuine friends of our liberties.”[486] In
1879, Ferry introduced new laws to suppress the Jesuit schools. In the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_ (1880), Albert Duruy asked Ferry whether the
Jesuit pupils had less bravely fought against the Germans in the war
of 1870, or whether more Jesuit pupils had taken part in the Commune;
whether especially the ninety pupils of the one Jesuit school in _Rue
des Postes_, Paris, who had fallen in the battles of that war, had been
bad citizens, devoid of patriotism?[487]
The same question may be asked in every country where Jesuits are
engaged in educating youth: Have Jesuit pupils ever shown less
patriotism, less heroism, less self-sacrifice for their country than
pupils of secular institutions? Was Charles Carroll of Carrollton less
patriotic than the men who were educated at Harvard and Yale? Was
Bishop John Carroll lacking in patriotism? And yet, John Carroll had
been a Jesuit himself, and both had been educated in Jesuit Colleges
in Europe. And we may safely challenge any one to prove that the
American Jesuits and their pupils are less patriotic, less attached to
the interests of their country, and less solicitous for its fair name
among the nations than the teachers and pupils of other institutions.
And we should like to know the facts on which the American writer
has based the terrible indictment, that in Jesuit schools “love of
country was insidiously suppressed.”[488] However, if such a calumny
must deeply wound the hearts of all American Jesuits, they will know,
too, that other Americans, and such whose words count a thousand
times more than the uncritical assertions of certain writers, have
thought and spoken differently on the influence of Jesuit education.
On February 22, 1889, at the centennial celebration of Georgetown
College, Mr. Cleveland, President of the United States, said among
other things: “Georgetown College should be proud of the impress she
has made upon the citizenship of our country. On her roll of graduates
are found the names of many who have performed public duty better
for her teaching, while her Alumni have swollen the ranks of those
who, in private stations, have done their duty as American citizens
intelligently and well. I cannot express my friendship for your college
better than to wish for her in the future, as she has had in the past,
an army of Alumni, learned, patriotic, and useful, cherishing the
good of their country as an object of loftiest effort, and deeming
their contributions to good citizenship a supremely worthy use of the
education they have acquired within these walls.”[489]
If the old saying holds: “_Qualis rex, talis grex_,” and _vice versa_,
then we must conclude that the teachers themselves cannot be devoid
of patriotism. Fortunately, we are not confined to this _a priori_
argument. Numerous instances are on record that Jesuits, especially at
the time of war, sacrificed themselves in the service of the sick and
wounded and on the battlefields. Not to say a word of the many cases
recorded of former centuries, we mention one of more recent date. In
the Franco-German war of 1870-71, the Maltese Society of Rhineland and
Westphalia sent, besides the 1567 Sisters, 342 male religious to the
service of the sick and wounded. Among these 342 were 159 Jesuits. Of
the 81 volunteer army chaplains sent by the same organization, 33 were
Jesuits.[490] No less than 80 Jesuits received decorations, and two of
them were honored with the “Iron Cross,” the highest distinction for
heroic conduct on the battlefield. The patriotism of the French Jesuits
is not less conspicuous. In every war which was waged by France, a
number of Jesuits accompanied the army as chaplains. In 1870-71 several
were wounded on the battlefield, and one died at Laon.
The attitude of the Society towards national and political questions
has been clearly stated by Father Beckx, General of the Society: “The
public and the press busy themselves much about the Society’s attitude
towards the various forms of government.... Now the Society, as a
religious Order, has nothing to do with any political party. In all
countries and under all forms of government, she confines herself to
the exercise of her ministry, having in view only her end--the greater
glory of God and the salvation of souls,--an end superior to the
interests of human politics. Always and everywhere the religious of the
Society fulfils loyally the duties of a good citizen and a faithful
subject of the power which rules his country. Always and everywhere she
tells all by her instructions and her conduct: ‘Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’.”[491]
In recent years the attacks on the educational system of the Jesuits
chiefly insist on the fact that it is “antiquated and unable to cope
with modern conditions.” We quoted the words[492] of Mr. Browning,
that “little is to be hoped for the Jesuits in the improvement of
education at present, whatever may have been their services in the
past.” A similar verdict is passed by Buckle. “The Jesuits, for at
least fifty years after their institution, rendered immense service to
civilization, partly by organizing a system of education far superior
to any yet seen in Europe. In no university could there be found a
scheme of instruction so comprehensive as theirs, and certainly nowhere
was there displayed such skill in the management of youth, or such
insight into the general operations of the human mind.... The Society
was, during a considerable period, the steady friend of science, as
well as of literature, and allowed its members a freedom and a boldness
of speculation which had never been permitted by any monastic order.
As, however, civilization advanced, the Jesuits began to lose ground,
and this not so much from their own decay as from a change in the
spirit of those who surrounded them. An institution admirably adapted
to an early form of society was ill suited to the same society in its
mature state.”[493] We think this charge has been sufficiently refuted
by what was said in the preceding chapter.
How is this hostility to the Jesuits to be explained? It is not
so difficult to find some reasons which account for the aversion
of Protestants to this Order. Time and again they have been told
that Ignatius of Loyola founded this Society in order to crush
Protestantism. Although it has been proved that such a view of the
Society is entirely contradicted by the Constitutions and the history
of the Order,[494] most non-Catholics still cling to their old
prejudices and traditional views of the Jesuits. Even now many see
in the Society the “avowed and most successful foe of Protestantism,
and the embodiment of all they detest.”[495] The Jesuits have been
represented to them as notoriously dishonest and unscrupulous men,
who teach and practise the most pernicious principles; they have been
denounced as plotters against the lives of Protestant rulers, Queen
Elizabeth, James I., William of Orange, Gustavus Adolphus. The mention
of the Gunpowder plot, and the Titus-Oates conspiracy,[496] conjures
up the most horrible visions of those black demons who dare to call
themselves companions of Jesus. Then it has been said that the Jesuits
were the cause of the Thirty Year’s War, of the French Revolution, of
the Franco-German War of 1870, of the Dreyfus affair.[497] All such
and similar silly slanders have gradually formed that popular idea
according to which the Jesuit is the embodiment of craft, deceit,
ambition, and all sorts of wickedness. “It began to be rumored up and
down,” complains Bunyan, “that I was a witch, a Jesuit, a highwayman,
and the like.” Last year it was very correctly stated by Mr. Andrew
Lang, the celebrated Scotch scholar, that this popular idea and the
Protestant dislike of the Jesuits is not based on historical facts, but
largely on works of fiction. There is a certain picturesqueness about
the mythic Jesuit which makes him highly important in works of fiction.
Accordingly, a number of writers have introduced him with great effect,
as Charles Kingsley, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and even Thackeray. Mr. Lang
himself rises above that vulgar conception of the Jesuits, and he
freely confesses: “The Jesuits are clever, educated men; on the whole
I understand their unpopularity, but with all their faults I love
them still.”[498] And the words of another Protestant deserve to be
meditated on by all fair-minded Protestants: “Why should a devoted
Christian find a difficulty in seeing good in the Jesuits, a body of
men whose devotion to their idea of Christian duty has never been
surpassed?”[499]
But some Protestants will say: The Jesuits have always been the most
strenuous and most successful supporters of the Catholic Church;
hence they weaken the Protestant cause.--To men who argue thus
apply the words of the great Master; “You know how to discern the
face of the sky, and can you not know the signs of the times?”[500]
Indeed, the signs of the time point to dangers quite different from
those dreaded from “Jesuitism”. The dangers of our age arise from
infidelity, immorality, and anarchy. What has become of the belief
in the fundamental truth of Christianity, in the Divinity of Christ?
That there are still millions of real Christians in the world, is
chiefly due to the Catholic Church, to what they call the stubborn
“conservatism” of the Romish Church. And the Jesuits make it the centre
of their educational work and of all their labors, to strengthen the
faith in the Divinity of Christ, and to propagate the Kingdom of God.
They teach the lofty morality, the generous self-denial, which was
preached to the world by the words and example of Jesus. They inculcate
assiduously the most important civic virtue, obedience to all lawful
authority. Therefore, all those who still believe in the Divinity
of Christ, who zealously labor for the moral betterment of their
fellow-men, who have the true interest of their country at heart--all
those men should heartily welcome the Jesuits as helpful allies in
their noble enterprise. There is, in our days, surely no reason for
antipathy against the Society of Jesus.
However, considering the force of long cherished prejudices, we
understand the dislike and the dread with which less enlightened
Protestants view Jesuit schools. Their feelings spring from ignorance,
and they are to be pitied rather than blamed. And every Jesuit will
pray with Jesus: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
But what should we say of men who lay claim to critical scholarship,
if they, instead of examining conscientiously the documents and
the history of the Order, unscrupulously copy the slanders of
virulent partisan writers, as is done by so many modern historians
and educationists? Some seem studiously to neglect to acquire that
information which is necessary and easily available, in order to
understand this system. Of others one has reason to suspect that they
write against their better knowledge, from fanatical hatred, not so
much of the Society as of the Catholic Church. But then let them at
least be honest; let them say that they are fighting against the
“Anti-Christ in Rome,” against the “Scarlet Woman,” as their leaders
were pleased to express themselves; let them confess that it is the
_odium Papae_, the old “no-Popery” and “Know-nothing” feeling which
inspires them. Well has a non-Catholic periodical recently observed:
“We end inevitably by recognizing that all the reproaches with which
we may feel entitled to load the Jesuits, in the name of reason,
of philosophy, etc., etc., fall equally upon all religious orders,
and upon the Church herself, of which they have ever been the most
brilliant ornament. Why then address these reproaches to the Jesuits
only?”[501]
History has proved the correctness of these statements. In the
eighteenth century the Jesuit colleges were suppressed. Not long
after the monasteries of other orders were “secularized”. In 1872 the
Jesuits were expelled from Germany; two or three years after, the other
religious orders had to leave the fatherland, and then the secular
priests were persecuted, and bishops imprisoned. Since 1879 there was
a continued agitation in France against the Jesuits and their schools.
This campaign has now issued in a general war against all teaching
congregations, in fact against all religious orders.
But this is not all; of late radical papers begin to proclaim the real
intentions of the persecutors of the religious orders. One paper wrote
recently: “Now we must not forget the _Curés_ (Parish priests); after
the monks let us attend to them.” Hostility to the Church, nay, to all
religion, is at the bottom of the unjust and tyrannous proceedings
against the Jesuits and other religious orders in France. For, whilst
to the ordinary reader of newspapers the recent laws “appear to be a
mere measure of self-defense forced upon the Republican Government by
the reputed political intrigues of the Clerical party in France, it is
in reality a systematic attempt to discredit religion, and to remove
its checking influence upon the atheistic movement of the controlling
party.”[502] That influence was chiefly felt to come from the religious
orders, particularly from the teaching congregations. Hence they
must go. The hypocritical assertion: “We combat Jesuitism, not the
Church, not religion,” is a mere _ruse de guerre_, a stratagem, used
to deceive more fair-minded Protestants, and short-sighted or lukewarm
Catholics. That this is no exaggerated party statement, is evident
from the discussions in the French Senate during the last three years.
It is also frankly admitted by the more candid advocates of the new
persecution, and by not a few far-seeing Protestants.
Here, however, a serious objection is raised: Have not Catholics,
even high dignitaries of the Church, opposed the Jesuits? How is
this? “Protestants are not ignorant that the Society of Jesus has
been the object of suspicion and attack from influential men in the
Church of Rome itself; that no worse things have been said of it by
Protestants than have been said by Romanists themselves; that Romish
ecclesiastics have in all generations of its history, directed against
it their open attacks and their secret machinations; that Romish
teachers have dreaded it as a rival and intriguer.”[503] However, such
Protestants should not fail to examine who these “Romanists” are, and
especially from what motives they act when attacking the Jesuits. We
do not wish to say more on this subject, but quote only the words of
a distinguished French writer, M. Lenormant, who said: “Outside the
Catholic Church opinions regarding the Jesuits, as regarding other
religious orders, are free, but within the Catholic Church the war
against the Jesuits is the most monstrous inconsistency.”[504]
The opposition of Catholic schools to the Society is frequently
looked upon by non-Catholics as the surest proof of the dangerous
character of Jesuit education. They point to the hostility of the
_Alma Mater_ of the Society, the once famous University of Paris, to
the Jesuits. But a German Protestant, a professor in the University
of Strasburg, not in the least partial to the Jesuits, writes on this
subject: “This hostility evidently arose from jealousy, as the youths
of Paris flocked to the schools of these dangerous and dexterous
rivals, while the lecture rooms of the University were empty.”[505] The
same opinion is held by M. Jourdain, the historian of the University
of Paris. He describes the scientific stagnation of the University
in the seventeenth century, and the frightful licentiousness of the
students, in consequence of which parents did not dare to send their
sons to this school, but were anxious to have them educated by the
Jesuits. The University combated this competition not so much by
raising the intellectual and moral standing of the University, as by
acts of Parliament, expelling the Jesuits or closing their colleges.
The colleges of the University were on the point of being deserted,
and this time the danger was all the more grievous, as a part of the
Professors could attribute to themselves the decadence.[506] Still the
members of the University never ceased from accusing the Jesuits of
being corrupters of youth and disturbers of the public peace. It is
admitted also that the teaching in the University was most defective.
But they reproached the Jesuits for inefficiency and faulty methods.
The University, although tainted with Jansenism, charged the Jesuits
with spreading doctrines prejudicial to the Catholic faith, with
“rendering faith a captive to vain human reason and philosophy.”
The historian here justly exclaims: “How often, in later days, has
the Society reversely been accused of being the implacable foe of
philosophy and reason!”[507]
The hostility of the Paris University was, therefore, merely the
outcome of jealousy. At all times monopolies were jealous. Richelieu
had perceived that clearly. Frequently urged to expel the Jesuits
from Paris, he did not yield; on the contrary, towards the end of his
life he handed over to the Jesuits the _Collège de Marmoutiers_. “The
Universities,” he said, “complain as if a wrong were done them, that
the instruction of youth is not left to them exclusively. But as human
frailty requires a counter-balance to everything, it is more reasonable
that the Universities and the Jesuits teach as rivals, in order
that emulation may stimulate their efforts, and that learning being
deposited in the hands of several guardians, may be found with one,
if the others should have lost it.”[508] In another passage Jourdain
does not hesitate to state that the competition of the Jesuits soon
turned into a blessing for the University itself, as it was forced to
exercise a more active supervision over masters and students, which was
beneficial both to discipline and instruction.[509]
In Germany also and in other countries the Jesuits had to encounter
the opposition of the old universities. The reason has been given by
Professor Paulsen: “The old corporations at Ingolstadt, Vienna, Prague,
Freiburg, Cologne, resisted with might and main, but it was all in
vain; the Jesuits were victorious everywhere. The old corporations who
were in possession of the universities have often raised the charge
of ‘imperiousness’ of ‘desire of ruling’ against the Jesuits, and
many historians of these institutions have passionately repeated this
charge, certainly not without good cause. But it must be added that it
was not the desire of ruling that springs from arrogance and rests on
external force or empty titles, but the desire that arises from real
power which is eager to work, because it can work and must work.”[510]
Another reason for the cold treatment of the Society by Catholics
must be sought in unfair generalizations of individual cases. The
Jesuits had always the privilege--or the misfortune--of being the
subject of the constant pre-occupation of the public mind. They are
watched closely, and they are, too often, watched with a magnifying
glass. But if faults are discovered in an individual, is it fair to
censure the whole body? Well has an English writer said: “The most
splendid and perfect institution, if it grow, and occupy a large space,
if many join it, will have among its members imprudent and therefore
dangerous men--men who offer so fair a pretext to the malevolent for
attacking it, that the combined learning and prudence of many years
will hardly make good the damage done. The mass of men do not make fine
distinctions; to distinguish with them, means casuistry, and casuistry
they consider to be next door to systematized imposture. Point out some
telling scandals against some member of a large organized body; be they
only three or four, or true or false, repeat them often enough--and the
public will pass the verdict of guilty upon the whole, and condemn both
the system and him who sins against it.”[511]
Sometimes, indeed, it may be that individual Jesuits have, by their
unfaithfulness to the principles of their order, deserved the
ill-feeling with which they have been regarded. But in a large majority
of cases, it is due either to prejudice or ignorance on the part of
their adversaries, or else to an imperfect grasp of the Jesuit system,
especially to the false impression that the Jesuits exercise an
influence which interferes with the work of others and that they are a
rival power in the government of the Church.[512]
The utter falsity of the impression referred to has been proved
more than once. In 1880 all the French Bishops, with two or three
exceptions, addressed letters of protest to the President of the
Republic against the decree of expulsion of the Jesuits. These letters
form a splendid testimony, not only to the educational success
of the Jesuits, but also to their loyalty to the ecclesiastical
authorities.[513] The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris uttered these
striking words about the Jesuits, so many of whom labored in his
diocese: “Among the religious institutes, there is one which has been
more before the world than the others; which has done splendid service
in education, which has shed lustre on literature, which has formed
_savants_ of the first rank in every branch of science.... Marked out
by its importance and success as an object of the hatred of the enemies
of religion, the Society of Jesus has always confounded calumny by
the splendor of its virtues, its intellectual power and its work....
To zeal, these generous priests have always united prudence. In the
midst of the dissensions which trouble the country, just as the whole
of the clergy have kept themselves rigorously within the limits of
their spiritual ministry, the Society of Jesus has been scrupulously
exact in avoiding all interfering with politics. Those who deny this,
make assertions without proof. A Bishop like myself who has under his
jurisdiction the chief Jesuit establishments in France is in a position
to know the truth in a matter like this.”
Cardinal Bonnechose testified as follows: “The Jesuits devote
themselves to the laborious and often thankless task of education.
They open colleges; experience justifies their efforts; families
entrust their children to them with the utmost confidence; year by
year, public opinion and the government itself, testify to their
success; year by year, they send forth into every career young men who
have been taught to respect authority, who are penetrated with the
idea of duty; who are fitted to become brave soldiers, conscientious
functionaries, and honorable and useful citizens, and who are, every
one, devoted to their country and ready to die for France.”--The
Archbishop of Cambrai, Cardinal Regnier, spoke in the same strain:
“Here I must make particular mention of the Jesuit Fathers, who are
to be treated with special severity. On my conscience and in the
name of truth, President of the French Republic, I bear witness
that these religious men, who have so long been abused, spit upon,
and calumniated by the anti-Christian press with a malice which no
authority has ever attempted to restrain--who are devoted day by day to
the hatred and violence of the mob, as though they were an association
of malefactors--that these religious are esteemed and venerated in
the highest degree by the clergy and by every class of the faithful,
and that they are in every way most worthy of it. Their conduct is
exemplary; their teaching can only be blamed by ignorance and bad
faith. Many of them belong to the most distinguished families of the
country. The house of superior education which they carry on with such
brilliant success at Lille, was entrusted to them--I may almost say,
forced on them--by fathers of families who had themselves been brought
up by them, and who were determined to provide for their children an
education which their own experience taught them to value. I fulfil a
duty of conscience and of honor in addressing to you these simple and
respectful observations.”
The testimony of the Archbishop of Lyons will be of special interest.
Cardinal Caverot writes: “It is the privilege of the children of St.
Ignatius to be in the front of every battle. I know how hatred, and
still more how ignorance and prejudice, have accumulated calumnies
against the Society. But I owe it to the truth to declare here, that in
the course of a ministry of well-nigh fifty years--twenty as priest,
thirty as bishop--I have been able to satisfy myself, and I know
that these worthy and zealous servants of God have well deserved the
distinction given to the Society by the Church, when she proclaimed
it, in the Council of Trent, a ‘Pious Institute, approved by the Holy
See.’ I admire these men in their work of teaching, and in the labors
of their apostleship. _Nowhere have I met with priests more obedient
to ecclesiastical authority, more careful of the laws of the country,
more aloof from political conflict_; and I affirm without fear of
contradiction, that if these decrees which strike at them have not made
any charge whatever against their life and teaching, it is because not
a charge could be made which would survive an hour’s discussion.”
There in no room for further extracts from these letters. The _Dublin
Review_ remarks that these manifestoes of the French hierarchy are
precious documents for the religious orders; “but the Jesuits, in
particular, will be able, from these utterances, to collect a body
of episcopal testimony to their ability, devotedness, and deference
towards the Bishops such as perhaps they have never before received
from a great National Church during the whole course of their
existence.”[514]
In modern times it has sometimes been said that religious orders,
in general, were admirably equipped for former ages, but time has
progressed so fast that the orders were left behind and are now “out of
date.” One Philip Limerick, who, as he affirms, was at one time himself
in a monastery, states this view plainly in the _Contemporary Review_
(April 1897). This writer admits that the Monks were the benefactors
of mankind, by teaching the arts of civilization to the rude tribes
of the North, and that the monastic institutions were the homes, for
a long time even the only ones, of learning. But, he says, “_omnia
tempus habent_, and monks are now rarely met with, and of the later
orders, the Regular Clerks, only one has left a deep impression on the
Latin Church and obtained a place in history--the Society of Jesus.
This Society owes its still vigorous life to its wider scope and more
efficient administration.” Although this writer assigns an exceptional
position to the Society, others include also this Order in the general
doom. “We can do without the Jesuits,” was a saying of Dr. Döllinger,
and his opinion is shared by some so-called Liberal Catholics.
That the present Pope Leo XIII. has other sentiments about religious
orders in general is evident from his numerous letters. In his letter
to the Archbishop of Paris, December 23, 1900, he enumerates all
the benefits religion and society receive from their hands. He says
that “the religious are the necessary auxiliaries of the bishops
and the secular clergy.” “In the past their doctors shed renown on
the universities by the depth and breadth of their learning, and
their houses became the refuge of divine and human knowledge, and
in the shipwreck of civilization saved from certain destruction the
masterpieces of ancient wisdom. _Nor is their activity, their zeal,
their love of their fellow-men, diminished in our own day. Some,
devoted to teaching, instruct the young in secular knowledge and the
principles of religious virtue and duty_, on which public peace and the
welfare of states absolutely depend. Others are seen settling amongst
savage tribes in order to civilize them. Nor is it an uncommon thing
for them to make _important contributions to science_ by the help they
give to the researches which are being made in such different domains
as the study of the differences of race and tongue, of history, the
nature and products of the soil, and other questions.[515] Of course we
are not unaware that there are people who go about declaring that the
religious congregations encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Bishops
and interfere with the rights of the secular clergy. This assertion
cannot be sustained if one cares to consult the wise laws published on
this point by the Church, and which we have recently re-enacted.”[516]
On more than one occasion Leo XIII. gave expression to the high esteem
in which he holds the educational work of the Jesuits, from whom he
himself had received his early training. In the year 1886 he solemnly
confirmed once more the Institute of the Society and its ecclesiastical
privileges, exhorting the sons of Ignatius courageously to continue
their work in the midst of all persecutions.[517]
Before closing this chapter we may mention one explanation for the
widespread animosity against the Society at which some may be inclined
to smile. It is recorded that the founder of the Society, St. Ignatius
of Loyola, used to beg of God continually that his sons might always
be the object of the world’s hatred and enmity. He knew from the words
of Our Divine Master: “If the world hate you, know that it hated me
before you,” and from the history of the Church that this persecution
for the sake of Jesus has always been an essential condition for every
victory won for the sacred cause of Christianity. No doubt, this prayer
of St. Ignatius has been heard. Whether it be the Courtiers of Queen
Elizabeth, or the Reformers in Germany, the infidel Philosophers of the
eighteenth century, or the Atheists of our own days, the Communists of
Paris, or the Revolutionary party in Italy, the Bonzes in Japan, or
the fanatical followers of Mahomet, all who hated the name of Catholic
concentrated their deadliest hatred on the unfortunate Jesuits. And
what was more painful to them, even within the pale of the Catholic
Church, they have sometimes met with misunderstanding and opposition.
The Jansenists in France were their bitter enemies. The Liberal
Catholics invariably stood aloof from them. At times even Bishops and
Archbishops treated them coldly. Still, these persecutions were not
without some good results. They kept the sons of Ignatius ever on the
alert; and for this reason, the prayer of St. Ignatius manifests a
wonderful insight into human affairs. Constant attacks prevent a body
of men from stagnation and security.
“And you all know security
Is mortal’s chiefest enemy.”[518]
FOOTNOTES:
[455] _The History of the Penal Laws enacted against the Roman
Catholics_, by R. R. Madden, London 1847, p. 154.
[456] _Ib._, p. 169.
[457] _Ib._, p. 232.
[458] Koldewey, _Braunschweigische Schulordnungen_, in _Monumenta
Germaniae Paedagogica_, vol. VII, pp. 138-139.
[459] See pp. 146-148. However, it is but fair to add that Catholic
rulers, v. g. the Dukes of Bavaria, forbade their subjects to send
their sons to foreign Protestant schools. Janssen, vol. IV, (16. ed.)
p. 464.
[460] _Educational Reformers_, p. 54.
[461] Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, p. 143; similarly Seeley,
_History of Education_, p. 185.
[462] Chapter III, pp. 104-106.
[463] _Ratio Studiorum_, _Reg. Prof. Sup. Fac._, n. 20; _Reg. com. mag.
class. inf._ 50.--_Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 814 foll.
[464] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. III, art. 1, n. 2.
[465] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, pp. 46-53.
[466] Documents in Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_, 2d edition, pp. 86-93.
[467] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 39.
[468] Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 258.
[469] _Summary of the Constit._ 27, where allusion is made to the words
of our Lord: “Freely you have received, freely give.”
[470] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 102.
[471] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 47.--Hallam, _L. of E._, I, 256.
[472] Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 146. “The ideal of the perfect
scholar is to forget his parents.” This is a calumny; and the example
which M. Compayré adduces of a pupil of the Jesuits who showed an
eccentric behavior towards his mother, and the words of the biographer,
do not express the principles and practices of the Jesuit schools.
[473] Thus, for instance, of the 83 colleges which the Society had in
Germany in 1710, only 12 admitted boarders. Du Lac, _Jésuites_, pp.
297-298, and 390.
[474] See Mr. Whitton’s discussion: _The Private School in American
Life_ (a reply to Mr. Edward’s strictures). _Educat. Rev._, May 1902.
[475] _Literature of Europe_, etc. (ed. 1842, New York), volume II, p.
121.
[476] _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 377.
[477] _Jahresbericht für klassische Altertumswissenschaft_, Berlin,
1891, p. 45 (quoted by Pachtler, _l. c._, vol. IV, p. VIII).
[478] _History of Education_, p. 172.--Similar opinions were expressed
recently by Mr. Frank Hugh O’Donnell, in his book, _The Ruin of
Education in Ireland_, London, 1902. He would advise the commission
on Irish University Education to “refuse every public endowment and
public monopoly to the Order of St. Ignatius. Their individual virtues
and scholarship do not diminish the formidable hostility of their
brotherhood to independence, to progress, to liberty, to toleration and
concord between citizens of different creeds. They are the pretorians
of religious despotism.... Catholic ruin and Catholic ignorance have
attended everywhere the Jesuit monopoly. Where the Jesuit plants, the
crops are indifference, emasculation, and decay.... Their system is
ruin to the Catholic religion. They belong to an age before modern
times.... They can stimulate fanaticism. They cannot develop reason.
They supplant, and call it assistance and direction. They suck the
brain of the lay-people,” etc.--Quoted in _The Month_, September 1902,
pp. 253-254.
[479] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, pp. 410-411.
[480] Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 119.
[481] The case of Sir Henry Howorth furnishes a good illustration
of the “trustworthiness” of the attacks against the Jesuits. This
gentleman asserted (_Tablet_, Nov. 23, 1901), that he had often read,
in the _Civiltà Cattolica_ and in two German Jesuit publications,
“abominable slanders of England and its people.” Sir Henry was
challenged repeatedly to produce _one_ passage from the two German
publications containing a slander of England. One of these periodicals,
the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, has very often praised England and its
liberal institutions; and the other (the _Theologische Zeitschrift_ of
Innsbruck) is a purely scientific paper which never touches political
questions. After many evasions Sir Henry at last wrote (_Tablet_,
March 15, 1902), that he had read the “abominable slanders” in the
Berlin _Germania_, “which, as he was informed, was largely owned and
written by the Jesuits.” But the Jesuits have nothing to do with the
_Germania_. And yet, for three months Sir Henry had maintained that he
had read with his own eyes the slanders in the two mentioned Jesuit
publications!
[482] _The Messenger_, New York, 1902, July, p. 127.
[483] _Westminster Review_, October 1902, p. 325.
[484] _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 384.
[485] _Ami de l’ordre de Namur_, 1843, July 31.
[486] Similar protests of Jesuit pupils were published in 1879, when
Ferry had cast suspicion on the patriotism of the Jesuits. See De Badts
de Cugnac, _Le patriotisme des Jésuites_.
[487] Of the pupils of St. Clement (Metz) 31 died on the battlefield,
of the College of Sainte-Geneviève 78; of the College of Vannes 20, etc.
[488] Painter, _History of Education_, p. 172.
[489] _History of Georgetown College_, p. 422.
[490] Braunsberger, _l. c._, p. 37.
[491] _L’Univers_, Paris, Jan. 20, 1879. See De Badts de Cugnac,
_L’expulsion des Jésuites_, p. 51.
[492] Page 16.
[493] _History of Civilization in England_, vol. I, chapter XVI.
[494] See above chapter III, pp. 77-78.
[495] Canon Littledale in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_, art. “Jesuits”.
[496] “That lie about the Titus-Oates Conspiracy,” as the Protestant
historian Gardiner says (_Hist. of England_, vol. II, pp. 483 and 615).
An apostate priest, Chinicquy, has charged the Jesuits even with the
assassination of President Lincoln!
[497] Quite recently the suspicion was expressed in French
anti-clerical papers that the Jesuits were the cause of the coal
strikes. Any one who wishes to see to what extreme of absurdity the
calumniators of the Society have gone, may read Janssen, vol. VII, pp.
530-584.--_Dublin Review_, vol. XLI, pp. 60-86 (“Curiosities of the
Anti-Jesuit Crusade”); vol. L, pp. 329-340.
[498] _The Pilot_, Oct. 12, 1901.
[499] Quick, _Educ. Ref._, p. 54.
[500] _Matth._ 16, 3.
[501] _The Open Court_, Chicago, Jan. 1902, p. 28.
[502] _American Ecclesiastical Review_, Sept. 1902, p. 324.--See
especially the _Dublin Review_, October 1902: “The Power behind
the French Government,” where it is clearly set forth who the real
instigators of this new persecution are.
[503] Professor Porter of Yale, _Educational Systems of the Puritans
and Jesuits compared_, p. 90.
[504] “_Endedans du catholicisme, la guerre aux Jésuites est la plus
monstrueuse des inconséquences._” De Badts de Cugnac, _L’expulsion des
Jésuites_, p. 6.
[505] Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, 1895, p. 121.
[506] Jourdain, _Histoire de l’Université de Paris au XVII. et au
XVIII. siècle_. Paris 1888, vol. I, pp. 1-59.
[507] _Ibid._, p. 282.
[508] _Ibid._, p. 272.
[509] _Ibid._, vol. II, p. 299.
[510] Paulsen, _l. c._, p. 281 (vol. I, p. 407).
[511] R. B. Vaughan, _Life of St. Thomas_, vol. I, p. 629.
[512] See Father Clarke, S. J., in the _Nineteenth Century_, August
1896.
[513] See _Dublin Review_, 1880, July, pp. 155-183.--Again in October
1902, of 79 French Bishops 72 (in a joint petition to the Senate)
declared their solidarity with the religious orders.
[514] _L. c._, p. 175.
[515] On the services rendered by Catholic missionaries, mostly
religious, to the knowledge of languages, especially to _Comparative
Philology_, see Max Müller’s _Lectures on the Science of Language_,
vol. I, and Father Dahlmann: _Die Sprachkunde und die Missionen_,
(Herder, 1891).
[516] Translation from _The Messenger_, New York, February 1901.
[517] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 581.
[518] _Macbeth_ 3, 5.
PART SECOND.
The Principles of the Ratio Studiorum.--Its Theory and Practice Viewed
in the Light of Modern Educational Problems.
CHAPTER IX.
Adaptability of the Ratio Studiorum.--Prudent Conservatism.
In the “Introductory Chapter” we quoted this remark of a biographer of
St. Ignatius: “The Ratio Studiorum is a plan of studies which admits
of every legitimate progress and perfection, and what Ignatius said
of the Society in general may be applied to its system of studies in
particular, namely that it ought to suit itself to the times and comply
with them, and not make the times suit themselves to it.”[519] We
assert, then, that this is the first principle of the Jesuit system:
that it should adapt itself to the different times and countries. We do
not treat here of single colleges; it is possible that some have not
adapted themselves sufficiently. The question to be discussed here is a
general one: namely about the _system_ as such.
That the Jesuit system has not suited itself to the times is the
criticism of some. Others go even further, maintaining that it cannot
be suited to the times, or only with great difficulty, as it is
altogether “antiquated.” Here we may be allowed to ask whether men who
make such assertions are sufficiently acquainted with Jesuit education.
Some of them seem to have seen Jesuit colleges only from the outside;
but an educational system cannot be fairly judged unless one has
watched its practical working. It is very easy to make a caricature of
a system which one does not know.
But let us, for fairness sake, assume that the opponents of the Jesuit
system take the trouble of reading the Constitutions of the Society
and the Ratio Studiorum, even then they may be led into serious
mistakes, unless they pay attention to a few regulations which are
usually overlooked. To say: the Jesuits teach only what is mentioned
in the Ratio Studiorum and neglect what is not put down there, is
altogether false. The Constitutions and the Ratio Studiorum leave great
liberty in the matter of changes and adaptations. In his Constitutions
Ignatius himself says: “Let public schools be opened wherever it may
conveniently be done. In the more important studies, they may be opened
_with reference to the circumstances of the places_ where our colleges
exist. And because _in particular subjects, there must needs be much
variety_, according to the difference of places and persons, we shall
not here insist on them severally; but this may be declared that
rules should be established in every college which shall embrace all
necessary points.”[520]
Conformably to this fundamental law of St. Ignatius, the Ratio
Studiorum emphasizes the lawfulness, nay, the necessity of changes
and adaptations. In the first part of the Ratio, in the _Rules for
the Provincial Superior_, it is expressed not less than six times.
Thus one rule reads: “As according to the difference of country, time
and persons, there may be a variety in the order of studies, in the
hours assigned to them, in repetitions, disputations and other school
exercises as well as in the vacations, if he [the Provincial] should
think anything more conducive to the greater advancement of learning
in his province, he shall inform the General in order that, after
all, special regulations be made for all the particular needs; these
regulations should, however, agree as closely as possible with our
general plan of studies.”[521] This is evidently a most important
regulation, proving that the arrangement of studies is practically
committed to the Provincial Superior. A distinguished commentator on
the Institute of the Society, in a recent work, could write: “We do
not deny that in their methods of teaching, the members of the Order
differ in many points from the Ratio Studiorum as we have explained
it. It cannot be otherwise, since in the various provinces, owing to
different conditions, it is necessary to make different regulations,
without interfering with the general principles on which the Institute
rests. We have already mentioned that St. Ignatius not only permitted
but ordered various regulations to be made, according to the various
conditions of time and place. This is much more necessary in our days,
when so many educational schemes, good ones and bad ones, have been
advanced. The Society, far from considering her own system absolutely
perfect and unalterable, on the contrary grants that _many things are
merely temporary and can be improved_.”[522]
This is what the Society itself thinks of its educational system. If
the system has not been changed for three hundred years--it existed
three hundred years, not, as President Eliot thinks, four hundred,--the
Society has proved false to the principles of its founder. That the
Society has changed its teaching in the course of time, is proved by
its history. We referred in a previous chapter to the Revision of
1832 and later additions, and showed that the revision of 1832 was
not considered final. But this general change is slight as compared
with the many important changes, which were made in the different
provinces. The four volumes of Father Pachtler’s work exhibit a
considerable number of adaptations made in the provinces of Germany
in the old Society. As an instance of such a change we must consider
the systematic teaching of geography and history, which was gradually
introduced in the 17th century, although it was not expressly
prescribed by the Ratio.[523] Greater in number and more far-reaching
were the changes made in the new Society.
In this regard the demands and suggestions for a revision of the old
Ratio Studiorum, sent to Rome before 1832, are highly instructive.
There we read: “As the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer suited
for our age, it should not be introduced into our schools.... Natural
sciences were formerly taught as part of philosophy; but in order to
conform with the exigencies of our times, all these sciences must
be taught separately.... Ethics are not to be treated according to
the commentaries on Aristotle, but according to the best modern
works.... The elements of Euclid do not suffice now-a-days, but in our
age we must teach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, conic sections,
differential and integral calculus, and the scientific applications
of all parts of mathematics.... In the lower classes special care
must now be had of the mother-tongue; the pupils must be diligently
exercised in the use of their native language, and must be acquainted
with the best authors in the vernacular.... In our times it will not
suffice to explain the principles of rhetoric according to the precepts
of Aristotle and Cicero, but according to modern authors; besides,
now-a-days it is necessary to give instruction in aesthetics.... In
the lower classes we must now teach history, geography, as well as
mathematics; in the higher classes also archaeology.”[524] These
demands were attended to in the Revised Ratio. This may suffice to show
that the Jesuits do not shut their eyes to the needs and exigencies of
the times. In 1830 the General of the Society wrote to the superiors
of the different provinces that they should not fail to call attention
to the commendable practices of other schools in their countries; they
should also be careful to mention, whether certain things were to be
introduced in their respective places, even if they were contrary to
the common customs of the schools of the Order.[525]
The Society has never denied that vast progress has been made in
all branches of learning, especially in natural sciences, history,
and philology. It does not wish a return of the conditions of former
centuries, but gladly makes use of the advantages afforded by modern
science, in order to qualify the pupils for the necessities of our
times. If one compares the curricula of Jesuit schools in America,
England, France, Belgium, Austria, and other countries, he will find
the greatest variety. He will discover that it is a groundless charge
against the Jesuits, that they cling with blind stubbornness to every
detail of their Ratio. No, as far as it is compatible with thorough
education, they have adapted their teaching to the customs of the
respective countries in which they are laboring. As was said before,
these changes and modifications are not added to the printed Ratio
as amendments or bylaws; this is not necessary, since, as was stated
above, the Ratio itself admits the necessity of having “different
regulations as regards studies, according to the different conditions
of time and place.” The changes and modifications are laid down in the
customs and directives for the different Provinces or Missions. Now,
the writers outside of the Society are, as a rule, utterly ignorant of
the particular regulations of the various provinces; hence, they are
easily led into the same mistake which a foreigner, coming to the State
of New York, would make if he imagined there existed no law except
the Constitution of the United States. As the General, and to a great
extent the Provincial Superiors, by the Constitution of the Order, are
empowered to make all changes which they deem necessary, it cannot be
said that the Ratio Studiorum is so difficult to reform.
But it may be objected here, that what remains is no longer the Ratio
Studiorum. This is not correct. All the essential points remain; it is
only important to know what is essential. The assailants of the Ratio
usually suppose that it is the preponderance given to certain subjects,
especially the classics, or the order and succession in which the
different subjects are taught. Others again seem to find the essentials
of the Ratio in minor details, concerning the manner in which the
subjects are taught. We admit that it would be altogether impracticable
to carry out the prescriptions of the Ratio in their entirety. Thus
the Latin idiom can no longer be insisted on as the language of
conversational intercourse among the students, as was done in the 17th
century, nor is it possible to use it as the medium of instruction in
all the lectures. Neither is it possible to devote the same number of
hours to the classics, as much time and labor is requisite for the
study of modern literature, mathematics, and the sciences. We admit
further that some details of the Ratio, for instance the system of
_decuriones_ (boy supervisors and assistants of the teacher), certain
solemnities at the distribution of prizes, the use of the grammar of
Alvarez, etc., are really antiquated. But they are exactly those points
which have been abandoned long ago, and which have never been regarded
as essential.
The present General of the Society, Father Martin, who, if any one,
is unquestionably warranted to speak authoritatively on this subject,
declared on January 1, 1893: “There are men who think that the Ratio
Studiorum was good formerly, but that it is no longer so in our
times. He who maintains this position does not understand the Ratio
Studiorum; he looks only at the _matter_, not at the _form_ [the
_spirit_] of the system.... But the matter is not the essential feature
of this system.”[526] Neither is the order, the sequence, in which
the different branches are taught. The subject matter as well as the
order is in many countries prescribed by the governments. Although this
prescribed order may not always be the best, still it can be adopted,
as the order is not the characteristic feature of the system of the
Society.
Now, may it not be said that modern conditions merely forced the
Society and its General to this broad interpretation of the Ratio,
to make, as President Eliot would express it, some further “trifling
concessions”? By no means. The utterances of Father Martin are neither
novel nor alien to the Ratio or the Constitutions of the Society,
as is shown by a comparison with the quotations we gave before from
these two documents. One point is made clear, _viz._, that the Ratio
admits of a very broad interpretation, and leaves especially ample
room for innovations as regards various branches of study. If it is
useful and advisable to teach a new branch: economics, civics, local
history, biology, or Spanish, or any other subject, there is no
difficulty on the part of the Ratio Studiorum. If the Jesuits exclude
certain branches from their curriculum, it is not because they are not
mentioned in the Ratio, but because they consider these branches of
less educational value; if they uphold certain other branches, as the
classics, it is because they expect the most from them for the training
of their pupils; if they defend the successive teaching of different
branches in preference to the simultaneous treatment of a multitude
of unconnected subjects, they act according to approved pedagogical
principles; if they do not admit the extravagant electivism of some
modern school-reformers, it is because they consider it injurious to
solid education, not because it is opposed to their system. We venture
to say, they could adopt electivism to a very great extent, without
entirely abandoning the fundamental principles of their Ratio. We
shall speak of these principles in the next chapter. Suffice it to
quote here the words of a writer in a first class literary review in
Europe on the Ratio: “The regulations and principles of that system of
studies, viewed in the light of modern exigencies, need not shun any
comparison, and the pedagogical wisdom contained therein is in no way
antiquated.”[527]
Although the teaching of the Jesuits has not remained unchanged for
centuries, it is true, on the other hand, that the Society was never
rash in adopting new methods. The Jesuits did not experiment with
every new-fangled theory, with every pedagogical “fad”, no matter how
loudly praised and held up as _the_ system of our age. Herein they
acted wisely. For, first of all, there may be several systems, equally
good, and the Jesuits possessed a system of their own, which had been
approved by a remarkable success in former centuries. And that in
recent times the teaching of the Society has not been unsuccessful, is
sufficiently proved by what we said in the preceding chapter.
Whilst the efficiency of her old and approved system justifies the
conservative spirit of the Society in educational matters, another
striking proof of its wisdom in this respect is furnished by the fate
of the modern school reforms themselves. No sooner has one startled
the world, than it is followed and overthrown by a newer, later, more
modern system. To each of them may be applied the words of St. Peter
to Saphira, which a German philosopher used with reference to modern
philosophical theories: “Behold the feet of them who have buried
thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out.”[528]
We have an instance in Germany. In 1892, a new plan of studies was
introduced in Prussia, and at about the same time in the other states
of Germany.[529] The classical studies lost a great number of hours.
Although this plan was introduced at the urgent wish of the young
Emperor and through his “energetic personal interference,”[530] it
met with great opposition on the part of the majority of teachers.
No party was satisfied. The strict advocates of the ancient classics
complained of the reduction in the classical instruction. The friends
of the scientific schools were not satisfied with the concessions made
them.[531] On all sides the cry was heard: “Reform the Reform of 1892.”
In 1895 the Ministry of Instruction allowed the directors of the
gymnasia to add, in the three higher classes, one hour a week, which
should be devoted to the old grammatical and stylistic exercises.[532]
Still more complaints were heard in the following years. In 1899
even Professor Virchow, one of the most determined opponents of the
gymnasium in its old form, admitted that the graduates after the reform
manifested a notable decline in grammatical and logical training.
It was found necessary to convoke a new conference, which met in
Berlin, June 1900. Here some of the ablest schoolmen were outspoken
in demanding a partial return to the system existing before 1892. Dr.
Matthias, the referee of the Ministry, stated that all official reports
and the most experienced men of the Kingdom complained about the
serious decline of Latin scholarship which had manifested itself after
1892. The cause of this decline he suspected to be the excessive use
of inductive methods, so much encouraged by the reform. Efforts were
to be made to check this decline; above all it was necessary to secure
again greater grammatical knowledge, and it seemed better to introduce
again some of the old methods, especially frequent translations from
the German into Latin and speaking Latin.[533] He thus recommended
what the most zealous of the reformers had ridiculed as antiquated.
Professor Kübler and Professor Harnack were not less outspoken on this
point. The latter said that writing Latin was to be insisted on, and
that the discarding of this exercise in 1892 was a mistake.[534] The
result of these discussions was a strengthening of the Latin course, by
adding one hour weekly from the third class on, therefore an increase
of seven hours Latin weekly in the whole gymnasium. The new “School
Order” of 1901 demanded most emphatically a thorough grammatical
training. Books for translating from German into Latin, which in 1892
had been done away with almost entirely, were again introduced into all
the classes.[535] By these regulations, the Prussian Ministry, taught
by the experience of nine years, and convinced by the arguments of the
foremost schoolmen of the Kingdom, acknowledged that the “reform” of
1892, in several important points had been a mistake, a deterioration.
It was thus proved that some of the much decried old methods were,
after all, the best and safest.
Within the last decade a novel experiment has been made in Germany,
that of the “Pioneer Schools” or “Reform Gymnasia.” These schools
are to be the common foundation of all higher schools: _Gymnasium_
(classical), _Real-Gymnasium_ (Latin scientific), _Real-Schule_
(scientific). During the first three years one modern language is
taught, French in the schools of the _Frankfort-type_, English in
those of the _Altona-type_. In the fourth year the schools separate.
Latin is begun in the _Gymnasium_ and _Real-Gymnasium_, English in the
_Real-Schule_. In the sixth year the _Gymnasium_ introduces Greek,
the _Real-Gymnasium_ English.[536] Whilst a great number of educators
vigorously oppose this system--some say “the experiment should never
have been allowed”--the most advanced “reformers of the universe”
expect great things of it; to them it is “the school of the future.” Be
it remarked, as a curious fact, that this modern system is not new at
all, but a mere revival of the system of Comenius (1592-1671).[537] The
future has to show whether this system is practicable or not. So far
its value has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Our own country furnishes significant phenomena,--similar to those
witnessed in Germany. People had been told that our educational
system was well nigh perfect. American children, at the age of ten
or twelve years, now learn things of which in former generations men
of twenty-five knew little or nothing, be it physiology, biology,
hygiene, civics or what not. And all this they learn without exertion
and coercion; for, agreeably to the free spirit of the country, the
young citizens are to be given, as early as possible, full liberty
of choosing those branches which suit their good pleasure, or, as
our moderns express it, their natural abilities. Indeed, what system
can be more perfect? Now on a sudden people are rudely awakened from
their pleasant dreams by most distinguished men, who tell the people
that there is something wrong, some say “radically wrong,” in our
educational system. Not a few of these critics begin to point out
that one of the fundamental defects of American schools is the very
thing which was vaunted as our greatest educational achievement: the
elective system in secondary schools. Others discover the greatest
danger in the hasty experimenting, in the rash acceptation of novelties
so common in our modern schools.[538] “There is too much agitation,
unceasing change, and consequent uncertainty in the operations of our
American schools. There is too much _individualism_ in laying plans and
arranging courses and in methods of teaching, too burning a desire to
say something new or to do something novel for the sake of prominence
in the teaching body. Of course it will be said that this has brought
us where we are. But we might be quite as well off if we were not
exactly where we are.”[539]
Within the last month (October 1902) severe strictures were made on
some of the very latest educational “improvements,” and that not by
Jesuits, nor by professional philologians, who stubbornly defend their
long-cherished classics, but by such as may eminently be called men
of affairs. The _Electrical World_ spoke of President Eliot’s efforts
to lift the American college to the plane of a foreign university.
“The chief effect has been to push the college into the existing
dilemma. It is crowded from above by the necessity for more time in
the professional schools, and for a nether millstone it finds the
secondary school that its own hands have fashioned. And truth to tell,
_the college is losing heart_. It has virtually surrendered its last
year to professional electives, but _the sacrifice has not served
its purpose_. The latest suggestion from no less eminent a source
than that of Professor Butler, of Columbia, is for a two-year college
course, leading to post-graduate training, and a parallel four-year
course for such as may desire it. We hope this experiment may not be
tried, for its success would mean the disintegration of the college
as it has been, and the introduction of nothing to take its place....
If the American college is still to remain a part of our educational
system, _it must stand by its old ideals and neither retreat nor
compromise_.... If the college would do the greatest possible service
to education it should sharpen its ax, not to decapitate itself
according to the present program, but to hew out of its curriculum the
courses that demand a diffuse preparation in the secondary schools,
and out of these latter the time-wasting requirements.”[540] The
utterances of another man deserve to be quoted in this connection,
I mean Mr. Cleveland, the former President of the United States.
On October 25, 1902, at the inauguration of the new President of
Princeton University, he earnestly warned against “false educational
notions,” “a new-born impatience which demands a swifter educational
current and is content with a shallower depth.” Mr. Cleveland declared
“_Princeton’s conservatism is one of her chief virtues_, and that we of
Princeton are still willing to declare our belief that we are better
able to determine than those coming to us for education, what is their
most advantageous course of instruction, and surely every phase of
our history justifies this belief.”[541] It is hardly necessary to
point out what “false educational notions” are hinted at. From these
criticisms of the latest “school reforms” we are justified in drawing
the following inferences:
First, not all school changes and innovations are real improvements.
Secondly, a great deal of sound pedagogy was contained in the old
systems, which was rashly and wantonly abandoned by many modern school
reformers. Thirdly, the Jesuits acted prudently in not accepting in
their totality these new methods which, to a great extent, are but
haphazard experiments.
The Society believes in a sound _evolution_ in educational matters, but
is averse to a precipitous _revolution_. Those who recently have called
the educational system of the Society antiquated or absurd, because
it repudiates their own pet theories, have acted very rashly, all the
more so that these very theories have been condemned by many competent
judges. The man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones at
other people.
In every important movement, the ardent desire of progress must be
tempered and controlled by a goodly amount of conservatism. Otherwise
the _rerum novarum studiosi_ will sacrifice much of what is of
fundamental importance. At the time of the famous Gaume controversy
in France about the classical studies, an English Catholic writer
characterized the attitude of the Jesuits in the following words:
“Though essentially conservative, that remarkable Society has never
held itself so far behind the current of Catholic thought, as to lose
its influence over it; nor has it placed itself so much in the advance,
as to become an object of general observation. It has, as a rule,
firmly, cautiously, and with a practical wisdom, manifested to so great
an extent by no other order in the Church, kept pace with the general
movement, and influenced its direction; and when it has not been able,
through the unmanageable nature of the elements with which it has had
to do, to lead, it has had the sagacity to bide its time and follow. It
is this instinct which, though it may to ‘carnal men’ savor of human
prudence, to men who see things through a spiritual eye, manifests the
workings of a governing Providence through one of the most able human
instruments which has ever undertaken God’s work upon the earth.”[542]
The extent and limit of the Society’s progressiveness and conservatism
in educational matters, has been clearly enunciated by Father Roothaan,
General of the Society, in 1832: “The adaptation of the Ratio Studiorum
means that we consult the necessities of the age so far as not in
the least to sacrifice the solid and correct education of youth.”
Accordingly, the Society will ever adapt its system in all and to all
that is conducive to the great end of its educational labors: the
thorough _intellectual_ and _moral_ training of its pupils.
FOOTNOTES:
[519] Genelli, _Life of St. Ignatius_, part II, ch. VII.
[520] Part IV, ch. VII. The translation is that of the Protestant
translator (London, 1838).
[521] _Rules of the Provincial_, 39.
[522] Oswald, S. J., _Cómmentarius_, no. 204, _nota_.
[523] See above ch. IV, pp. 125-129.
[524] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 392-444.
[525] _Ib._, p. 407.
[526] The _Woodstock Letters_, vol. XXII (1893), p. 106.--Quoted also
by Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_, p. 258, n. 3.
[527] _Oesterreichisches Litteraturblatt_, Vienna, 1897, No. 4.
[528] _Acts_ 5, 9.
[529] A very good account of this reform is given by Dr. Russell,
_German Higher Schools_, ch. XX. See also _Educational Review_,
September, 1900. The best and most comprehensive sketch of the “Berlin
Conference of 1890” is contained in the _Report of the Commissioner of
Education_, 1889-90, vol. I, pp. 343-398, by Charles Herbert Thurston
of Cornell University.
[530] _Report of the Comm. of Ed._, _l. c._, p. 363.
[531] _Rep. of Com. of Ed._, _l. c._, p. 398.
[532] Messer, _Die Reformbewegung_, p. 155.
[533] _Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höhern Unterrichts_, Berlin,
June 1900, p. 128.
[534] _Ib._, p. 294.
[535] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höhern Schulen in Preussen_,
1901. pp. 28-30.--Messer, _l. c._, p. 157.
[536] See Russell, _German Higher Schools_, ch. XX.--Viereck, in
_Educational Review_, Sept. 1900.
[537] “No less a person than Comenius, the father of our new
philosophical education, outlines in his _Great Didactic_ a system
which in its principal features agrees with that now in vogue in our
pioneer schools.” _Educational Review_, Sept. 1900, p. 173.
[538] “In America we are unfortunately too prone to view with favor
any new idea, educational or other, and to embark precipitately in
experiments which involve serious consequences.” Professor Bennett of
Cornell University, in _The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary School_,
p. 80.
[539] President Draper of the university of Illinois. _Educational
Review_, May 1902, p. 457.
[540] _Electrical World_, October 25, 1902.
[541] From the _Evening Bulletin_, Philadelphia, October 25, 1902.
(Italics are ours, also those of preceding quotation.)
[542] _Dublin Review_, 1866, vol. VII, (p. 208): “The Gaume
controversy on Classical Studies,” by R. B. V.--I think the writer is
Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., later on Archbishop of Sydney, Australia.
CHAPTER X.
The Intellectual Scope.
In the preceding chapter we mentioned a statement of the present
General of the Society, “that the characteristics of the Ratio
Studiorum are not to be sought in the subject matter or in the order,
but in what may be called the form or the spirit of the system.” Father
Martin explained in what this form consists: “It consists chiefly in
_the training of the mind_, which is the object, and in the various
_exercises_, which are the means to attain this object.” In these words
we have the intellectual scope of the Ratio Studiorum, in fact the
intellectual scope of every rational system of education. This training
of the mind means the gradual and harmonious development of all the
higher faculties of man, of memory, imagination, intellect, and will.
The very meaning of the word confirms this view: to “educate”
signifies to exercise the mental faculties of man, by instruction,
training and discipline in such a way as to develop and render
efficient the natural powers; to develop a man physically, mentally,
morally, and spiritually.[543] The mind is _educated_ when its powers
are _developed_ and disciplined, so that it can perform its appropriate
work. In speaking of one as _educated_, we imply not merely that he
has acquired knowledge, but that his mental powers have been developed
and disciplined to effective action. Education is, consequently, the
systematic _development_ and cultivation of the mind and faculties.
In these definitions we see that education signifies development, and
rightly so, as its original meaning is to “draw out.” The fundamental
mistake of many modern systems is the utter disregard of this truth.
Father Dowling, S. J., of Creighton University, has expressed this very
well in the following words[544]: “Unfortunately education, which ought
to signify a _drawing out_, has come to be regarded as the proper word
to denote a _putting in_. Properly it supposes that there is something
in the mind capable of development, faculties that can be trained,
implicit knowledge which can be made explicit, dormant powers which
can be awakened. The main end of education should be to unfold these
faculties. It means not so much the actual imparting of knowledge, as
the development of the power to gain knowledge, to apply the intellect,
to cultivate taste, utilize the memory, make use of observations
and facts. It is not essential that the studies which produce these
results should be directly useful in after life any more than it is
necessary for the athlete in the development of his powers to wield the
blacksmith’s hammer, instead of using dumb-bells or horizontal bars,
none of which play any part in his subsequent career; he puts them all
aside when the physical powers have been developed.”
The Germans express the same idea admirably by the name they give to
their colleges. They call a college a _gymnasium_. Indeed, this is
what a college should be, a place of mental gymnastics, of training,
not for the muscles, but the mind. Education ought not to be merely
an accumulating of knowledge, of data from various sciences, of
bits of learning gathered here and there. This, alas, it now is in
too many modern systems. “Give the pupils facts, broad information,
varied instruction,” is their watch-word. And yet, facts, information,
instruction, are only a means of educating, not education itself;
they are, to use the above mentioned metaphor, the dumb-bells, the
horizontal bars, the pulleys of this mental gymnasium, by the use of
which the mind acquires that agility and nimbleness, that quickness of
action, and last, but not least, that gracefulness and refinement which
we call taste, the noblest result of a well balanced education. A mind
thus trained and developed may then take up any special study. A young
man thus educated has his intellectual tools sharpened and ready for
use. He will accomplish more, and will do more thorough and successful
work, in any line of professional or practical work, than the one who
from the beginning took up special studies. Undoubtedly, the latter
will get an earlier start in life; when twenty-five years old he is
earning money, while the former has just finished his long course of
training. But wait until they are thirty-five, then, _ceteris paribus_,
the one who laid a deeper and broader foundation of general education,
will be known as the more successful lawyer, physician, or teacher,
perhaps even the more prosperous business man, and certainly the more
cultured and more refined gentleman, one who exercises an elevating and
ennobling influence on all who come into contact with him.
It may safely be said that one of the worst features of modern
educational systems is the tendency to cram too much into the courses
of study, too much that is considered “practical” in one way or
other. As Professor Treitschke of Berlin has expressed it, “the
greatest danger that threatens the education of modern man lies in
the infinite distraction of our inner life, in the superabundance of
mental impressions of every sort that rush upon us and hamper the one
prerequisite of all great work: recollection of soul, concentration of
mind.” Hence he thinks it absolutely necessary that youths should be
educated as simply as possible, and should not be mentally overfed by
many and various things.[545] It is, indeed, a most serious mistake
to think that a person who knows all sorts of things is educated; no,
sciolism is not culture. Consequently, that school is by no means the
right one which “coaches” or “crams” for the future profession,--we
are not speaking of the professional schools,--but that which trains
the _man_, trains the mental faculties, develops clear logical
thinking, cultivates the imagination, ennobles the sentiments, and
strengthens the will. This, indeed, is educating, that is, “drawing
out” what lies hidden and undeveloped in the soul. Instead of this,
many modern schools aim at further expansion, which, considering the
limited capacity of the youthful mind, is inseparable from shallowness.
What is gained in extent of knowledge, is necessarily lost in depth,
thoroughness, and mastery of the knowledge acquired. What is sadly
needed now-a-days is concentration, a wise restriction of subjects
which leads to depth and interior strength.
The educational system of the Society always aimed at a thorough
general training in a few branches. Four characteristic points are
discernible in this training: it is to be thorough, prolonged, general,
simple. It is to be _thorough_; for superficial knowledge, smattering,
is not training. It must be _prolonged_; for thoroughness cannot be
effected in a short time. Time is as essential for maturing a man’s
mind and character, as it is for ripening a choice fruit; one may
bake an apple in a few moments, but one cannot ripen it in that time.
Education must, in this regard, follow the laws of nature. Time and
prolonged and patient efforts are absolutely necessary in order to
produce any success in education. In the third place this training
is to be _general_, not professional; its aim is the man, not the
specialist; it is the foundation on which the professional training is
to be built up. It is, in other words, a _liberal_ training; it has to
cultivate the ideal, that which is really human and permanent in life.
What is useful and practical will be cared for in time, and, as a rule,
is sufficiently looked after. Lastly, this training must be _simple_,
that is, it must be based on a few well-related branches; if too many
disconnected subjects are treated, thoroughness becomes absolutely
impossible.
The modern tendency in education is in the opposite direction. It aims
at the useful and practical rather than the general training, or, at
best, allots too short a time to the general education. Hence the very
foundation of the practical training is weak. Besides, it comprises too
many various subjects, the consuming of which does not effect a healthy
mental growth, but an intellectual hypertrophy.[546] It is showy in
the extreme, and dazzles the eye of the public, and even of some whose
education and position in the world of culture should be a safeguard
against such delusion. For these very reasons it is most detrimental to
true progress. Far-seeing men, in this country as well as in Europe,
realize the dangers of this tendency, and warn all educators against
them most emphatically.
In an address on the occasion of the 27th annual commencement of the
Jesuit College, Buffalo, N. Y., 1897, the Right Rev. James E. Quigley,
D. D., Archbishop of Chicago, said: “We Americans are a practical
people, but we are also impatient. We cannot arrive at our goal quickly
enough. We send the boys to a high school for three or four years, and
then we call them away and send them to the study of law or medicine.
Now I would tell the parents: if you want to make a lawyer or a doctor
of your son, let him finish the college course, he will be the better
for it in his profession. We have now lawyers and doctors enough, what
we need is better lawyers and better doctors.”
Dr. McCosh, for twenty years President of Princeton College, says:
“There is a loud demand in the present day for college education being
made what they call _practical_. I believe that this is a mistake. A
well known ship-builder once said to me: ‘Do not try to teach my art
in school; see that you make the youth intelligent, and then I will
easily teach him ship-building.’ The business of a college is to teach
scientific principles of all sorts of practical application. The youth
thus trained will start life in far better circumstances than those who
have learned only the details of their craft, which are best learned in
offices, stores and factories, and will commonly outstrip them in the
rivalries of life. He will be able to advance when others are obliged
to stop.”[547]
Professor Münsterberg of Harvard University, in his article on
_School Reform_,[548] speaks admirably on the same subject. He points
out the various fallacies underlying the system that advocates the
earliest possible beginning of specialization. He ably proves that the
pretensions of this system are wrong, and its calculations superficial,
even from the merely utilitarian and mercenary standpoint. But above
all, this system is to be condemned from the standpoint of liberal
education. The Harvard Professor writes: “The higher the level on
which the professional specializing begins, the more effective it is.
I have said that we German boys did not think of any specialization
and individual variation before we reached a level corresponding to a
college graduation here. In this country, the college must still go
on for a while playing the double rôle of the place for the general
education of the one, and the workshop for the professional training
of the other; but at least the high school ought to be faithful to its
only goal of general education without professional anticipations.
Moreover, we are not only professional wage earners; we live for
our friends and our nation; we face social and political, moral and
religious problems; we are in contact with nature and science, with art
and literature; we shape our towns and our time, and all that is common
to every one,--to the banker and the manufacturer, to the minister
and the teacher, to the lawyer and the physician. The technique of
our profession, then, appears only as a small variation of the large
background of work in which we all share; and if the education must
be adapted to our later life, all these problems demand a uniform
education for the members of the same social community. The division
of labor lies on the outside. We are specialists in our handiwork, but
our heart work is uniform, and the demand for individual education
emphasizes the small differences in our tasks, and ignores the great
similarities. And, after all, who is able to say what a boy of twelve
years will need for his special life work? It is easily said in a
school programme that the course will be adapted to the needs of the
particular pupil with respect to his later life, but it would be harder
to say how we are to find out what the boy does need; and even if we
know it, the straight line to the goal is not always the shortest way.”
Mr. Clement L. Smith is not less outspoken on this topic[549]: “An
education which aims to equip men for particular callings, or to give
them a special training for entering upon those callings, however
useful it may be, is not the liberal education which should be the
single aim of the college. It should be the aim of the secondary
school, too,--if not for all pupils, certainly for those who are
going to college. For those who turn away, at the end of the school
course, to train themselves for some technical pursuit, let appropriate
technical schools be provided, and let them be held in all honor. But
they should not masquerade as institutions for liberal education. Above
all, they should not invade the province of the college, introducing
confusion, and turning it into a place where there are a number of
unconnected and independent educations going on at the same time,
instead of a place where, though there are many paths, they all lead to
a single goal. For the essence of a liberal education lies in the aim,
not in the studies pursued,[550]--not in letters, not in science. These
are the materials with which it works; and employs them, not to make
professional or technical experts, but to make men and women of broader
views, of greater intellectual power,--better equipped for whatever
profession or employment they may undertake, and for their equally
important function of citizen and neighbor.”
The Honorable James Bryce, a man excellently fitted to express his
opinion on American, as well as on European, questions, a few years
ago, while advocating a special commercial training, warns against
shortening the time allotted to general education, whether elementary
or secondary. On the contrary, the further the general education
can be carried, the better for the young man, and more would be
lost by curtailing the time spent on the subjects which everybody
should learn, than would be gained by any special preparation for a
particular employment. He reminds the people of England and the United
States that the demand for a commercial education might do more harm
than good, “were it to lead to a shortening or to a commercializing
of general school education, or were it to dispose us to ignore the
supreme importance of securing that the teaching of the commercial
subjects themselves shall be so directed as to arouse and stimulate the
faculties no less than to inform the memory of the learner.”[551]
Long before this, Arnold had spoken in similar terms: “It is no wisdom
to make boys prodigies of information, but it is our wisdom and our
duty to cultivate their faculties, each in its season, first the
memory and the imagination, and then the judgment, to furnish them
with the means and to excite the desire of improving themselves.”[552]
The most enlightened and experienced German educators insist on this
point as strongly as any of those whose authority is cited above.[553]
It is needless to point out the fact that these writers clearly and
strikingly express the same opinion about the intellectual scope of
education as the Jesuits, namely, that real education does not consist
in merely imparting information, but in training the mental faculties,
in the _efformatio ingenii_, as the General of the Society called it in
1893.
In this country the question about the intellectual scope of education
is closely connected with the other most important question: What is
the function of the high school and college? Aside from the champions
of extreme electivism, there is no educator of note who does not
consider _general culture_ the function of the high school. A great
number of prominent educators do not hesitate to assign the same
function to the college, relegating specialization, the acquisition of
scholarship, or professional skill, entirely, or for the main part,
to the university. The college should concern itself with the final
stage of secondary education; it ought to stimulate general culture
and to train character, rather than to impart specific instruction. A
college President declared that the first step towards a betterment is
the reassertion of the aim and nature of college life. The university,
demanding for entrance a bachelor’s degree, is the crown of our
educational system. Its province is higher education, the cultivation
of advanced scholarship and research. But “the college should give
itself no airs. It should not pretend to be a university.”[554]
It needs scarcely be stated that the Jesuits’ view of the college is
exactly the same. They assign no other function, no other aim to it
than general culture, harmonious training of the mind.
How is this training of the mind to be obtained? The Jesuit answers:
By _exercise_, that is, by the different exercises, such as are laid
down in the Ratio Studiorum: exercises of the intellect--translations,
compositions; exercises of the memory--recitations and declamations;
debates (academies), etc. These exercises have sometimes been styled
“mechanical”; still how can any training be effected except by devices
according to strict rule? Certainly not by the mere lecture of the
teacher, however scholarly or interesting it may be. No one becomes
an athlete by attending lectures on gymnastics, and no one becomes a
perfect soldier by reading the U. S. Infantry Drill Book; but practice,
drill, exercise is required. No one’s mental faculties will ever become
really developed, unless he is trained and drilled. The insisting on
this fundamental principle is probably the most characteristic point
in the educational system of the Society. Practice and exercise run
all through the different grades, beginning from the teaching of the
elements of Latin up to the highest course of theology. It is the same
great principle of the necessity of self-exertion, self-activity which
Ignatius so forcibly insists upon in that admirable little book, which
he justly calls the “Spiritual Exercises.” As there the exercitant
is exhorted to act for himself, and not merely to suffer himself to
be acted upon, so here the pupil is required from the beginning to
act, not merely to listen, to exert himself in the various prescribed
exercises.
As these exercises will be spoken of in a later chapter of this
book,[555] we need not discuss them here. Suffice it to say that the
ablest educators of the nineteenth century have recommended exercises
which are essentially the same as those of the Society. So Dr. Arnold,
the famous head-master of Rugby; Dr. Wiese, for decades one of the most
influential men in the Prussian Ministry of Education; Dr. M. Seyffert,
the great Latinist. In the introduction to his excellent _Scholae
Latinae_, Dr. Seyffert has the following: “I thought this work, the
fruit of twenty-five years experience, was something new. However, I
had scarcely finished, when through the information of a friend of
mine, I found out that there was nothing new under the sun. The merit
and honor of the invention belongs, as I know now, to the seventeenth
century, and, as hardly can be expected otherwise, to the diligence of
the Order of the Jesuits, who were unwearied in preparing pedagogical
helps and means. I shall be satisfied if my work finds only one tenth
of the approval which their work found, and as I think, most deservedly
found.” Another great educator of Germany, K. L. Roth, said: “Exercise
was the secret of the old college-systems; it forced the pupil daily
to use for the formation of his judgment the material accumulated to
excess in his memory.”[556]
FOOTNOTES:
[543] _The Standard Dictionary._
[544] _The Catholic College as a Preparation for a Business Career_, p.
7.--See also _The Month_, February, 1886; _Education and School_, by
the Rev. John Gerard, S. J.
[545] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VIII, p. 474.
[546] “The educational system [of America] is undertaking too much,
at least in the grades below the college. ‘Research’ is attempted
where drill is what is needed.” President Draper of the University of
Illinois, _Educational Review_, May 1902, p. 455.--See also the words
of Ex-President Cleveland, referred to on p. 294, and the _Electrical
World_, _l. c._
[547] _The Life of James McCosh_, edited by W. M. Sloane, p. 204.
[548] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1900, p. 662 foll.
[549] “The American College in the 20th Century,” _Atlantic Monthly_,
Feb. 1900.
[550] Almost literally what Father Martin declared to be the essence of
Jesuit education. See above p. 286 and 297.
[551] _North American Review_, June 1899.
[552] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 61.
[553] See especially Weissenfels, _Die Bildungswirren der Gegenwart_,
Berlin, 1901.--Matthias, _Aus Schule_, _Unterricht und Erziehung_,
1901.--Professor Weissenfels, throughout his book, expresses his
deepest anxiety at the ever increasing spirit of utilitarianism in
German schools.
[554] President Jones of Hobart College, in the _Forum_, January 1901:
_Is the College Graduate Impracticable_?--The greatest difficulty in
this country lies in the fact that pupils go too late to the high
school or college. The study of Latin should be commenced at the age
of ten or twelve years, instead of thirteen or fourteen. See Dr.
Stanley Hall, _Forum_, Sept. 1901; and below ch. XVI, § 1.--The same is
advocated by Professor Nightingale in the _Report of the Conference on
English_, read before the National Association of Education, at Ashbury
Park, N. J., 1894. German boys begin with nine or ten years, why should
not the clever American boy be able to begin with ten or eleven?
[555] Chapter XVI.
[556] In his _Gymnasial-Pädagogik_; see Duhr, p. 119.
CHAPTER XI.
Prescribed Courses or Elective Studies?
Intimately connected with the subject of the last chapter is a question
now much discussed in pedagogical circles, namely, whether the
“old-fashioned” prescribed courses are the best way of attaining the
object of education, the training of the mind, or whether the elective
system should claim the monopoly in the education of our nation.
Not many years ago the secondary school programmes offered a single
course of study, or at most two courses which were to be pursued
in order to obtain the diploma of the school. The principal course
consisted of Latin, Greek, history and mathematics. At present we
find in most secondary schools a number of parallel courses, and the
disposition is growing to regard the different courses as of equal
value and dignity. It has been said by advocates of the new system
that “the old narrow course, with its formal contents and mechanical
routine, is doomed; and a richer course of study, with a broader
and more inspiring conception of the elementary school-teacher’s
responsibilities and opportunities, is taking its place.”[557]
Whence these changes? Not from the conviction of teachers that the
old system was bad and inefficient; but, as Professor Hanus says,
these changes are chiefly the result of external demands of parents
and sons and daughters. They have not been stimulated by the marked
encouragement of the colleges; for, at the present day, several
important colleges still decline to regard any pre-collegiate course of
study as comparable in value to the traditional classical course.[558]
Would it not have been the duty of the “leading” schools of the country
to lead public opinion, and not allow themselves to be guided by it?
When some large and influential schools adopted many parallel courses,
the majority of the smaller and less important schools imitated the
larger ones, or were practically forced to do so. After these schools
had yielded to external demands, it was but natural that there “has
also come a desire on the part of all to justify such programmes by an
appeal to reason.”[559]
This appeal has been made most forcibly by President Eliot on various
occasions. We have heard that his most serious charge against Jesuit
colleges is their adherence to prescribed courses. To this indictment
the President added: “Nothing but an unhesitating belief in the Divine
wisdom of such prescriptions can justify them; for no human wisdom
is equal to contriving a prescribed course of study equally good for
even two children of the same family, between the ages of eight and
eighteen. Direct revelation from on high would be the only satisfactory
basis for a uniform prescribed school curriculum. The immense deepening
and expanding of human knowledge, in the nineteenth century, and the
increasing sense of the sanctity of the individual’s gifts and will
power, have made uniform prescriptions of study in secondary schools
impossible and absurd. We must absolutely give up the notion that any
set of human beings, however wise and learned, can ever again construct
and enforce on school children one uniform course of study. The class
system, that is, the process of instructing children in large groups,
is a quite sufficient school evil, without clinging to its twin evil,
an inflexible programme of studies. Individual instruction is the new
ideal.”[560]
If this new ideal of individual instruction should be carried out
consistently--and the patrons of this electivism certainly ought to
work at the realization of this ideal state--we might in the twentieth
century see the day, when for five thousand students at Harvard there
will be no less than five thousand instructors. No wonder that all
these pupils will turn out geniuses, such as the world has never
seen before. It seems certain that great results are anticipated by
President Eliot. For he concludes his paper with the words: “These
gains are noiseless but persuasive; they take effect on five hundred
thousand pupils every year. Have we not here some solid ground for
hopefulness about the Republic, both as a form of government and as a
state of society?”
Not less amusing is the absolute certainty with which President
Eliot affirms that electivism is the _only_ system which can claim a
right to exist. He says: “Direct revelation from on high would be the
only satisfactory basis for a uniform prescribed school curriculum,
and nothing but an unhesitating belief in the Divine wisdom of such
prescriptions can justify them.” Does not the President himself claim
almost a superhuman infallibility when he straightway asserts: “Uniform
prescriptions in secondary schools have been made _impossible_ and
_absurd_. We must _absolutely_ give up the notion that any set of human
beings, _however wise and learned_, can _ever_ again construct and
enforce on school children one uniform course of study.”[561] Could any
one, whether prophet or pope, speak with more certainty, than President
Eliot does in this passage? How can uniform prescriptions be styled
_impossible_ and _absurd_, when they are exacted in whole countries,
and not only among half-civilized Moslems, or “Decaying” Latin races,
but also in “Teutonic” States, for instance in Germany, a country
which leads in scholarship and of late years has so rapidly advanced
also in industrial and commercial enterprise, that it is considered
a formidable rival of American industry and commerce? The absolute
certainty with which President Eliot proclaims his views is all the
more unwarranted if we compare them with what other distinguished
scholars think on this subject.
We quoted before the words of Professor Russell of Columbia, that the
experience of Germany can teach us much, especially that “a uniform
course of study for all schools of a particular grade, and a common
standard for promotion and graduation, can be made most serviceable in
a national scheme of education.”[562] Mr. Canfield, in his interesting
book _The College Student and his Problems_, cautions the student
in the following terms: “The more specialized your course, the more
certain ought you to be that the end is that which you desire. It is
quite necessary, therefore, that you know yourself and your purposes,
something quite definite of your capacity and powers, if you are to
make a wise selection of your work. In the inefficiency or inexactness
of such knowledge the college finds one weakness and one danger in
multiplying courses or in enlarging the number of electives within a
course. For very few young men know themselves at the age at which
they enter college, and I think that others know them less.... It is
because of this uncertainty of purpose and this ignorance of self that
the wisest educators and the most thoughtful students of mankind have
always given such loyal adherence to the general culture courses, and
especially to the classical courses. This adherence does not mean
that all culture power is denied to other courses. It is simply an
insistence upon that broad and humanizing work which has been and which
ever will be one of the best and surest foundations for large and
generous life.”[563] Nothing less is contained in these statements than
a condemnation of President Eliot’s electivism. For, if a choice of a
specialized course without perfect knowledge of self is a great danger
to the college student, how much more to the pupil in the high school?
Or, if very few know themselves when entering college, how many can
be expected to know themselves when entering the high school? Another
remark is most significant. President Eliot asserts that “Moslems
and Jesuits” uphold the old prescribed courses; the former President
of Ohio State University does not hesitate to say, that for the most
weighty reasons, “the wisest educators and the most thoughtful students
of mankind have always given loyal adherence to the general culture
courses, and especially to the classical courses,” that is practically,
to the old prescribed courses.
But to return to the Jesuit system. President Eliot is perfectly
correct in stating that it defends a prescribed curriculum. However,
it does not exclude, but in many places admits distinct _parallel
courses_; beside the classical course there may be offered an English
course, consisting chiefly in English, history, modern languages,
some of the natural sciences and mathematics; or a Scientific course
in which mathematics and natural sciences are the principal subjects
taught. But these courses have to be followed as laid down, at least
in the main subjects. Nor do the Jesuits exclude a certain amount of
election in _secondary_ branches. We say secondary, as there can be
no reasonable doubt that not all branches are of the same educational
value. For who would have the hardihood to say, that music and drawing,
or even botany and zoology, are as well fitted to develop the mental
faculties as the old-fashioned course of classics and mathematics?
The Society at least does not dare to affirm it, and in this she is
at one with the best educators of all ages, our own not excepted. Dr.
McCosh said years ago in the famous debate with President Eliot: “At
Harvard a young man has two hundred courses from which he may choose,
and many of these courses, I am compelled to call dilettante. I should
prefer a young man who has been trained in an old-fashioned college,
in rhetoric, philosophy, Latin, Greek, and mathematics, to one who
had frittered away four years in studying the French drama of the
eighteenth century, a little music and similar branches.”[564] Again
Dr. McCosh maintains “there should be required studies for all who
pursue a full course for a degree, and the required studies should be
disciplinary, affording true mental training. Such studies are English,
Greek, Latin, German, French, history, mathematics and physical
science.”[565]
The objections of the Jesuits to the extreme electivism are mainly two.
The first is that they apprehend serious dangers for the intellectual
training from this new system. As was said in the preceding chapter,
the _intellectual_ scope of the Jesuit system is a thorough general
training of the mind. There are the gravest reasons to fear that this
training can scarcely be expected from the elective system as practised
in many schools. The second objection arises from the conviction that
the _moral_ training of the students will be injured if the choice
of studies is to any great extent left to them, especially if they
are allowed to change the branches which they find difficult and
disagreeable. For, greatly as the Jesuits value the intellectual
training of their pupils, they attach far greater importance to the
moral training, to the training of the will and the development of
character.
President Eliot implicitly asserts that the Jesuits, as upholders
of prescribed courses, violate the sanctity of the individual’s
will-power. This is a serious charge. In answer to it we may first
quote the words of a prominent educator who in the strongest terms
makes the same charge against systems like that of President Eliot.
Professor Weissenfels of Berlin wrote in 1901: “In our times the moment
comes relatively early when the special gifts and abilities of the
individual try to assert themselves. But let it not be forgotten that
there are brilliant abnormities. The talent for a special science,
particularly mathematics, or for a special art, particularly music,
even in childhood, gets a tyrannical ascendancy over everything else.
Shall we give free play to it and foster it? Or shall we at first
endeavor to counteract it, or at least keep from it all that could
stimulate still more the inclination which is in itself too strong?
Among the tolerably intelligent there is but one opinion: they distrust
precociousness.... It is justly considered want of common sense,
nay more, a sin against the child’s soul, to make advances to the
impatience with which the special aptitude is trying to assert itself,
and thus to add fuel to the fire.”[566] The author further calls this
system a criminal mutilation of the soul, and maintains that the
special talent, if unduly and prematurely fostered will be like a rank
weed that stifles every other inclination and thus destroys all harmony
of mind and character.
We hear now-a-days so much about the “sanctity of the individual’s
will” that one’s idea of human nature may easily get confused. True,
there is something sacred in human nature, because it is the image and
likeness of its Maker. Still, that sanctity of man is not pure and
unalloyed, that image is not altogether intact and spotless. Divine
revelation, the world’s history, daily experience and our innermost
conscience tell us that there are disorders and derangements, that
there are not only holy and divine, but also animal desires, not only
upward, but also downward tendencies in our nature. The great Apostle
testifies to this truth, when he exclaims: “For I know that there
dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good.
For to will is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good,
I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I
will not, that I do.”[567] Now this “law of sin which fights against
the spirit” manifests itself differently according to the different
dispositions and the age of the individual. In youth, it assumes
generally the shape of love of pleasure and enjoyment together with
a tendency to idleness, and “idleness is the fruitful mother of many
vices.” The old educational systems believed in Allopathy, and thought
that these moral diseases could be cured effectively only by means
which directly attack the root of the evil. So they tried seriously to
occupy a boy’s mind, to accustom him to hard, steady work, to fight
against his dislikes, to do his duty and to break his will. But, we are
told, that was all wrong, it was only the outcropping of the severe and
gloomy asceticism of former ages. Our modern pedagogues have discovered
that Homoeopathy alone will do in education. “The poor children are
overburdened, make it easy for them. Give full vent to the pupil’s
inclinations and do not force him to anything he dislikes. For this
would be interfering with the sanctity of the individual!”
If the old view of life and youth and education savors of asceticism,
the new one is sheer materialism. But setting aside all supernatural
considerations, we must condemn the extreme electivism of the modern
system on merely natural grounds. Nor is this attitude peculiar to the
Society of Jesus; it is firmly maintained by educators who in their
religious tenets differ widely from ourselves. Professor Münsterberg
has well pointed out the damage which results from this system to the
_character_ of the child, to the “formal side of education,” as he
styles it. “A child who has himself the right of choice, or who sees
that parents and teachers select these courses according to his tastes
and inclinations, may learn a thousand pretty things, but never the one
which is the greatest of all: to do his duty. He who is allowed always
to follow the paths of least resistance never develops the power to
overcome resistance; he remains utterly unprepared for life. To do what
we like to do,--that needs no pedagogical encouragement: water always
runs down hill. Our whole public and social life shows the working of
this impulse, and our institutions outbid one another in catering to
the taste of the public. The school alone has the power to develop the
opposite tendency, to encourage and train the belief in duties and
obligations, to inspire devotion to better things than those to which
we are drawn by our lower instincts. Yes, water runs down hill all the
time; and yet all the earth were sterile and dead if water could not
ascend again to the clouds, and supply rain to the field which brings
us the harvest. We see only the streams going down to the ocean; we do
not see how the ocean sends up the waters to bless our fields. Just
so do we see in the streams of life the human emotions following the
impulses down to selfishness and pleasure and enjoyment, but we do
not see how the human emotions ascend again to the ideals,--ascend in
feelings of duty and enthusiasm; and yet without this upward movement
our fields were dry, our harvest lost. That invisible work is the
sacred mission of the school; it is the school that must raise man’s
mind from his likings to his belief in duties, from his instincts
to his ideals, that art and science, national honor and morality,
friendship and religion, may spring from the ground and blossom.”
According to Dean Briggs of Harvard,[568] no people lay themselves
more recklessly open to _reductio ad absurdum_ than advocates of the
elective system. They wish to put enjoyment into education, without
being sure that such education is robust enough. He quotes the example
of Dr. Martineau, who gave double time to the studies he disliked, in
order to correct the weak side of his nature rather than to develop its
strong side. Now it is not necessary to go to such length; studies need
not be imposed _because_ they are difficult and unpleasant, but if they
are of real educational value they should be imposed _although_ they
are hard and unpleasant. Still, no branch is of any educational value,
unless it presents difficulties; the mental powers are called into
action and are trained only if they have to overcome obstacles.
Some pedagogists sneer at the idea that resistance, the overcoming
of obstacles, plays an important part in education. Herein, however,
they manifest their shortsightedness. The old adage, “Fast gotten, fast
gone,” might be expressed in somewhat different form: “Easily gotten,
easily gone.” Dr. Stanley Hall, President of Clark University, whose
fame as an educator is widely acknowledged, has well said: “Only great,
concentrated and prolonged efforts in one direction really train the
mind, because they alone train the will beneath it.” President Jones of
Hobart College speaks to a like purpose: “The college must not always
follow the line of least resistance. The intellectual life has also its
athletic exercises, and mental slouchiness is no less to be regretted
than physical insufficiency. The youthful will needs cultivation no
less than the growing body.”[569]
On the same head Mr. Townsend Austen wrote most appositely in the
_North American Review_ (May 1898). He severely censures those systems
of education which attempt to remove as far as possible the obstacles
from the course of study. He rightly maintains that the finest nature
is the one out of which the dross has been squeezed by painful
pressure, and the precious metal has been hammered and beaten into
shape. The human being rarely works more than he has to. He appreciates
by instinct an easy thing--what college students call a ‘snap’. Some of
the strongest points of our nature are best called out by resistance.
This element in education should never be overlooked. To eliminate
the element of difficulty from a study is an act of dishonesty; it
deceives the student. The practice side of almost any study is not
interesting, but is often rather tedious and must be so: for instance,
to spell correctly, to write good English, to draw well, to reason
clearly.--This repugnance constitutes one of the numerous forms of
resistance offered to success in human endeavor; drudgery is the
bridge to success. The honors of this life must be won, as the Germans
say (and how well the progress of that nation illustrates it), “_mit
saurem Schweiss_,” and by the application of another German proverb:
“_Geduld bricht Eisen_” (patience breaks iron). In the development
of character in the youth the wise instructor finds the application
of this principle most useful and efficient. Will power is acquired.
The acquisition of self-control, by which I mean not only the ability
to control the passions, but also to compel the action of the mental
powers upon a given subject, is aided. The German historian, von Ranke,
has stated as a principle in human development, that “all progress is
through conflict.” The results become of value, because they have a
value in work.[570]
Now this last principle was the favorite one of the founder of the
Society of Jesus, which he used to inculcate on every occasion, quoting
the words of Thomas a Kempis: _Tantum proficies, quantum tibi ipsi
vim intuleris_--“The greater violence thou offerest to thyself, the
greater progress thou wilt make.” But the “make-it-easy” method--and
such is the elective system as advocated by its foremost champions--is
pernicious to the formation of the character.
Not less serious is the harm done to _instruction_, as distinguished
from moral education. If the choice of subjects is left to the
personal likings of the pupils, in many, if not in most cases, such
branches will be chosen which seem to be the easiest, no matter what
their educational value is. No one who knows human nature will deny
this. But that the subjects left to the choice of the students are
not all equally capable of giving a thorough mental discipline, is
quite evident; and the easier the subject, the less is, as a rule, its
educational value.
There are several false assumptions in the contentions of the advocates
of electivism. They state without hesitation that the first and
foremost object of modern education is to develop the special aptitudes
of the pupils, and they apply this not only to college but also to high
school education. But this is a most serious mistake. The application
of the pupil’s talent to specialties belongs to the university and the
professional school; but in the secondary schools, and even in the
college, special aptitudes may and should be left to themselves. They
will assert themselves when the occasion offers, and the wise teacher
will be more solicitous to prevent them from warping the whole course
of education than to promote their abnormal development.[571] Special
aptitudes must be developed after the general education is completed.
The premature and excessive development of such special aptitudes will
invariably result in products which have been called “lop-sided”. It is
Powell who said: “I had rather the college turn out one of Aristotle’s
four-square men, capable of holding his own in whatever field he may
be cast, than a score of lop-sided ones developed abnormally in one
direction.” The outcome of such education, or rather instruction, is
a sort of mental deformity: one faculty is over-developed, while the
others are suffering from atrophy. If the “special aptitude” of the
student lies in the field of natural sciences or technics, he is liable
to neglect altogether literature, history and philosophy, branches
which are indispensable for the real culture of the mind. He becomes a
narrow specialist, he swells the host of those men who even now afflict
the community, men who are incapable of forming a sane opinion on any
question which cannot be decided by a laboratory experiment. Such men
have no perceptions of the relations and interrelations of the various
branches of knowledge; they lack all appreciation of what is noble and
sublime; above all they are most liable to ignore, or even to deny,
that beyond the narrow limits of natural science lie truths of the
utmost importance, unattainable by any process of synthetic reasoning.
It is such warped specialists that Goethe ridicules in the famous
passage in _Faust_ (part 2, act I):
“Herein you learned men I recognize:
What you touch not, miles distant from you lies;
What you grasp not, is naught in sooth to you;
What you count not, cannot you deem be true;
What you weigh not, that hath for you no weight;
What you coin not, you’re sure is counterfeit.”
There is always a danger that science leads to pride, particularly
to that kind of pride which the Germans call _Gelehrtenstolz_ and
_Professorendünkel_. This danger is especially great in the case of
specialists. Professor Paulsen quotes a passage from Kant, in which the
philosopher of Königsberg speaks of “Cyclopses of science,” who carry
an immense weight of learning, a “load of a hundred camels,” but who
have only one eye, namely that of their own specialty.[572] They lack
entirely the “philosophic eye,” with which they see the relations of
things to one another. Of such men Schopenhauer, in his wonted forcible
but not over-polite manner, has said: “The man who, disregarding
everything else, studies one branch, will in this branch be superior
to the rabble (_vulgus_), but in all the rest he will belong to it.
If to this specialization is added a thing which now-a-days becomes
more and more common, namely, the neglect of the ancient languages, in
consequence of which the general humanistic culture is dropped, then we
shall see scientists who, outside their special branch, are real oxen.”
This danger can be obviated only by a solid general training. But the
earlier the specialization begins, the greater shall be the temptation
to disregard all other branches, and to despise all those who know
little about this special subject, no matter how much they know in
other branches. This is intellectual pride, as contemptible as it is
ridiculous.
After having described some of the effects which must necessarily
result from electivism, as defended by some, we now turn to a plain
question, which has been well stated by Professor Münsterberg. “Are
elective studies really elected at all? I mean, do they really
represent the deeper desires and demands of the individual, or do they
not simply express the cumulation of a hundred chance influences? I
have intentionally lingered on the story of my shifting interests in
my boyhood; it is more or less the story of every half-way intelligent
boy or girl. A little bit of talent, a petty caprice favored by
accident, a contagious craze or fad, a chance demand for something
of which scarcely the outside is known,--all these whir and buzz
in every boyhood; but to follow such superficial moods would mean
dissolution of all organized life, and education would be an empty
word. Election which is more than a chance grasping presupposes first
of all acquaintance with the object of our choice. Even in the college
two thirds of the elections are haphazard, controlled by accidental
motives; election of courses demands a wide view and broad knowledge
of the whole field. The lower the level on which the choice is made,
the more external and misleading are the motives which direct it. A
helter-skelter chase of the unknown is no election. If a man who does
not know French goes into a restaurant where the bill of fare is given
in the French language, and points to one and to another line, not
knowing whether his order is fish, or roast, or pudding, the waiter
will bring him a meal, but he cannot say that he has ‘elected his
course.’ From whatever standpoint I view it, the tendency to base the
school on elective studies seems to me a mistake,--a mistake for which,
of course, not a special school, but the social consciousness is to be
blamed.”[573]
The same truth has been expressed in very plain language by other
American educators. We mention a few utterances of more recent date.
President Draper, of the University of Illinois, declared recently:
“Children are being told that they should elect their studies. They
cannot elect.”[574] Professor Peck of Columbia University, reviewing
Father Brosnahan’s answer to President Eliot’s charges, speaks of the
latter’s “theories which have made Harvard into a curious jumble of
college and university, and which President Eliot would like to see
carried down into the schools, in the apparent belief that babes and
sucklings have an intuitive and prophetic power of determining just
what is going to be best for them in all their after life.”[575] Mr.
Tetlow, of Boston, calls the elective system “elective chaos, and
philosophical anarchism,” and he lays down these propositions: the
students are not competent to direct their own studies; most of the
parents are utterly incompetent to make an intelligent choice, too many
will readily accept the choice made by the children; the principals
and teachers are in most cases incompetent to make a wise choice for
the pupils, as they are hardly ever sufficiently acquainted with
the individual scholars.[576] Indeed, to make such a choice for the
individual would require nothing less than “direct revelation from on
high,” as no man knows sufficiently the talent and possibilities that
may lie dormant in the mind of a young student. If this system is the
outcome of the much vaunted child study and pedagogical psychology,
we have little reason to boast of this modern science. And we think
those are amply justified who, against this “apotheosis of individual
caprice,” defend the old system which prescribes those branches that
give a solid general training and thereby prepare the mind for taking
up successfully any specialty in due time. The philosophical basis of
this system is undoubtedly sound, whereas the elective system fully
deserves the stigma of “philosophical anarchism”.
We have purposely dwelt longer on the question of “electives,” as
a serious charge has recently been raised against the educational
institutions of the Jesuits for not accepting the electivism of some
modern reformers. After having quoted the opinions of leading educators
on that subject, we may ask: Was that charge justified?--It is
superfluous to ask, whether the Society will ever adopt that excessive
electivism advocated by several educationists. The Society considers
this system as destructive of thorough education.
As early as 1832 the General of the Order, in an encyclical letter on
education addressed to his subjects, thus spoke of new inventions: “As
to the methods, ever easier and easier, which are being excogitated,
whatever convenience may be found in them, there is this grave
inconvenience: _first_, that what is acquired without labor adheres
but lightly to the mind, and what is summarily gathered is summarily
forgotten; _secondly_, and this, though not adverted to by many, is
a much more serious injury, almost the principal fruit of a boy’s
training is sacrificed, which is, accustoming himself from an early age
to serious application of mind, and to that deliberate exertion which
is required for hard work.”[577] A comparison with former quotations
shows an almost literal identity of these remarks with those of Prof.
Münsterberg and other American educators. This agreement, in our
humble opinion, is no discredit to either party. Before concluding
this chapter, we repeat once more that the Jesuits are not absolutely
opposed to the election of courses or branches. But they think with
many other educators that the elective system could work well only with
_many_ limitations and safeguards. Such limitations are nothing else
but prescriptions of certain branches.
FOOTNOTES:
[557] Hanus, _Educational Aims and Educational Values_ (1900), pp. 76,
78.
[558] _Ibid._, p. 78.--However, a writer in the _Electrical World_
(Oct. 25, 1902) maintains that “the present anomalous status of the
college is due perhaps more to its own laudable but ill-judged ambition
than to the pressure of the times.”
[559] _Ibid._, p. 26.
[560] _Atlantic Monthly_, Oct. 1899, p. 443.
[561] The Italics are ours.
[562] _German Higher Schools_, p. 409. See above p. 9.
[563] _The College Student and his Problems_, by J. H. Canfield,
formerly chancellor of the University of Nebraska and President of Ohio
State University. (New York, MacMillan, 1902) pp. 44-46.
[564] _Life of James McCosh_, p. 201.
[565] _Ibid._, p. 200.
[566] Weissenfels, _Die Bildungswirren der Gegenwart_, pp. 324-329.
[567] _Romans_ 7, 18.
[568] _Atlantic Monthly_, October 1900.
[569] _The Forum_, January 1901, p. 592.
[570] Peter Townsend Austen: “The Educational Value of Resistance,”
_North Am. Rev._, May 1898.
[571] See Francis J. Barnes, M. D., _Catholic Education_. A Lecture
delivered at Boston, April 28, 1901.
[572] _Die deutschen Universitäten_, Berlin 1902, p. 219.
[573] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1900, pp. 665-666.--To judge from
numberless comments in newspapers and magazines, Prof. Münsterberg’s
article seems to have caused a great stir, as coming from one of the
most prominent Professors of Harvard, the centre of the movement
towards electivism. The New York _Nation_, on May 17, page 379, said
as follows: “If Professor Münsterberg’s article on ‘School Reform’ in
the _Atlantic_ cannot be answered effectively, something is radically
wrong with our scheme of education.” Various attempts were made to
answer the Professor’s indictments of the elective system, v. g. in
the _Educational Review_, June and September 1900. But the answers
were anything but effective. The _Nation_ had said, “what we are most
curious to know is what they think about it at Harvard.” A Graduate
Student wrote soon after from Harvard: “I wish to call attention to
a result of the elective system which he [Prof. Münsterberg] has not
mentioned, and which might even strengthen his argument--a result most
disgraceful, yet most common, and whose truth cannot be ignored. I
refer to the undisguised custom of electing ‘snap courses,’--courses in
which, for various reasons, good marks can be made without much work.
For the desire for honors, and the fear of being thought a ‘dig’, are
two very potent factors in determining a choice.” (_Nation_, May 24,
p. 396.) This statement is not at all surprising; it confirms what
intelligent men had expected from such a system.
[574] _Educational Review_, May 1902, p. 455.
[575] _Bookman_, April 1900.
[576] _Educational Review_, January 1901. We may be excused for quoting
the following lines from the same Review, May 1900, which not unaptly
travesty the elective system:
Most pupils, like good-natured cows,
Keeping browsing and forever browse;
If a fair flower come in their way,
They take it too, nor ask, “what, pray?”
Like other fodder it is food,
And for the stomach quite as good.
[577] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 291.
CHAPTER XII.
Classical Studies.
Much has been written within the last few decades for and against the
value of the study of the classical languages and literature.[578] Some
writers, especially fanatical advocates of “modern” culture, see in the
humanistic school only a gloomy ruin of the time of the renaissance,
which stands in the midst of the grand structures of modern culture,
half monastery, half pagan temple. Latin and Greek philologists have
built their nests in its dilapidated walls, like owls that shun the
bright light of day, and in the dusk they flutter about to frighten and
torment poor children with their cries of monstrous Latin and Greek
forms. Others, the one-sided admirers of the “practical” studies, above
all of the natural sciences, decry the classical studies as useless,
because they do not teach the rising generation how to build bridges or
war vessels, how to make aniline colors, or how to utilize best the oil
fields of Texas, or the Western prairies. These men do not appreciate
classical studies because, to use the words of Brownson, they cannot
reduce them immediately to any corresponding value in United States
currency. They would rather fill their pockets with Attic _oboli_ and
_drachmae_ than their brains with Attic thought. In a word, to them
education is only the wild race after the hen that lays the golden
eggs. All other requirements they count for nothing. Such views are
based on an utter misconception of the intellectual scope of education,
and on sheer ignorance of the educational value of the classics. This
point we endeavor to illustrate in the present chapter.
The Society of Jesus has always valued classical studies most highly.
In the preface to his _Ratio Discendi et Docendi_, Father Jouvancy
says: “Any one acquainted with the Society of Jesus knows how highly
she always esteemed the classical studies.” Of late the Society has
even been censured for clinging tenaciously to them, as to a venerable,
but now out-of-date, curriculum. Be it remarked from the very outset,
that the Society upholds the classical curriculum not because this is
the old traditional system, but because it has so far proved the best
means of training the mind, which is the one great end of education.
The various branches of studies are the means to this end. Should other
means prove better than the classical languages, the Jesuits would
not hesitate to accept them. They would teach, let us say French and
German, instead of Latin and Greek.[579] They would not have to change
their system, they would apply it only to the new branches. And the
much lauded new method of teaching modern languages by practice and
exercise, is essentially what the Ratio Studiorum has insisted on all
along. However, the Jesuits are not so short-sighted as to claim for
the classical studies the educational monopoly which these studies held
in former ages. It cannot be denied that the so-called modern high
school, which has a curriculum of English, some other modern languages,
mathematics, and natural sciences, answers to particular needs of our
age. It is especially fitted for those who want to devote only a few
years to study after the completion of the elementary course. For this
reason the Jesuits have opened in various countries such “modern high
schools,” v. g. the _Institut St. Ignace_, Antwerp. In some of these
schools they employ for many branches secular professional teachers,
for instance in the successful “army class” attached to the College
at Wimbledon, England. Still they think that the best preparation for
the professions and for all who wish to exert a far-reaching influence
on their fellow-men, is the complete classical course, together with
mathematics, history, and a certain amount of natural sciences. They
think, and with much reason, that the classical studies even at present
should form the backbone of liberal education. They think, with many
other prominent educators, that the humanistic studies train the _man_,
whereas the sciences train the _specialist_.
This is not the place to discuss fully the question of the value of
the study of Latin and Greek for liberal education or general culture.
Still, we cannot refrain from enumerating a few testimonies in their
favor; and that they may be the more effective, we shall exclude those
of professors of classical languages, who in this matter might be
looked upon as prejudiced witnesses who speak _pro domo sua_. Many
interesting statements were made some ten years ago by the ablest
schoolmen of Germany in the famous Berlin Conference preparatory to
the “New Plan of Studies” for the Higher Schools of Prussia, which
was promulgated in 1892.[580] The relative educational value of the
various branches was discussed most thoroughly, and it is surprising
to find what professors of mathematics, natural sciences, and medicine
have to say in favor of classical studies. Dr. Holzmüller, Director of
a commercial and industrial school, said: “I am a mathematician and
professor of mathematics, a thorough Realist, but I sound a warning
against exaggerating the educational value of mathematics in higher
schools. The range of thought and ideas in mathematical studies is
narrow; whereas the linguistic studies have many more forms of thought
at their disposal.”[581] Professor Helmholtz of the University of
Berlin, one of the leading scientists of the nineteenth century, said
in the same conference: “The study of the ancient languages alone
has so far proved to be the best means of imparting the best mental
culture.”[582] As a proof he gives his own experience in the physical
laboratory of the Berlin University, where the students that had made
the classical course, after one year’s laboratory work surpassed those
who had made the so-called science course (_Realschulen_), although the
latter had studied much more natural science than the former. Professor
Virchow, one of the greatest medical authorities, although strongly
opposed to the then prevailing methods of the gymnasium, made a plea
for the classical studies, saying that “the dropping of Latin would
prove most dangerous and injurious to the medical profession.” It is a
well known fact that this famous pathologist, who died but a few months
ago, was an enthusiastic student and admirer of Greek Literature.
The verdict of these scholars was based on personal experience made
at the University of Berlin some years before. In 1899, seven years
after Latin had suffered a severe loss in consequence of the School
Order of 1892, Professor Virchow bitterly complained in the German
Parliament, that “grammar had been kicked out of the gymnasia, and with
it logic.”[583]
The graduates of the German schools which deal with practical
subjects, and prepare students for commercial pursuits, or for entrance
into polytechnic institutes, were at first debarred from entrance into
the universities, being considered unqualified for university work;
but in 1870 they were admitted, on equal terms with the graduates of
classical schools, to the philosophical department of the universities.
After ten years trial of this plan the philosophical faculty of
the University of Berlin addressed to the Ministry of Instruction
a memorandum, which is declared to be the most powerful plea ever
made in behalf of classical studies. They declared unhesitatingly
that the students of the practical schools were not fitted to pursue
a university course on a par with the graduates of the classical
schools, and that, if the plan was reversed, German scholarship would
soon be a thing of the past. Even the representatives of science and
modern languages in the faculty joined heartily in this judgment. In
specifying the reasons why the admission of the non-classical graduate
was injurious to the interests of higher education, the thirty-six
professors mentioned slower development, superficial knowledge, lack of
independent judgment, inferiority in private research, less dexterity,
want of keenness, and defective power of expression.
Since 1890 new and significant results were obtained in Germany,
which prove that the classical course, besides the better liberal
training which it imparts, is no less fitted as a preparation for
technical studies than the courses pursued in the _Real-Gymnasium_
and the _Oberrealschule_. This was attested in the last Berlin
Conference (1900), by professors of the Technical Institutes. The
Professors of the Technical Institutes, v. g. of Aix-la-Chapelle,
adduced statistics to this effect from their respective schools.[584]
Professor Launhart of the Technical Institute (_Hochschule_) of Hanover
stated that, from 1890-99, 1209 candidates were examined; 583 from
the humanistic gymnasium, 588 from the _Real-Gymnasium_, and 31 from
the _Oberrealschule_. The results of the examinations proved that the
different courses had been equally efficient in preparing pupils for
the technical studies. Be it remembered that the humanistic gymnasium
devotes less time to mathematics and natural sciences, studies
specially required for the technical schools, than the other two kinds
of schools. This result, therefore, speaks very well for the solid
mental training of the classical schools.
Still more interesting are the statements of Dr. Vogt, who is
professor of mathematics in parallel classes of the humanistic
_Gymnasium_ and the _Reform-Gymnasium_ at Breslau. This position gives
him an exceptional opportunity to compare the results of the two
systems. In the lower classes of the Reform-School French is taught,
in the humanistic gymnasium Latin. Professor Vogt and his colleagues
made the following observations in the third class (_Quarta_): In 124
hours of the Reform-School they could not achieve more than in the
84 hours of the Latin course. Age, talent, and other conditions of
the students were compared, and it was found that all in all the two
classes were equal. Does it not necessarily follow from this fact that
French does not afford the same mental training as Latin? Professor
Vogt maintains in general, that the pupils of the gymnasium acquire
less in mathematics than those of the _Real-Schulen_, if the _extent_
of knowledge is considered, but that their knowledge of mathematics is
more _intense_, more thorough. This he ascribes to the more intense
and more thorough training that Latin affords.[585] In fact, this
contention is amply proved by the above mentioned results obtained in
the Technical Institutes.
The following testimony of a distinguished German writer, who had
a large experience in this matter, may claim the attention of all
educators. Dr. Karl Hildebrand writes: “If it were conceivable that
a youth should entirely forget all the facts, pictures, and ideas he
has learned from the classics, together with all the rules of Latin
and Greek grammar, his mind would still, as an instrument, be superior
to that of one who has not passed through the same training.[586] To
give an example, I may state that in my quality of inspector it was my
duty to visit a very large number of French _lycées_ and _colleges_,
each of which is usually connected with an _école speciale_ or
_professionelle_, and here I found that the classical pupils, without
exception, acquired more English and German than the others, in less
than a quarter of the time. (The time devoted to living languages was
six hours a week for four years in the special, and only one hour and
a half a week for three years in the classical schools.) The same
fact struck me in my visits to the German, Belgium, Dutch, and Swiss
colleges.... A similar experience may be gathered from practical life.
One of the first bankers in a foreign capital lately told me that in
the course of a year he had given some thirty scholars--who had been
educated expressly for commerce in commercial schools--a trial in his
offices, and was not able to make use of a single one of them, while
those who came from the grammar schools, although they knew nothing
whatever of business matters to begin with, soon made themselves
masters of them.”[587]
The same evidence may be given for England. English papers, on
the experience of leading English firms, combated the idea that a
university degree was of no use to a man intended for business.[588]
Mr. Bryce, no mean authority on this subject, concludes the article in
which he advocates a special commercial training, with this significant
remark: “This paper is not designed to argue on behalf of what is
called a modern or non-classical education. I am not one of those who
think that either the ancient languages, or what are called ‘literary’
or ‘humanistic’ subjects, play too large a part in our schools, either
in England or in the United States. On the contrary, I believe (basing
myself on such observations as I have been able to make) that Latin and
Greek, when properly taught, are superior as instruments of education
to any modern language, and that ‘literary’ subjects, as history, are
on the whole more efficient stimulants to the mind (taking an average
of minds) than mathematics or natural science.”[589]
If Mr. Huntington, the late railroad king, disapproved of colleges,
because their training unfitted the young men for practical life, and
discounted their chances for becoming millionaires, the right answer
seems to have been given by President Jones of Hobart College. “Boys
who have followed science, mathematics, and literature to their best
results, are not, upon graduation, anxious to be brokers’ runners or
bank clerks at five or ten dollars per week, and do not exhibit a
dawdling inaccuracy, whatever their pursuits. The fresh graduate Mr.
Huntington complained of has usually ‘skinned through college,’ and
has been unsatisfactory there also.”[590] He was one of the “students”
who found football reports more enticing than the Latin and Greek
classics; hence “their shortcomings and their commercial inefficiency
are evidently not the results and handicaps of scholarship.”
Here we must add that the popular argument against the classical
studies is very superficial. We hear it often said: Of what use are
these studies? Men in after life mostly throw aside Latin and Greek;
there are exceedingly few who after leaving school take a classical
author into their hands. Let us grant it. But does it not follow, then,
that the study of mathematics and natural sciences is equally useless
except for those who become engineers or chemists? Or who, except a
professional mathematician, ever in after life looks at logarithms,
equations and the like? But there are many instances on record of men
in prominent positions who with pleasure returned to the classics,
which they had learned to cherish in college. We may quote one instance
of a Jesuit pupil, whose name is indelibly engraved in the annals of
American history, we refer to Charles Carroll, of Carrollton. Bishop
England says of him: “I have known men who, during protracted lives,
found in the cultivation of the classical literature that relaxation
which improved, whilst it relieved the mind. The last survivor of those
who pledged their lives and fortunes, and nobly redeemed their sacred
honor in the achievement of our glorious inheritance of liberty, was
a striking instance of this. When nearly fourscore years had passed
away from the period of his closing the usual course of his classical
education--after the perils of a revolution, after the vicissitudes
of party strife, when the decay of his faculties warned him of the
near approach of that hour when he should render an account of his
deeds to that Judge who was to decide his fate for eternity, from his
more serious occupations of prayer and self-examination, and from the
important concern of managing and dividing his property, would Charles
Carroll, of Carrollton, turn for refreshment to those classic authors
with whom he had been familiar through life:--his soul would still feel
emotion at the force of Tully’s eloquence, or melt at Virgil’s pastoral
strain.”[591]
This much is certain from what has been said so far, that the
advocates of “practical” studies indulge in a grave delusion when they
object to the classical studies. Their usefulness even for a commercial
and political career is undeniable, as President Stryker of Hamilton
College pointed out in 1901. He said, it should be remembered that
the best preparation for a practical and useful life is in the high
development of the powers of the mind, and that, commonly, by a culture
that is not considered practical. The great parliamentary orators in
the days of George III. were remarkable for the intellectual grasp
and resource they displayed in the entire world of letters, in the
classics, in ancient and modern history. Yet all of them owed their
development to a strictly classical training in the schools. And
most of them had not only the gift of imagination necessary to great
eloquence, but also had so profited by the mental discipline of the
classics, that they handled the practical questions upon which they
legislated with clearness and decision. The great masters of finance
were the classically trained orators, William Pitt and Charles James
Fox. Such an education puts no premium upon haste, nor does it discount
future power by an immature substitution of learning for training.
It is structural towards the whole man, and seeks to issue him, not
“besmeared, but bessemered.” It considers the capable metal more than
the commercial false edge. Self-realization is the end.[592]
The testimonies given so far undoubtedly outweigh the contemptuous
charges which sometimes are hurled against colleges and higher
education, by a few “self-made” men, who boast of their ignorance and
proudly point to the millions which they were able to amass without any
liberal education. These men and some other worshippers of the ‘golden
calf’ frequently ask: “Of what use is the study of the classics? What
can I do with Greek?” We have heard that the study of the classics
is of very great use, also for practical life, and the fact that
a few have become rich without them, does in no way prove against
their usefulness. But let us for a moment entirely abstract from the
utilitarian point of view and rise to higher conceptions of life. Too
much has the spirit of the market place invaded the field of education;
and the interests of a liberal training have too often been sacrificed
to an insatiate commercialism. Is the highest goal of intellectual
and social life nothing but the rearing of a few millionaires? No,
there must be a higher aim of education, for the nation as well as the
individual. A nation that aims at nothing but industrial and commercial
expansion, neglecting the higher ideals of mankind, may flourish for a
time, but will not contribute much to real civilization. History has
proved this. Take the Carthaginians; for a considerable length of time
they held the commercial supremacy among the nations. Even intellect
there was in the service of capital. The economical principles of a
later and more advanced epoch are found by us in Carthage alone of all
the more considerable states of antiquity.[593] But not this “nation of
shop-keepers” has civilized the world, but poor Greece, whose culture,
continued into the literature of Rome, together with the studies which
it involves, has been the instrument of education, and the food of
civilization, from the first times of the world down to this day.[594]
May we not find a lesson in this fact? This country has made marvellous
strides in industrial and commercial enterprise, but should it not aim
at becoming a leader in the world of science, literature and art? In
order to assume this leadership, the country must aim at thoroughness
in education, and at solid, productive scholarship.[595] Now, so far
the classical studies have proved the best basis of thorough education
and solid scholarship, and doubtless will continue to do so in the
future. The inference from this seems to be evident.
Fortunately, in this country, a reaction seems to have set in against
the realistic tendency of our secondary schools, and people who have
the real education of the nation at heart, are more and more converted
to the conviction that the classical studies are most useful, if not
necessary, for a liberal culture. It will be interesting to hear
what the great journalist, Charles A. Dana, thought of the relation
of classical studies to journalism. In a lecture delivered at Union
College, Schenectady, N. Y., October 13, 1893, he said: “Give the
young man (who is entering upon journalism) _a first class course
of general education_: and if I could have my own way, every young
man who is going to be a newspaper man, and who is not absolutely
rebellious against it, should learn _Greek_ and _Latin after the good
old fashion_. I would rather take a young fellow who knows the _Ajax_
of Sophocles, and who has read Tacitus, and who can scan every Ode of
Horace--I would take him to report a prizefight, or a spelling match,
for instance, than to take one who has never had these advantages.”[596]
Professor West of Princeton University stated in 1899 that a change of
profound significance is taking place in our secondary schools.[597]
This change is an improvement, but in reality it is a return to the
‘old-fashioned’ classical courses, and the writer aptly styles it a
‘New Revival.’ As one important cause of the change now in progress he
assigns dissatisfaction with former school programmes of study. There
were too many studies crowded into the programme. In other words,
American opinion is moving steadily, and irresistibly, toward the
sound elementary and elemental conviction that the best thing for the
mass of pupils in secondary schools is a programme consisting of a few
well-related studies of central importance, instead of a miscellany.
Is there sufficient evidence, then, that this tendency of things is
becoming strongly marked among us? Is attention being more and more
concentrated on a few well-related leading studies which have been
important in the best modern education? Let us see. Take out all the
secondary studies for which statistics are available from 1889-90 to
1897-98:
Enrollment Enrollment Perc’t’ge of
Studies. in ’89-90. in ’97-98. Increase.
1. Latin 100,144 274,293 174
2. History (except U. S.) 82,909 209,034 152
3. Geometry 59,781 147,515 147
4. Algebra 127,397 306,755 141
5. German 34,208 78,994 131
6. French 28,032 58,165 107
7. Greek 12,689 24,994 94
8. Physics 63,644 113,650 79
9. Chemistry 28,665 47,448 65
The importance of the figures is the more evident when we bear in
mind that the rate of increase in the total enrollment of pupils from
297,894 in 1889-90 to 554,814 in 1897-98 is 86 per cent. But certain
studies are growing faster than this; some of them much faster. _Latin,
to the surprise of many, heads the list with its literally enormous
gain of 174 per cent., a rate fully double the 86 per cent. which
represents the eight year increase in the total number of pupils._ Next
comes history with 152 per cent., then the two mathematical disciplines
(geometry with 147 and algebra with 141), and then German with 131.
After these we find French with 107, and Greek with 94. All these and
only these exceed the average. Physics and chemistry close the list
somewhat below. Prominent educators all the world over hail this “new
revival” as one of the most promising signs of the educational movement
in America.
The foregoing pages contain sufficient proof that the Ratio Studiorum
does not need any defence for giving such prominence to the study
of the classical languages, especially to Latin. On the contrary,
it speaks well for the educational wisdom of the Jesuits that for
about a century, despite the sneers of many modern school reformers,
they firmly upheld that method to which the more prudent educators
steadfastly adhered, and to which others, after roaming about far and
wide, now wish to return.
It may be asked why the study of the classical languages is the best
means of intellectual training and universal culture. The reasons are
manifold. The first is the very fact for which this study is frequently
attacked, namely, that these languages are dead languages. “They are
not the language of common life. They are not picked up by instinct
and without reflection. Everything has to be learned by system, rule,
and formula. The relations of grammar and logic must be attended to
with deliberation. Thought and judgment are constantly exercised in
assigning the exact equivalents of the mother tongue for every phrase
of the original. The coincidence of construction is too little, the
community of idiomatic thought too remote, for the boy’s mind to catch
at the idea, by force of that preestablished harmony which exists among
most modern tongues. Only the law of thought and logic guides him,
with the assistance of a teacher to lead the way, and reassure his
struggling conception.”[598]
This, then, is the first point of the study of the classical
languages: _logical training_, training that leads to correct and clear
thinking, to close and sharp reasoning.[599] The study of Latin is
better adapted to accomplish this effect than any other language; for,
whereas Greek is more delicately organized, more beautiful and poetic,
the Latin is perhaps the more systemically elaborated tongue. In its
severe syntax it participates in some of the striking qualities of
the Roman character, which seems to have been fitted to legislate, to
govern, and to command, as the great poet has it:
“O Rome, ’tis thine alone with awful sway
To rule mankind and make the world obey.”[600]
The study of Latin requires such application of various rules and
laws that it forces the student to the closest attention, to rigorous
mental discipline. The processes of reasoning which are, at least
implicitly, to be gone through, in translating an English sentence into
Latin, are ample proof of this statement. Suppose a pupil has to render
the following sentence into correct Latin: “As soon as you arrive at
Philadelphia, give him the letter, to prevent him from going to New
York.” He will probably start: _As soon as_: _ubi primum_; _arrive_
is _pervenire_, or _advenire_. Now what tense? _Ubi primum_, together
with _postquam_, etc., is construed with the Perfect Indicative. But
wait, does it always take the Perfect? No, only when a single past fact
is related; is this the case here? That depends on the tense of the
verb in the principal clause: it is _give_. What tense? It is properly
the present tense, but has reference to the future. Therefore, the
whole clause does not express a past but a future fact. In English
_arrive_ is present tense, but in Latin the use of tenses is much more
accurate; if the action of principal and dependent clauses are both
future, they must be expressed by a future tense. Now _arrive_ has a
future meaning; therefore a future tense. But which of the two? First
or second? That depends on the nature of the action; if the verb of the
dependent clause denotes an action antecedent to that of the principal
clause, it must be put in the tense which denotes antecedence. Now,
let us see: the _arriving_ at Philadelphia necessarily antecedes the
_giving_ of the letter; consequently I have to use the second future,
the _futurum exactum_: _ubi primum_--_venio_, Perfect _veni_--well:
_perveneris_. _At Philadelphia_; _at_ is _in_; however, names of cities
are construed without a preposition, they are used in the _locativus_,
which in singular nouns of the 1st and 2nd declensions is like the
Genitive case, therefore _Philadelphiae_. But is there not a rule
about _advenire_, _pervenire_, _congregari_, etc.? They mean _going
towards_, _into_, therefore I must use the construction answering the
question: _whither_, therefore _Philadelphiam_. Very well. Now: _give
him the letter_; _give_: _trade_, _da_; _him_: _eum_, but stop--_eum_
is direct object, while in the given sentence _him_ is indirect,
so it must be _ei_, _trade ei epistolam_.--_To prevent_, is the
infinitive, here it expresses a purpose. Clauses denoting purpose are
not expressed by the infinitive in Latin prose, but by _ut_, _causa_
with the gen. of the Gerund, or _ad_ with the accusative, etc.; take
_ut_: but attend to the sequence of tenses!--_impedias eum_; from
going: _a proficiscendo_? No! but: _quominus_ or _ne proficiscatur_.
To New York--_Neo-Eboraco_?--Very often pupils use the Dative, not
having been instructed from the beginning about the difference of _to_,
meaning _towards_, _into_, and _to_, meaning _for the benefit_, _in the
interest of_; here _Neo-Eboracum_. Now the sentence is complete: _Ubi
primum Philadelphiam adveneris, epistolam ei trade ut impedias eum,
quominus Neo-Eboracum proficiscatur._
Is it not surprising how much intellectual labor is spent, and well
spent, in translating that little sentence?[601] How many syllogisms
were formed, or are at least implied? Père Fabri, a French Jesuit
teacher, wrote in 1669: “Besides literary accomplishments gained from
the study of the classical languages there are other advantages to be
derived, especially an exquisite power and facility of reasoning. For
in the writing of verses, in the examination of words and contents,
a constant analysis and combination is required which helps the mind
wonderfully to sound reasoning.”[602] Indeed, the study of these
languages is a course of applied logic. Immanent logic has been called
the characteristic of the Latin language and its grammar.[603] “Latin
grammar,” says Dr. Karl Hildebrand, “is a course of logic presented in
an almost tangible form. Let us only remember how an idea so abstract
as that of subject and object is rendered palpable by the _s_ and
_m_.” We said, the labor was well spent. For, a student who has thus
been trained will acquire the habit of clear thinking. When a doctor,
he will in a given case reason similarly, though not in that cumbrous
form, but pass in a moment, unconsciously, because from habit, through
various syllogisms, and examine whether this or that remedy will
have the desired effect. A patient should naturally have much more
confidence in such a doctor, than in one who has not had the advantage
of the same logical training. The results will be similar in the case
of a lawyer, a politician, a business man, a writer. The father in the
fable told his sons that there was a treasure hidden in his vineyard.
They began to dig the vineyard once, twice, and oftener, in the hope of
finding the treasure. No chests of gold, no bags filled with good coin,
appeared; but in the following year the vineyard yielded immeasurably
more than ever before. Here was the treasure the wise father meant
them to seek after. The same holds good in education. The man in
later life may never again use his Latin or Greek, still the study of
these languages has turned up the soil in the field of his intellect,
fertilized it, and if now it yields a rich harvest, the result is to a
great extent due to that patient digging, although he himself may not,
and in most cases does not, realize to what source his success in life
is to be ascribed.
But the logical training acquired by translating from or into the
ancient languages, although a most important result, is by no means
the only benefit of the study of those languages. There is, besides
this formal side, the _historical_. The Latin and Greek literatures
present to us at first hand all the great masterpieces of antiquity,
which have inspired directly or indirectly most of what is really
great and noble in modern literature. Most deservedly, therefore, have
the classical studies been styled the ABC of all higher studies.[604]
Latin especially is, as Professor Paulsen styles it, “the gate to the
great historical world. No one who wishes to move in wider circles of
historical life can do without Latin.” For similar reasons Director
Jäger maintained the necessity of classical lore for the man who wishes
to possess a title to real scientific preparation for higher studies.
In the last Berlin Conference on higher education, 1900, there was
probably no point so strongly insisted on as the necessity of Latin
for all men who lay any claim to culture. Professor Harnack claimed
that the humanistic training seemed to him especially necessary for
all who had any great influence on their fellow-men and on the social
and political life of a nation.[605] Arnold had expressed a similar
opinion when he said: “Expel Greek and Latin from your schools, and
you confine the views of the existing generation to themselves and
their immediate predecessors, you will cut off so many centuries of the
world’s experience, and place us in the same state as if the human race
had first come into existence in the year 1500.”[606]
There is, in the _third_ place, what we may call the _literary_
and _aesthetic_ momentum. When through means of grammatical studies
the pupil is sufficiently prepared, he begins to read the greatest
masterpieces of literature. Gradually he becomes intimately acquainted
with some of the maturest minds of all ages, provided the teaching is
carried on in the proper form, i. e. if the authors are read not to
furnish merely material for grammatical drill, but in such a manner
that the contents of the authors form the central part of the whole
instruction, that the author begins to live, that the persons seem to
act and speak before the eye of the student. He is thus introduced
to one great author after another. First comes Caesar, whose plain
but vigorous style is the true image of the great Roman general and
statesman, who changed the greatest of republics into an Empire. Then
appears Xenophon with his lifelike descriptions; Livy with his eloquent
history of Rome, full of ardent patriotism; then Cicero, the most
gifted and versatile of all the Romans, with his brilliant style, his
sparkling wit, his cutting irony and stern denunciation of corruption.
Then the student admires Ovid’s elegant verses, Virgil’s grand and
stately lines, Horace’s refined and tasteful stanzas. Then rises
before him the great philosopher Plato, who portrays in fascinating
dialogues the wise man of heathen antiquity, Socrates. If properly
taught, but then only, the student is sure, after the struggle of a few
months, to form an intimate friendship with the ‘Father of Poetry’,
immortal Homer. He will soon realize the greatness of the blind old
man, who lived in the mouths of a hundred generations and a thousand
tribes; who, as Cardinal Newman says, “may be called the first apostle
of civilization;” whose Odyssey and Iliad formed a source of purest
enjoyment to many of the greatest men of history: to Alexander the
Great, Napoleon, Newman, Gladstone, and countless others. We could
continue and mention the powerful harangues of the prince of orators,
Demosthenes, the grand and soul-stirring tragedies of Aeschylus and
Sophocles. But we have enumerated enough to show what wealth and
variety of intellectual food is placed before the classical student in
the course of a few years. By these studies his aesthetical sense is
developed, he acquires imperceptibly that precious gift, which we call
taste.
Sometimes we hear it said that a good _translation_ of these Greek
authors would give us all the advantages we may derive from the study
of the original. Any one acquainted with classical literature knows
what to think of this assertion. Translations are, at the best, what
the reproduction of a grammophone is compared to the original concert
or solo. Father Jouvancy has well observed: “Translations of Greek
authors, even if they are accurate, seldom render the force, beauty,
and other striking qualities of the original. It is always better to
draw drinking water from the source; the further it runs from the
source, the more it is contaminated, and the more it loses its original
taste.”[607]
This opinion is confirmed by the judgment of many modern writers.
Thus Sterne says: “The most excellent profane authors, whether Greek
or Latin, lose most of their graces whenever we find them literally
translated. In the classical authors, the expressions, the sweetness of
numbers, occasioned by a musical placing of words, constitute a great
part of their beauties.”[608] Mr. Genung, Professor of Rhetoric in
Amherst College, speaks thus of the “Untranslatable” in literature: “In
all the higher achievements of literature there must necessarily remain
a great deal that, in spite of the utmost skill, cannot be adequately
reproduced in another language. The thought may indeed survive, though
marred and mutilated, but the subtle spiritual aroma, the emotional
essence perishes in the transmission. This is preeminently true of
poetry. George Henry Lewes, in his _Life of Goethe_, says: ‘In its
happiest efforts, translation is but approximation; and its efforts
are not often happy. A translation may be good _as_ translation, but
it cannot be an adequate reproduction of the original.’”[609] To
single out one instance: there exist numerous translations of Homer’s
Iliad and Odyssey, in prose and verse. And yet, any one familiar with
the most important poetical monument existing[610] can trace but few
remains of the graces which charmed him in the original. Cowper and
Wright have failed in rendering Homer’s rapidity; Pope and Sotheby have
failed in rendering his plainness and directness of style and diction;
Chapman has failed in rendering his plainness and directness of ideas;
and for want of appreciating Homer’s nobleness, Newman has failed more
conspicuously than any of his predecessors. Some passages of Pope’s
translation exhibit the translator’s prodigious talent. But as Bentley
said: “You must not call it Homer.” Chapman’s translation is praised by
Coleridge, who, however, is forced to add: “It will give you a small
idea of Homer.” Dr. Maginn’s Homeric Ballads are vigorous poems in
their own way, but as a Homeric translation very often nothing more
than a travesty.[611] Similar objections may be raised against any of
the other translations of classical poems.
A _fourth_ advantage which the classical studies possess over
mathematics and natural sciences, consists in the _moral_ or _ethical_
element, in the many examples they present of the natural virtues,
examples of heroic patriotism, of filial devotion, and dutifulness.
The example of Socrates, dying in obedience to what he considers
the voice of God, of chaste Penelope, of faithful Eumaeus, and of
many other characters depicted so vividly and graphically with the
inimitable simplicity and skill of the ancient writers, cannot fail
to produce an elevating, ennobling and purifying effect on the hearts
of the young; these examples show us that the sense of moral beauty
was left in mankind even in the midst of the darkness and corruption
of paganism. What have the other branches of study, mathematics and
natural sciences, to offer that could be compared to this? Mathematics
is an excellent means of developing logical thinking, but there its
efficiency stops, it has, as professors of mathematics have said, “a
narrow range of thoughts and ideas.” It certainly does not inspire,
does not elevate. Or whose heart has ever become warmed or ennobled by
fully grasping the Pythagorean system, or by developing (_a_ + _b_)³ or
any other algebraic formula? Whose aesthetic or moral sense has been
refined by analyzing FeS + H_{2}SO_{4} = FeSO_{4} + H_{2}S, or other
chemical equations? Mathematics and natural sciences are justly called
by the Germans _Realfächer_; they impart practical, useful knowledge,
but not ideal, not liberal culture. Newman has well expressed this
difference: “When an idea, whether it is real or not, is of a nature
to interest and possess the mind, it is said to have life, that is,
to live in the mind which is the recipient of it. Thus mathematical
ideas, real as they are, cannot be called living, for they have no
influence and lead to nothing.”[612] The same applies more or less to
the natural sciences, whereas the very opposite holds good of the study
of literature and history.
In the _fifth_ place we mention the gain classical studies yield
to the _mother-tongue_. This is very important for a thorough and
scholarly understanding of the English language, as two thirds or
more of the English vocabulary are words derived from Latin. But the
principal gain in knowledge of the mother-tongue is derived from
careful, idiomatic translations into the vernacular. If translations
are made regularly and accurately, there is little need of giving
special instructions on English grammar and style. In the Berlin
Conference of 1890 some of the leading men, among them Professor
Helmholtz, emphasized this point, saying that “good and idiomatic
translations are an instruction in the German language, which cannot
be appreciated highly enough.”[613] The great Prussian schoolman Dr.
Wiese had long before expressed himself to the same effect, referring
to the example of Dr. Arnold of Rugby, who saw in good translation
the best preparation for writing excellent English. “Whenever it is
attended to,” says Dr. Arnold, “it [translation] is an exercise of
exceeding value; it is in fact one of the best modes of instruction in
English composition, because the constant comparison with the different
idioms of the languages, from which you are translating, shows you in
the most lively manner the peculiar excellence and defects of your
own.”[614] In another passage he writes: “Every lesson in Latin and
Greek may, or ought to be made a lesson in English; the translation
of every sentence in Demosthenes or Tacitus is properly an exercise
in extemporaneous English composition; a problem how to express with
equal brevity, clearness and force in our own language the thought
which the original author has so admirably expressed in his.” “The
practice of translating,” says James Russell Lowell, “by making us
deliberate in the choice of the best equivalent of the foreign word in
our own language, has likewise the advantage of schooling us in one of
the main elements of a good style--precision.”[615] “The old theory is
now reviving _that the teaching of English in the modern fashion is of
little value_, and that the old method of teaching Latin grammar, and
allowing English to take care of itself, is really sounder and more
practical.”[616]
Similar are the words of a prominent schoolman of this country, Mr.
Nightingale, Superintendent of High Schools, Chicago. In the _Report
of the Conference on English_, read before the National Association of
Education at Asbury Park, N. J., 1894, he says: “I would have children
at the age of ten or eleven years commence the study of that language
which in the fields of persuasion and philosophy, of literature and
law, is so largely the progenitor of the English--the incomparable
Latin. If we would be strong we must contend with something--resist
something--conquer something. We cannot gain muscle on a bed of
eiderdown. Toying with straws will only enervate the faculties. The
blacksmith’s arm becomes mighty through his ponderous strokes of the
hammer on the anvil. The very facility of the acquisition of the modern
languages precludes the possibility of discipline. Put Latin into
our common schools, and the puzzling problem of English Grammar will
be nearing its solution, for the _why_ that meets the pupil at every
step, the very laboriousness and difficulty of the task, will open the
intellect, develop the powers of discrimination and adaptation, enlarge
the vocabulary, enable the student to write a better English essay, use
a more terse and trenchant style of speech, and grasp with more avidity
and keenness any promulgated form of thought, than if he should spend
quintuple the time on the study of the English Grammar alone.”
Is it not significant that nearly all the great English writers and
orators were ardent admirers and students of the classical languages? A
Pope, a Dryden, an Addison, a Milton, a Burke, a Pitt, a Tennyson and
a Newman, and others? The younger Pitt gives a student the following
advice: “The practice of rendering the Greek and Roman classics into
English, and of committing to memory the most eloquent passages which
occur in reading, is the best exercise in which the young student can
engage. It imparts a command of language, aids him in acquiring a
forcible style, affords the best mental discipline, strengthens the
memory, cultivates his taste, invigorates his intellect, and gives him
a relish for the sublime and beautiful in writing.” Further, the whole
of English literature is so saturated with classical allusions, that
without a fair knowledge of the more important works of Greek and Roman
writers, it is impossible to appreciate fully, or even to understand
the finest productions of English literature. This being the case, we
have another proof that our modern pedagogists, by exaggerating the
claims of the natural sciences beyond all reasonable bounds, are doing
great harm to literature and liberal culture.
Having reviewed the various advantages which the study of the classics
affords, we may well say with one of the greatest minds of the
nineteenth century: Modern methods and sciences, and “their inestimable
services in the interest of our material well-being, have dazzled the
imaginations of men, and since they do wonders in their own province,
it is not unfrequently supposed that they can do as much in any other
province also. But to advance the useful arts is one thing, and to
cultivate the mind another. The simple question to be considered is
how best to strengthen, refine, and enrich the intellectual powers;
the perusal of the poets, historians and philosophers of Greece and
Rome will accomplish this purpose, as long experience has shown; but
that the study of experimental sciences will do the like, is proved
to us as yet by no experience whatever. Far indeed am I from denying
the extreme attractiveness, as well as the practical benefit to the
world at large, of the sciences of chemistry, electricity, and geology;
but the question is not what department of study contains the more
wonderful facts, or promises the more brilliant discoveries, and which
is in the higher and which is in the inferior rank; but simply which
out of all provides the most robust and invigorating discipline for the
unformed mind.... Whatever be the splendors of the modern philosophy,
the marvellousness of its disclosures, the utility of its acquisitions,
and the talents of its masters, still it will not avail in the event,
to detrude classical literature and the studies connected with it from
the place which they have held in all ages in education.”[617] Goethe,
realizing what debt he himself owed to the classics, exclaimed: “Would
that the study of Greek and Roman literature forever remained the basis
of higher education.”[618]
These are the reasons why the Society of Jesus always gave such
prominence to classical studies. She considers them to be among the
“few well-related studies of central importance;”[619] to them she
would apply the words of Dr. Stanley Hall, quoted before: “Only great,
concentrated and prolonged efforts in one direction really train the
mind.” The mind can never be trained by that miscellany of studies
crowded into the programme of our modern systems. Their effects on
youth were ably pointed out seventy years ago by the General of the
Society, Father Roothaan.[620] “In the lower schools [he means grammar
schools and colleges], the object kept in view is to have boys learn as
many things as possible, and learn them in the shortest time and with
the least exertion possible. Excellent! But that variety of so many
things and so many courses, all barely tasted by youth, enables them to
conceive a high opinion of how much they know, and sometimes swells the
crowd of the half instructed, the most pernicious of all classes to the
sciences and the State alike. As to knowing anything truly and solidly,
there is none of it. _Ex omnibus aliquid, in toto nihil_: Something of
everything, nothing in the end. In the method of conducting the lower
studies, some accessory branches should have time provided for them,
especially the vernacular tongues and literatures. But the study of
Latin and Greek must always remain intact and be the chief object of
attention. As they have always been the principal sources of exhibiting
the most perfect models of literary beauty in precept and style, so are
they still.”
Here it is necessary to meet some objections to the Jesuit system.
It is said that, however much the Jesuits insisted on the classical
studies, they directed them to a wrong end. They aimed only at
“formation of style.” “To write in Latin is the ideal they propose
to their pupils.... They direct the pupil’s attention, not to the
thoughts, but to the elegancies of language, to the elocutionary
effort; in a word, to the form.” Thus M. Compayré.[621] Mr. Painter
tells us even that the Jesuits’ “plan” says: “The study of classic
authors can have for us only a secondary end, namely, to form the
style, we wish nothing else. Style will be formed essentially after
Cicero.”[622] What answer can be given to this serious charge? The
answer is a very simple one: the first sentence of Mr. Painter’s
quotation is untrue. That statement of his is nowhere contained in the
whole Ratio, neither literally nor equivalently.[623] The Ratio and
its commentator Jouvancy state expressly that _various_ things are to
be considered in these studies: knowledge of language, of grammar,
of syntax, precepts of rhetoric, style, and varied erudition.[624]
Jouvancy, in the _schemata_ for explaining the authors, has five or
six points, the first is always the interpretation of the meaning, the
_contents_, the linguistic and logical explanation; then rhetorical or
poetical precepts, then general erudition, and lastly Latinity.[625]
This proves how untrustworthy are the quotations of Mr. Painter and of
other critics of the Ratio. The perusal of the commentary of Jouvancy
refutes also in general the charge of “mere formalism.” However, if by
“formal” is meant the general linguistic training,[626] the Society
has always laid great stress on it. Many scholars begin to deplore the
fact that this “formal” training is being neglected too much in the
new schools. “The great linguistic and logical training which results
from solid and properly conducted instruction in grammar, especially
in another language, particularly in Latin and Greek, has of late been
undervalued--the _nemesis_ for it has come already.”[627]
It is true that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the
Jesuits did not enter as fully into the explanation of the contents
as is demanded at present. But who can blame them for this? It is
true also that they insisted very much on speaking and writing Latin,
much more than is advisable in our days. But so did the Protestant
schools.[628] For this mastery of Latin was at that time of foremost
practical importance, as Latin was the universal language of Western
Christendom, the language of law and science, and the necessary organ
of international intercourse. As it was necessary, therefore, to
teach Latin in such a manner as to enable the pupils to write it,
the Jesuits endeavored to do this as well as possible; hence they
insisted much on a good Latin style, and imitated most of all that
of Cicero, a choice which only some radical critics of the school of
Mommsen can condemn. If even at present the writing and speaking of
Latin is one of the exercises in the Jesuit schools, it is not for the
same practical purpose as formerly, but these exercises are directed
towards the logical training of the mind. Besides, much less time is
devoted to these exercises now than heretofore.--That the writing and
speaking of Latin was never the only object of teaching this language,
is proved from the manner in which the authors were explained; it is
also sufficiently clear from the fact that Greek was always taught in
the Jesuit schools, certainly not for the practical purpose of speaking
it, but for purposes of general training. One of these purposes was to
acquaint the pupils with the classical writers, with their thoughts and
ideas.
But here M. Compayré has discovered another defect in the Jesuit
system. “It is to be noted, besides, that the Jesuits put scarcely
more into the hands of their pupils than select extracts, expurgated
editions. They wish in some sort to efface from the ancient books
whatever marks the epoch and characterizes the time. They detach fine
passages of eloquence and beautiful extracts of poetry, but they are
afraid, it seems, of the authors themselves; they fear lest the pupils
find in them the old human spirit--the spirit of nature.”[629] There
are several fallacies in this assertion. First of all the terms “select
extracts” and “expurgated editions” apparently are used by M. Compayré
as synonymous; but this is not correct. An expurgated edition, v.
g. of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, gives the whole work with
the omission of but a few objectionable passages. Such editions are
certainly not to be called select extracts from these authors. The
Jesuits used to read select extracts from some authors, whose works
are of such a character as to make it impossible to read them entire,
as Juvenal, Tibullus, Catullus, etc. But they read the great works,
the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Aeneid, some of Plato’s Dialogues, the
works of Cicero, etc., in expurgated editions in which only a few
indecent passages were left out. These editions did not efface what
characterized the time, or marked the spirit of the authors. On the
contrary, it would have been directly against the principles of the
Jesuits to suppress all this. For, whereas the Protestant Reformers
and the Jansenists taught that man, unaided by grace, was utterly
corrupt and unable to do anything good, that the seeming virtues of the
pagans, of a Socrates and others, were but gilded vices, the Jesuits
always maintained firmly that fallen man remained capable of performing
some good works. The Jesuits were more than once styled Pelagians
or Semipelagians, because, as their adversaries said, they extolled
human nature too much. The Jesuits could, consistently with their
philosophical and theological doctrine, propose to their pupils the
example of the natural virtues of the pagans.
On the other hand, they were most anxious to show the immense
superiority of the religion of Christ to the philosophical systems of
the ancients; they pointed out the helplessness of Greek philosophy to
raise man above the baser elements of nature, and they showed into what
an abyss of corruption the human race, left to itself, had fallen. All
this instruction they could impart only if they left in the authors
what was characteristic of their time and spirit, except such passages
as on account of their obscenity were not fit to be read by youths.
Here we have the meaning of the saying frequently used by Jesuit
educators: “So interpret pagan authors as to make of them heralds of
Christ.” The religious and moral principles of the ancients were to
be judged by the standard of Christian principles; what manifested
the human spirit in its divine likeness, the testimony of the _Anima
naturaliter Christiana_, as Tertullian says so beautifully, was
approved and recommended; what exhibited that spirit of nature which
is “the enemy of Christ,” was condemned. If M. Compayré reprehends the
Jesuits for doing this, they must be proud of such reproach; for it is
a contumely suffered for defending the teaching of Christ against the
doctrine of rank naturalism.
The Jesuits were never afraid of the ancient authors themselves.
History has proved this. If they had been afraid, they would have
introduced the Christian Latin and Greek authors instead of the pagan
classics. As they possessed almost an educational monopoly in Catholic
countries for about two centuries, it is certain that they would have
succeeded, had they attempted such a change. But they never attempted
this change; on the contrary, they strongly opposed such attempts. It
suffices to allude to the famous controversy carried on with so much
vigor by Abbé Gaume in France, about fifty years ago. This zealous
scholar maintained that the pagan classics infected the schools with
pagan ideas; indeed, he saw in their use in the schools the “fatal
cancer which preys upon the vitals of Christianity.”[630] Christian
Latin and Greek authors should, therefore, be substituted for the pagan
classics. Many distinguished Catholic scholars and writers, such as
Montalembert, Louis Veuillot, Donoso Cortes and others sided with Abbé
Gaume. Among those who most strenuously defended the classics were
the Jesuits, foremost among them Father Daniel. In a most elegant and
learned book[631] this Jesuit proved overwhelmingly that, from the
earliest centuries, the majority of the great Doctors of the Christian
Church were not opposed to the classics, on the contrary that most of
them favored their study, and that the severe language of a few Fathers
is directed not against the classics as such, but against the idolatry
and obscenity contained in many of them.[632]
There was, as far as I can ascertain, only one Jesuit writer
who ranged himself prominently on the side of Abbé Gaume in this
controversy.[633] The Jesuits, as a body, “the greatest of all
educational communities,” as a writer at the time called them,[634]
stood up for the defence of the classics. They did not deny that the
classics contained dangerous elements, which could work evil in men of
bad hearts, or weak heads. But they thought that it was the vicious
organization of the individual, or a pernicious system of teaching, as
that of many humanists, that extracted the poison from the classics
and rejected the sound aliment of intellectual food contained in the
ancient literature. This danger cannot exist for all, and it can be
effectively remedied by wise teaching. As the afore-mentioned writer
declared, “put education into proper hands, and the greatest step
[towards obviating possible evils] is achieved. The present position of
the Jesuits in France is for us a more hopeful sign than would be the
introduction of the very system called for by Abbé Gaume.”[635]
In 1894 M. Jules Lemaître renewed the attacks on the classics,
directing his accusations especially against the Jesuit schools. “I
find,” he writes, “in the pagan authors read in schools voluptuous
naturalism, Epicurean principles, or that Stoicism which is not virtue
but pride. The consequences of this anomalous state of affairs are
incalculable. We cannot wonder that the Jesuit colleges have produced
so many pagans and freethinkers, among them Voltaire.”[636] Now this is
very amusing. This writer accuses the Jesuits of fostering a heathen,
free-thinking spirit, by means of teaching the classics; and M.
Compayré charges them with suppressing the characteristic spirit of the
classical writers. This is one of the numberless contradictions into
which the opponents of the Society have been betrayed. If the classics
were taught in the spirit of M. Compayré, there is little doubt that,
as Abbé Gaume and M. Lemaître apprehended, freethinkers would be
produced. But the Jesuits teach them in quite a different spirit. Hence
the charges of these writers are wide of the mark. Nor did the Jesuits
give mere anonymous fragments, mere travesties of the classics, as M.
Compayré claims. They expunged obscene passages from their editions,
as conscientious non-Catholic editors have done, and that is all.[637]
The reasons for doing this are so obvious that there should be no need
of defending this practice. However, we shall say more on this subject
when speaking of the “Moral Scope of Education.” (Chapter XVII.)
One more word about selected extracts. One of the greatest Greek
scholars of our age, Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf of the Berlin
University, has just published, at the recommendation of the Prussian
Ministry of Instruction, a Greek reader consisting of selected extracts
from different authors and different kinds of literature.[638] The
object of this book is to give the students of the higher classes of
the gymnasium, by means of characteristic selections from various kinds
of writings, a conspectus of the whole range of Greek literature. We do
not wish here to attempt a criticism of such a plan; what we want to
state is that, even at present, great scholars think selected extracts
of great value especially for acquainting the students with the spirit
of a great nation, as expressed in its literature. If, then, the
Jesuits had read chiefly selected extracts--which is not the case--M.
Compayré would not be justified in blaming the Jesuits in particular
for doing this, unless he could prove that their selections were
destitute of all educational value.
FOOTNOTES:
[578] There exists a vast literature on this subject. Of more recent
publications we mention only those of a man whose opinions must be of
special interest to American educators, viz. those of the United States
Commissioner of Education, W. T. Harris: _A Brief for Latin--On the
Function of the Study of Latin and Greek in Modern Education--Place
of the Study of Latin and Greek in Modern Education_, and _Herbert
Spencer and what to Study_ (_Educational Review_, September 1902).
In this last article Commissioner Harris very ably refutes Spencer’s
attacks on the study of the classics.--Of older works we wish to call
attention to one of an American ecclesiastic, which is almost unknown:
_Bishop England’s Address on Classical Education_ (_Bishop England’s
Works_, vol. V, pp. 13-31), in which the advantages of a classical
education are set forth with admirable force and lucidity.
[579] As early as 1843 in the College of Freiburg, Switzerland, besides
Latin and Greek, French, German, English, Italian, and Spanish were
taught, some as obligatory, others as optional branches. Pachtler, vol.
IV, pp. 546 ff.
[580] See _Report of Commissioner of Education_, 1889-90, vol. I, pp.
343-398; and especially Schmid, _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. V,
Abteilung I, pp. 357-422.
[581] Duhr, p. 89 foll.
[582] Schmid, _l. c._, p. 379. (_Rep. of C. of Ed._, _l. c._, p. 372.)
[583] Schmid, _l. c._, p. 443.
[584] _Verhandlungen über Fragen des höheren Unterrichts_, 1902, pp.
10, 18. Be it said, however, that Professor Slaby of Charlottenburg
maintained that the graduates of the Gymnasium in _his_ school were
not as successful in the sciences as those of the scientific schools.
_Ibid._, p. 378.
[585] _Die Mathematik im Reform-Gymnasium_. _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901,
vol. VIII, pp. 190-218.
[586] The same idea is well expressed by Edw. Thring in his _Theory and
Practice of Teaching_: “The trained mind is like a skilled workman with
his tools, the mind merely stocked with knowledge is like a ready made
furniture shop. The one needs but a small outlay to equip, and when
equipped he can always produce the things he wants. The other is costly
to provide, and when provided is good only for the exact articles it
contains.” _The Month_, February 1886.
[587] _Contemporary Review_, August 1880.
[588] See _The Month_, Febr. 1886, pp. 170-176.
[589] _North American Review_, June 1899.
[590] _The Forum_, Jan. 1901, p. 584. However, in the Report delivered
at the Commencement of Yale 1902, President Hadley could quote the
following words of a leading employer of railroad labor: “When I want a
college man, I want a man who knows that it is hard work to use books
that are worth anything; and, as a preparation for railroad service, I
would rather have a man who has used one hard book without liking it--a
Greek dictionary if you please--than a man who thinks he knows all the
experimental science and all the shop work which any school can give
him, and has enjoyed it because it is easy.” The _Yale Alumni Weekly_,
July 31, 1902, p. 433.--And the _Electrical World_ said recently
(October 25) in the article “The College and Business”: “In our
profession such doubts are settled once for all by the great electrical
companies in demanding a college education in those who cast their lot
with them for technical training.”
[591] _The Works of Bishop England_, vol. V, p. 35.
[592] See _Buffalo Commercial_, June 29, 1901.
[593] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, vol. II, ch. 1.
[594] Newman, _Idea of a University_.
[595] See Professor Münsterberg’s article in the _Atlantic Monthly_,
May 1901.
[596] _Buffalo Courier_, Oct. 16, 1893.
[597] _Educational Review_, 1899, October.
[598] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 251.
[599] See above, pp. 333-339.
[600] Virgil’s _Aeneid_, VI.
[601] Professor Bennett, in his _Teaching Latin in the Secondary
School_, pp. 12-22, points out the mental processes to be gone through
in translating from the Latin into English.
[602] _Euphyander_, p. 157; Chossat, _l. c._, 295.
[603] Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. II, 115.
[604] _Verhandlungen._ (_Transactions of the Berlin Conference 1890._)
See Duhr, p. 91.
[605] _Verhandlungen_, 1900, p. 17.
[606] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 35.
[607] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. I, art. I.
[608] Quoted by Cardinal Newman in his _Idea of a University_, p. 271.
[609] _Practical Elements of Rhetoric_, p. 320.
[610] Matthew Arnold: _On Translating Homer_.
[611] Arnold, _l. c._
[612] Newman, _Development of Christian Doctrine_, ch. 1.
[613] _Transactions_; see Duhr, p. 117.
[614] Stanley, _Life of Arnold_, vol. II, p. 112; and Fitch, _Thomas
and Matthew Arnold_, p. 44.
[615] _Democracy and Other Addresses_, p. 126; quoted by Genung,
_Practical Elements of Rhetoric_, p. 320.
[616] Professor Mahaffy, _Irish Endowed School Commission Report_, p.
244.
[617] Cardinal Newman, _Idea of a University_, p. 263.
[618] _Sprüche in Prosa._
[619] See page 344.
[620] Letter of 1832. Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 290.
[621] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[622] _History of Education_, p. 169.
[623] I do not wish to imply that Mr. Painter has consciously committed
this blunder. I suspect it is based on an entirely false translation
of the first Rule for the Professor of Rhetoric, which says that Latin
style should be modeled chiefly after Cicero.
[624] See below chapter XVI, also Reg. _Prof. Rhet. I.--Reg. Hum. I._,
etc.
[625] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. II, art. 4. See below ch. XVI, § 1.
[626] This is the meaning of the term “formal” in many letters of the
Generals, as in that of Father Beckx quoted by M. Compayré, page 145,
where this author misinterprets the phrase “pure form”.
[627] Dr. Hirzel, in _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1902, vol. X, p. 53.
[628] See Paulsen, _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, vol. I, p. 352 and _passim_.
[629] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[630] Gaume, _Paganism in Education_, translated by Robert Hill,
London, Dolman, 1852.
[631] Charles Daniel, S. J., _Des études classiques dans la société
chrétienne_. Paris 1853.
[632] On this subject see two interesting articles in the _Dublin
Review_: “The French Controversy on the Use of Pagan Literature in
Education,” vol. XXXIII, Dec. 1852, pp. 321-336; and “The Gaume
Controversy on Classical Studies,” vol. VII (new series), 1866, pp.
200-228.
[633] _La Natura e la Grazia_, Rome 1865.--The fact that this Jesuit
publicly opposed the views held generally by his fellow-religious, may
furnish material for an important reflection. It is so often asserted
that the Jesuits have to follow, like humble sheep, a certain system
or set of opinions prescribed for them, and that any utterance of
individual views is practically excluded. The whole history of the
Order proves the contrary. Even in theological opinions, as Cardinal
Newman said, the Order is not over-zealous about its traditions,
or it would not suffer its great writers to be engaged in animated
controversies with one another. (_Historical Sketches_, vol. II, p.
369.) We shall have more to say on this subject in chapter XV, when we
treat of the training of the Jesuit teacher. Whenever the Jesuits as a
body defend certain opinions, they do so on the _intrinsic_ strength of
the arguments for these opinions, not for the _extrinsic_ reason of a
tradition of their Order.
[634] _Dublin Review_, December 1852, p. 322.
[635] _Ibid._, p. 335.
[636] _Revue bleue_, Jan. 1894. Chossat, _l. c._, p. 330.
[637] We do not intend by any means to say that all Jesuit editors of
such texts have kept to the golden mean. On the contrary, we admit that
some have gone to extremes. But we do not deal here with individual
cases, but with the general principle.
[638] _Griechisches Lesebuch_. Berlin, Weidmann, 1902. Two volumes
text, two volumes commentary. See on this reader, _Transactions of the
Berlin Conference_, 1900, pp. 205-215.--_Neue Jahrbücher_, 1902, vol.
X, pp. 270-284.--_Monatschrift für höhere Schulen_, Berlin, March 1902,
pp. 158-160, and October. In the April number of this new educational
review, p. 301, it is stated that an English edition of this work is in
preparation.
CHAPTER XIII.
Syllabus of School Authors.
§ 1. General Remarks.
The Ratio Studiorum divides the literary curriculum into five classes.
Father Jouvancy speaks of six,[639] adding that the sixth is sometimes
combined with the fifth. Father Kropf in 1736, in his programme, has
six. Most Jesuit colleges in this country have six classes in the
literary course, to which are added two years of philosophy with higher
mathematics, natural sciences and economics. These eight classes
correspond to the high school and the college course. The four lower
or grammar classes are equivalent to the high school, whereas the
four higher classes: Humanities (Freshman), Rhetoric (Sophomore),
Junior and Senior Philosophy, correspond to the American college,
with one essential difference, “that the work of the Jesuit college
is not professional study, but general culture and preparation for
professional study.”[640]
When in the following pages we speak of the study of the authors,
it is understood that a systematic study of grammar has preceded and
partly accompanies the reading of the authors. Of late there is a
tendency to begin reading too early, almost from the beginning, and to
study the whole grammar inductively. Such reading cannot be fruitful.
Let us hear two German schoolmen on this question. Director Jäger of
Cologne said in the 41st Conference of the German Philologians and
Educators (Munich, 1891): “The reading of the authors should remain
the principal object of the classical training, but it must be an
intelligent reading, reading that is understood because of solid
grammatical training imparted previously. Only thus can the study
of a language become a means of scientific knowledge. Therefore,
sufficient time must be devoted to the grammatical training.” Professor
Seeliger makes the following very timely observations: “One point in
the linguistic training must not be lost sight of: namely, that the
understanding of the authors must be solid; but a solid appreciation
of the authors can be built only on the foundation of a knowledge of
grammar. Teachers now-a-days try too much to keep this end out of sight
for fear of public opinion; some weakly yield to the _Zeitgeist_ and
hush it up altogether, to proclaim the more loudly that the reading of
the authors is the only object of classical instruction. But I think
grammatical discipline is very salutary, even for the youth of the
present age, indeed, a remedy against many dangers of our time. And any
one of us teachers who conscientiously endeavors to make instruction
effective should fearlessly profess to be a _grammaticus_, and act
according to this profession.”[641]
The Ratio Studiorum prescribes the authors to be studied in the
various classes, and in Jouvancy’s commentary and similar documents,
other authors are mentioned which may be read alongside or instead
of those enumerated by the Ratio. As we have seen, the matter and
the order in which the different subjects are to be taught are not
essential to the Ratio. Consequently it is not necessary to follow
strictly the given list. If in any point the Ratio can and must be
adapted to the times, it is in the choice of authors. Therefore,
those which are generally read in other classical institutions of the
country, should be preferred and taught according to the spirit and
method of the Ratio. In fact, all authors read in the modern classical
schools are mentioned in the Ratio or by Jouvancy.
In different ages we find different tastes and opinions. We must
not, therefore, be surprised to find authors recommended as school
books which do not suit our taste. We give here a list of authors as
contained in different documents of the Society.[642] When the Ratio
enumerates many authors for one and the same class, it is understood
that the choice was left to provincial or local superiors.
FIRST GRAMMAR CLASS (first high school class). _Latin:_ easy selections
from Cicero, if possible in separate editions; Fables of Phaedrus,
Lives of Nepos.
SECOND GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ Ratio Studiorum: the same as preceding.
Jouvancy: somewhat more difficult letters of Cicero, Virgil’s Bucolics,
selections from Ovid and other poets.--_Greek:_ Fables of Aesop.
THIRD GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ Ratio Studiorum: Letters of Cicero,
Caesar’s Commentaries, easy poems of Ovid. Jouvancy: Cicero’s _Somnium
Scipionis_, Virgil’s Georgics, especially books I and IV. Ovid’s
Metamorphoses.--_Greek:_ Fables of Aesop; the Tablet of Cebes; select
dialogues of Lucian.
FOURTH GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ more important letters of Cicero; _De
Senectute_, _De Amicitia_ etc.; select elegies and epistles of Ovid, or
selections from Tibullus, Catullus, Propertius, and Virgil’s Eclogues;
or the fourth book of Virgil’s Georgics, the fifth and seventh book of
the Aeneid etc.--Jouvancy: Caesar, Cicero’s _De Officiis_.--_Greek:_
St. Chrysostom (select Homilies), Xenophon.--Jouvancy: Orations of
Isocrates.
HUMANITIES (Freshman). _Latin:_ Cicero, especially ethical writings and
easier orations. Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Curtius etc.; of the poets,
above all Virgil (Aeneid); Odes of Horace, etc.--_Greek:_ Orations
of Isocrates, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, Epistles of Plato,[643] and
Synesius, selections from Plutarch; of the poets: Homer, Phocylides,
Theognis etc. Nadal prescribes besides: Aristophanes.
RHETORIC (Sophomore). _Latin:_ Rhetorical works and orations of
Cicero; Quintilian; historians. Jouvancy: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius
etc.; poets (not specified by the Ratio); Jouvancy: Seneca, Juvenal
etc.--_Greek:_ Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod,
Pindar etc.; also St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and St.
Chrysostom.--Jouvancy: Sophocles or Euripides.--Nadal prescribes
Demosthenes, Thucydides, the tragedians, Pindar, and “all the more
important and more difficult authors.”[644]
From this last statement, and in fact from the whole list, it appears
that all the important authors were included in the Jesuit plan,
and that those who made the sweeping assertion that “the greatest
Greek authors were all excluded from the Jesuit schools,”[645] have
not looked at the documents of the Society. All the most important
authors were explicitly prescribed. It is evident that not all the
authors which are mentioned could be read. The different provinces of
the Society drew up lists, or catalogues of authors, which varied in
different years. Thus in the Province of Upper Germany in 1602-1604 a
_catalogus perpetuus_ was drawn up, i. e. a list of authors to be read
every four or five years. We subjoin the list of the books for Rhetoric
class.[646]
A. D. 1604: Cicero, _Orator ad Brutum_; orations, vol. II.
The Annals of Tacitus. The Tragedies of Seneca.--The
Philippics of Demosthenes. The ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι of Hesiod.
A. D. 1605: Cicero, _Partitiones Oratoriae_; orations, vol.
III. Livy, I. decade. Juvenal--The Olynthiacs of
Demosthenes. Homer, Iliad, books I and II.
A. D. 1606: Cicero, _De Oratore_, three books; orations, vol.
I. Livy, III. decade. Statius, Thebaid.--Isocrates,
Panegyric. Euripides, Hecuba.
A. D. 1607: Cicero, _De Optimo Genere Oratorum_; orations,
vol. II. Tacitus, _Historiae_. Claudian and
Herodian.--Aristotle, Rhetoric. Sophocles.
A. D. 1608: Cicero, _Partitiones Oratoriae_; orations, vol.
III. Statius, _Sylvae_.--Xenophon, Cyropaedia. Homer,
Odyssey, I and II.
In the Province of the Rhine in Rhetoric class were read:
A. D. 1629: Cicero, _Partitiones_; orations, vol. I. _De
Claris Oratoribus_. Horace, Odes, b. III. Seneca,
_Hercules furens_. Livy, I. decade.--Demosthenes,
Olynthiacs. Chrysostom, _De Sacerdotio_, b. IV. Homer,
Iliad, b. IV. Greek epigrams.
A. D. 1630: Cicero, orations, vol. IV. _De Inventione_;
_Orator_. Horace, b. IV. and Epodes. Livy, III. decade.
Seneca, Thyestes.--Homer, Iliad, b. V. etc.
These lists represent a considerable amount of reading from the best
authors. Modern writers object to some of the authors recommended by
the Ratio. However, to avoid unfairness, it should not be forgotten
that the opinions held in former ages about certain authors were
different from those current at present. The same objections can
be made against Protestant school plans of former centuries. Thus
Melanchthon, as well as the Jesuits, considered the smaller poems
formerly attributed to Homer, v. g. the Batrachomyomachia, as a
fit school classic. Also Hesiod, Aratus, Plutarch, and Lucian are
recommended by Melanchthon.[647]
Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, the _Disticha Catonis_, Aurelius
Victor, Eutropius, Lucan, Pliny, Prudentius, Publilius, Sedulius,
Seneca, Severus, Vellejus, Aelian, Aesop, Cebes, Hesiod, Lucian,
Phocylides, Plutarch, Pythagoras, Theognis etc., were read in the
Protestant schools of Brunswick and other countries.[648] Besides, in
these schools the works of the Neo-Latinists, as Buchanan, Castalio,
Eobanus Hessus, Erasmus, Lotichius, Sabinus, Sleidanus and others,
were read more extensively than in the Jesuit schools, which confined
themselves almost exclusively to the ancient classics. As the ancient
authors possess a far superior educational value, the choice of the
Jesuits betokens great pedagogical wisdom.
It is evident that authors like Theognis, Phocylides, etc. are not read
in modern Jesuit schools. In fact the Jesuits have, in the choice of
authors, suited their schools to the times.
It may also be questioned whether it is advisable to read selections
from Cicero’s letters in the lowest classes, as they can be given only
piecemeal; they furnish an excellent subject for higher classes, after
the students have become acquainted with Roman history. For the lowest
class good connected pieces, short stories from history, mythology
etc., as found in Latin Readers, will serve the purpose better than
Cicero’s letters. In the next class the Lives of Nepos may be taken
up, followed by the study of Caesar’s Commentaries in the third. Such
a plan was suggested by the German province as early as 1830. In the
propositions sent to Rome in that year it was said that Cicero’s
letters, with very few exceptions, require a considerable knowledge of
Roman history and should be replaced by select historical passages etc.
from the writings of the same author.[649]
Father Jouvancy, in several chapters of his _Ratio Discendi_, gives
brief notes on the most important Latin and Greek authors and their
characteristics, “to show,” as he says, “in what order they should be
read and what fruit may be derived from their study.”[650] A few of
his remarks, as is to be expected, cannot stand in the light of modern
philological and historical criticism. However, for the greater part
his observations are most judicious and correct. We shall embody the
substance of these chapters of Jouvancy in the following notes on the
authors, supplementing them from the splendid _History of Universal
Literature_ of Father Baumgartner,[651] and comparing them with the
opinions of other prominent scholars.[652]
§ 2. Latin Prose Writers.
CICERO is first and preeminently prescribed by the Ratio for every
grade. And rightly so, if we except the lowest classes. For he
is the master of the Latin language and the best representative
of ancient culture, indeed, as regards Latin oratory, the only
representative.[653] In former times, particularly during the
Renaissance, Cicero was overestimated; now, after the sweeping
condemnations of Drumann, Froude, and Mommsen, it has become the
fashion to treat him with contempt. Cicero finds a more sympathetic,
and we think more just, treatment at the hands of the great Cardinal
Newman, in his _Personal and Literary Character of Cicero_,[654] where
the life of this gifted Roman, his works, and his style are admirably
described. Cicero’s style is so splendid and masterly that the
greatest of the Romans, Caesar, could not help admiring his inventive
powers, which, as Newman says, “constitute him the greatest master of
composition that the world has seen.” Of late years a healthy reaction
has set in against the vagaries of such radical critics as Mommsen and
Froude. Quite recently Professor von Wilamowitz of the University of
Berlin, stated emphatically: “In spite of Mommsen, Cicero must remain
the centre of Latin instruction.”[655]
Which works of Cicero are to be read? The Ratio Studiorum and other
documents mention his epistles, orations, philosophical and rhetorical
works. Some specimens of all these should be studied.
I. Of his _orations_ the following deserve especially to be read.[656]
1. _Verrinae_ I, IV, V; in the fourth, _De Signis_, the marvellous
grouping of the material is highly instructive. 2. _De Imperio
Cn. Pompei_ (_De Lege Manilia_), has a most lucid disposition. 3.
_In Catilinam_, especially the first and third exhibit a splendid
eloquence. 4. _Pro Milone_, distinguished by masterly argumentation. 5.
One or other of the _Philippicae_ (the second seems to be the best).
6. _Pro Ligario_. 7. _Pro Marcello_. 8. _Pro Archia Poeta_ (contains a
magnificent passage on the Liberal Arts).--Cicero’s invectives (against
Catiline and Anthony) are sometimes wanting in gravity, and are too
declamatory; his laudatory orations, on the other hand, are among his
happiest efforts. But all abound in descriptions full of life and
nature, and his skill in amplification is unsurpassed.
II. _Philosophical writings:_
1. The finest part is his _Somnium Scipionis_, on the immortality of
the soul, (in his _De Republica_, which cannot well be read on account
of the many gaps in the text).[657] 2. _Cato Major_, or _De Senectute_,
is clear and easy, and is better than _Laelius: De Amicitia_.[658]
3. _De Officiis_ is well fitted for the highest classes. 4. The
_Disputationes Tusculanae_, especially lib. 1, form good and relatively
easy reading.[659]
III. _Rhetorical Works_. _De Oratore, Orator ad Brutum_ etc., are read
in Rhetoric class (Sophomore).
IV. The _Letters_ of Cicero form the most valuable, as well as the
largest, collection of letters (870 pieces) we possess of any of the
ancients. They are the most important source for the history of this
remarkable period. In a very pleasant manner the writer exposes all his
good and weak points: his honest, although short-sighted patriotism,
his affectionate heart, his fickleness, inconstancy and vanity. Drumann
and Mommsen, who take his naive confessions in a wrong light, are too
severe on Cicero. Professor Mommsen is altogether biased against Cicero
in favor of his hero Caesar. Mr. T. Rice Holmes has well said with
reference to Mommsen: “Historical imagination is a great quality, but
it should not be allowed to run riot.”[660]
These letters are an excellent subject for study in the middle or
higher classes. A selection can easily be made so as to illustrate
Cicero’s stormy career from 62-43 B. C., as well as to reflect the
whole history of that period fraught with events, which were to change
the world’s history. For this purpose the following selection used to
be read in a Jesuit college of this country: _Ad Fam_. V, 1; V, 2; _Ad
Att_. II, 22; _Ad Fam_. XIV, 4; _Ad Att._ IV, 1; _Ad Fam_. VII, 1; XIV,
4; _Ad Att._ VII, 11; _Ad Fam._ XVI, 12; _Ad Att_. VIII, 3 (Cicero’s
opinion of Pompey and Caesar); _Ad Att_. IX, 18 (a highly interesting
description of Cicero’s interview with Caesar); _Ad Att._ XII, 18; _Ad
Fam_. IV, 5 and 6; _Ad Att_. XIV, 12; _Ad Fam_. XI, 27 and 28; XI, 1;
IX, 14; XII, 4; X, 28, _etc._[661]
The translation of Cicero should be exquisite and polished, as is the
noble and refined diction of the original.[662]
CAESAR. Of the character of this “greatest of the Romans,” Mommsen
has given a splendid delineation in his _Roman History_, although this
sketch is overdrawn and entertaining rather than convincing. We have
here to do with Caesar only as historian, particularly as the writer
of the _Commentaries_ on the Gallic War. For simple straightforward
historical style these commentaries remain up to this day, an
unsurpassed model.[663] Caesar’s style is remarkable for clearness,
ease, perfect equality of expression, and a simplicity bordering on
severity. There is something of the _imperator_ or the _dictator_
in his very language. He commands style and language as he does his
legions. After the first difficulties are overcome, the reading ought
to be quick, as that of all histories and epics in general. Continual
references are to be made to the maps. Drawings and plans, illustrating
the descriptions of battles and sieges, will arouse interest and
facilitate the understanding of the text. The translation of this
author, quite different from that of Cicero, should be plain and
forcible, like the original itself. From the historical standpoint it
must not be overlooked that Caesar’s Commentaries are not an unbiased
historical work, but one written for a political purpose, _viz._,
the justification of his proceedings in Gaul. The great general was
also a skilled strategist in writing, a master in the art of grouping
events, so as to represent his measures as justified without losing the
appearance of strict historic objectivity. In particular the speeches
are frequently clever partisan writings. From the ethical point of view
it will be also necessary to indicate occasionally the brutality of
this great imperialist in dealing with the Gallic and German tribes.
Roman military antiquities should be studied in connection with the
reading of the Commentaries,[664] while the civil, political and social
antiquities are best treated in connection with the study of Cicero. So
it was done in the Jesuit schools under the name of “general erudition.”
LIVY’s great history of Rome is not a critical work, but a popular
narrative, written with the warmth of an enthusiastic patriot. His
Latin is not as elegant and grand as Cicero’s, but is, as Jouvancy
says, “forcible and dignified.”[665] In a period of moral decadence
he upheld the old _virtus Romana_, which had made Rome the queen of
the world. Of special beauty are the speeches which Livy makes his
heroes deliver in important moments. They form part and parcel of his
narrative and dramatically exhibit the inner feelings of the principal
personages. Books I and II should be read; but above all XXI and XXII,
the glowing account of the second Punic War, especially Hannibal’s
daring exploit in crossing the Alps.--Care must be taken to analyze his
periods and to render them into shorter English sentences.
SALLUST, in his _Bellum Jugurthinum_ and _Conjuratio Catilinae_, of
which latter event he was a contemporary, gives an insight into the
political machinations and the corruptions of Roman society. His style
is carefully formed after that of Thucydides, and is distinguished for
vigor and conciseness, but becomes sometimes sententious and abrupt.
He is also censured for archaic expressions, and on the whole, lacks
graceful ease and smoothness. The delineations of character, (e. g. of
Catiline, Jugurtha, Marius), have always been considered masterpieces.
Jouvancy rightly says: “Sallust exhibits an abundance of material and a
wealth of ideas.”
TACITUS is the greatest historian of Rome, if not of antiquity.[666]
He was a stern Roman of the old stamp, an enthusiastic admirer of the
_virtus Romana_, which in his time had almost totally vanished. But the
sad condition of his time made him gloomy, pessimistic, and one-sided.
“Tacitus and Juvenal paint the deathbed of pagan Rome; they have no
eyes to see the growth of new Rome, with its universal citizenship, its
universal Church (first of the Emperors, afterwards of Christ).... The
Empire outraged the old republican tradition, that the provincial was
naturally inferior to the Roman: but this, which is the greatest crime
in the eyes of Tacitus, is precisely what constitutes its importance
in the history of the world.”[667] Tacitus’ sympathetic description of
the simple and incorrupt manners of the Germans, in his _Germania_,
was intended to set the Roman corruptions in a more glaring light, and
is evidently too much idealized. In psychological depth, warmth of
feeling, and vigor of expression, Tacitus surpasses even Thucydides.
His style is dignified, manly, studiously devoid of everything feminine
and merely ornamental; it is so brief and concise, as to be often
obscure. Jouvancy says most appropriately: “His sentiments are striking
and profound, so that only deep reflection can fathom them, and mere
reading is not sufficient.”[668] For these reasons his _Annales_ and
_Historiae_ are the proper reading only for the highest classes and for
mature men.
Of other Latin prose authors not much need be said. CORNELIUS NEPOS’
_Biographies of Great Generals_, written in a simple style, form easy
and instructive reading for the lowest classes.--During the Middle
Ages, as well as in the first centuries of the Christian era, one of
the favorite authors was SENECA. The reason is obvious. No philosopher
of antiquity has approached the Christian view of life as closely as
Seneca, so that a legend sprang up that the Roman had become acquainted
with St. Paul and Christianity. Tertullian says: _Seneca saepe noster_,
and Augustine, Jerome, and Lactantius appeal to his testimony. His
letters contain the loftiest moral sentiments,--in sharp contrast with
the author’s life--; “whole letters, with few changes, might have been
delivered in the pulpit by Bourdaloue and Massillon.”[669] However, it
is questionable whether Seneca’s works are suitable reading for young
pupils. A distinguished critic says: “Seneca is not to be read. His
every sentence must have a sharp point, a striking antithesis. This is
no wholesome food for boys.”[670] Jouvancy seems to say the same, when
he speaks of the “abruptness and ruggedness of Seneca’s style.”
§ 3. Latin Poets.
PHAEDRUS wrote several books of fables, partly translations, partly
imitations of the famous fables of _Aesop_. The gracefulness,
precision, elegance, and simplicity of style, make the fables of
Phaedrus excellent reading to start with in lower classes. Besides, his
sound moral precepts afford other pedagogical advantages.
OVID is the most gifted of Roman poets, more brilliant than Virgil,
unsurpassed in his power of describing and “painting,” and in his
ease and fluency of versification. Father Jouvancy, in a few words,
expresses the best judgment that can be passed on this writer: “Would
that he were as chaste and pure as he is elegant and pleasing.” This is
only too true. Therefore, his works must be read with great caution.
There are some of his productions of whose existence young students
should be ignorant. The _Amores, Ars Amandi, Remedia Amoris_, cannot be
condemned in too strong terms. The poet himself confesses: “_Nil nisi
lascivi per me discuntur amores._” Critics, who cannot be suspected of
squeamishness or religious prejudice, have severely censured the erotic
poems of Ovid, as “gems of frivolousness, handbooks of lasciviousness,
which on young readers must produce the effects of sweet poison that
enters into the very marrow.”[671] In some parts of the second and
third book of the _Ars Amandi_, the poet burns a firework, the stench
of which leaves no doubt as to where we are. The poison is all the
more dangerous as it is offered sweetened with the virgin honey of
genuine poetic diction.[672] But even the _Metamorphoses_ contain many
seductive passages, for which reason only selections should be in the
hands of the pupils.
The _Metamorphoses_ are the most important work for class reading.
There is, on the whole, not very much depth of feeling or thought,
but myth after myth is related, in a marvellous variety of detailed
description, in a most fascinating style, and in a truly Homeric
naiveté. Indeed Ovid has little of the stern Roman character; he has
more of the gay, imaginative Greek. As regards his style, the elegance
and unlabored ease of his versification is unrivalled. He says himself
of his facility in writing verses: _Et quod temptabam dicere, versus
erat._[673] The brilliancy of his imagination, the liveliness of his
wit, the wonderful art of bringing every scene distinctly before the
eye, whether he describes the palace of the Sun-God or the cottage of
Philemon, have been universally admired. If properly treated, Ovid will
please and delight boys. Above all, the account of the primeval chaos
and creation should be read. It is, as Father Baumgartner says, “clear
and grand and forms the noblest and most beautiful cosmogony which
classical antiquity and the pagan Orient have handed down.”[674] Then
should be read the four ages of the world, the war with the giants, the
deluge, Phaeton (perhaps the most splendid and highly poetical of his
efforts), Niobe, and the lovely idyl Philemon and Baucis.
The translation of Ovid should be easy and fluent. The students should
be encouraged to translate Ovid into English verse. The study of Greek
and Oriental mythology can easily be connected with the study of the
Metamorphoses. Father Jouvancy, in an appendix to his edition of select
stories from the Metamorphoses, gives a short, but useful account of
the various deities.
Nägelsbach thinks it foolish to torment boys of fourteen or fifteen
years with the _Tristia_ or _Epistolae ex Ponto_, as a youthful mind
could not take interest in those perpetual lamentations. A few pieces,
however, may be read with advantage, v. g. the departure from Rome, or
the poet’s autobiography (_Ep. ex Ponto_ IV, 10), etc.
VIRGIL is “the Prince of Latin poets” (Jouvancy), “the greatest poet
of the Augustan age, the most celebrated imitator of Homer, the master
and model of Dante,[675] the favorite of Augustus and Maecenas, the
friend, whom Horace calls ‘the half of my soul’,[676] and the _anima
candida_, the stainless soul, the ‘Virgin poet’, as he was styled in
Naples.”[677] His language is not as easy and as fluent as that of
Ovid, but is grand, noble and stately; but in his ideas and lofty
sentiments, Virgil is infinitely superior to Ovid.
In modern times Virgil has been severely censured--for not being
Homer. Indeed, he is inferior to Homer in many, in very many points.
But let it not be forgotten that his epic is an entirely different
species of poetry. It belongs to the _artistic_ or _literary_ epic,
whereas Homer’s is _primitive_ epic. Hence it would be unfair to judge
both according to the same standard. Virgil is an imitator of Homer,
and did not come up to his master. For this the critics censure him,
but they should remember the words of Voltaire: “Homer has made Virgil,
they say; if this be true, it is undoubtedly his finest work.”[678]
In his _Eclogues_ or _Pastorals_ Virgil imitates the Greek idyls
of Theocritus. But he is not as varied, lively and natural--at the
same time not as coarse--as his Greek model. Theocritus’ Idyls are
genuine Pastorals, full of rural simplicity of thought and unadorned
style, whereas Virgil’s Pastorals are rather political allegories. For
a full appreciation they require much learning, and hence they are
less fitted for younger boys. The first, however, and above all the
celebrated fourth Eclogue, should be read. On account of this fourth
Eclogue, the poet was considered as a prophet during the Middle Ages.
The mysterious prediction of the son, with whose birth--as the Sybils
foretold--, the golden age was to return, naturally reminds us of the
prophetic passages of Isaias. Virgil evidently refers to the son of a
noble Roman, most probably of Asinius Pollio; but it is highly probable
that he borrowed the idea and some details from Old Testament writings,
whose contents, especially the expectation of a Redeemer, had become
known through the Jews in the dispersion.[679] Pope’s _Messiah, a
Sacred Eclogue_, should be read in connection with this fourth Eclogue
of Virgil.
The four books of the _Georgics_ are the best didactic production in
Roman literature. They have been styled poetical essays on the dignity
of labor, as set against the warlike glory, that was the popular theme
of the day. This is Virgil’s most characteristic work, which breathes
the genuine air of Italy. The language is magnificent, superior to that
of the Aeneid. The work abounds in beautiful descriptions and contains
charming episodes. It is not advisable to read the whole work, as the
student will not be satisfied with such a topic. Select passages,
however, may be studied in class, especially from book II, and book IV
(the life of the bees: their little state, character, pursuits, and
wars).
Virgil’s greatest work, the _Aeneid_, is in many points an imitation
of both _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_; but in its spirit it is a national
poem in the best sense of the word, “a reflection and an echo of all
the grandeur of the history of Rome,”[680] a _prophetia post factum_.
By a most ingenious device, the poet succeeded in exhibiting, and,
as it were, foreshadowing the greatness of historical Rome in its
legendary history. How bold and successful, for instance, is it to
connect the legendary ancestor of the Roman rulers with Dido, the
foundress of Carthage. Her imprecation: “_Exoriare aliquis nostris ex
ossibus ultor_,” is the most clever and most poetical conception of
the Punic wars. Then take the sixth book, where Aeneas, in a grand
vision, sees all the future splendor and glory of Rome, and show
in Homer’s poems, or in any other work, a passage of nobler, more
majestic and more poetical character. It is true, the hero of the
poem, Aeneas, does not inspire the reader. He lacks the fiery passion
and impetuous vigor of Achilles, the chivalrous spirit of Hector, the
inventiveness and cunning of Odysseus. But he is more than all that: he
is the chosen instrument of Divine Providence for bringing about the
greatest achievement in human history: “the settlement of that race in
Italy, from which were to spring the founders of Rome.” Only narrow
prejudice, therefore, can depreciate Virgil’s immortal work. Rightly
has a Jesuit said: “This grand picture warmed with strong national and
religious enthusiasm, elevated by the consciousness of Roman majesty
and dignity, illumined by the light of a higher world, outweighs many a
beautiful passage of the _Iliad_. This is not merely frosty imitation,
not studied artifice, this is poetry, as it can well forth only from
the inspired heart of a true poet. This noble idealism and genuine
enthusiasm is the soul and the life-inspiring principle of the whole
poem.”[681]
I think it is Nägelsbach who says, that every classical scholar should
study carefully all the works of Virgil. For the pupils, of course,
selections must suffice. But, as far as possible, these selections
should give a view of the whole poem. The I. book, the II. (compare
Lessing’s Laokoon), the V., and above all the VI., should not be
omitted. In reading the sixth book, references to Dante’s _Inferno_
should be given throughout. The translation of Virgil is no easy task;
it ought to be noble and dignified.
HORACE is the great lyric poet of Rome. His _Epistles_ and _Satires_,
carefully selected, make good reading for Freshman Class, his
_Odes_ for Sophomore. There is a great variety in his poems. All
show good sense, clear judgment, extraordinary taste and elegance.
His descriptions of nature are true, portrait-like, vivid and very
effective. With the greatest candor he opens his heart to his friends,
without disguising his weaknesses. His shorter poems are light,
graceful and tender. The patriotic Odes are very different. They show
the poet’s aim at effecting some large social or political purpose
and consequently rise to a grander and more dignified tone. Although
reckoning himself among the followers of Epicurus (_Epicuri de grege
porcum_), he rises above the coarser tenets of that school, and many of
his sayings contain much practical wisdom. He is, as Lord Lytton says,
the most “quotable” of authors.[682] He is not easy of translation.
The comedies of PLAUTUS and TERENCE, as Jouvancy says, are written
in pure Latin, but contain many impure things, for which reason they
should be studied in expurgated editions. This point is strongly
insisted on by the Ratio Studiorum.
§ 4. Greek Prose Writers.
Before speaking of the Greek authors, it may be well to make a few
observations of fundamental import. There is a difference between
the study of Greek and of Latin, which seems to be well expressed
in the “Prussian School Order” of 1892 and 1901. There we find as
the object of studying Latin: “The understanding of the principal
authors and logical training;” as the object of the study of Greek:
“The understanding of the principal classical authors.” A similar
distinction was made centuries ago by the Jesuits. As early as 1669
Father Fabri wrote: “To write and to speak Greek is not necessary. An
educated man must, according to the adage, speak Latin, understand
Greek, and read Hebrew. _Latine loquatur, Graece intelligat, Hebraice
legat._”[683] It is evident that the study of Greek contributes also
to the logical training of the mind, but it ought not to be sought so
directly as in Latin. The Latin language with its rigorous syntax seems
to be better fitted for that purpose. It is different with Greek. In
a former chapter,[684] we mentioned that Latin grammar was eminently
logic, and its study a course of applied logic. “Greek on the other
hand, might almost be called a course of aesthetics, by means of which
we learn to distinguish a thousand gradations of meaning which our
barbarous languages will not allow us to accentuate.”[685] However,
the principal object of the study of Greek is the reading of the Greek
classics. “The Greeks are for us not _one_ of the civilized nations of
antiquity, but _the_ civilized nation (_das Kulturvolk_), which has
given us the models for all kinds of literary productions.”[686] And
Father Baumgartner observes: “The intellectual culture of the Greeks
became a power which not only survived their political decadence,
but for all coming centuries exercised a decisive influence on the
development of the world’s culture.”[687]
In order to attain this object of the study of Greek, the reading
of authors should be begun as soon as possible. Etymology should be
limited to the essentials occurring in the authors which form the
staple reading in colleges. The old grammars contain many forms which
never or quite exceptionally are met with in the course of reading.
To this class belong many rare forms of declension, comparison,
exceptional augments and reduplications, and, above all, numerous
irregular verbs. They should be left out, as has been done in the best
modern grammars.[688] The Jesuits always favored brief textbooks,
“_perquam breves_,” says a document in 1829.[689] This was in
accordance with their fundamental principle: _Pauca praecepta, multa
exempta, exercitatio plurima._
Greek syntax may at first not be taught systematically but
inductively, incidentally, as the rules are met with in reading.
Then the various rules are to be put together systematically.
Important rules (the use of Subjunctive and Optative, the position
of the article, and the like) should be learned with the practice of
the forms. The various conditional clauses, the meaning of tenses
(especially of the _Aorist_), and the use of the participles must be
well explained. These points are the whole Greek Syntax _in nuce_.[690]
The study of vocables should be a direct preparation for the future
reading of authors. Many vocables, found in exercise-books in vogue
during the last century, are altogether useless to this end. This
evil arose from the system of confining Greek reading for two years
to translating unconnected sentences. According to the spirit of the
Ratio, the reading of connected pieces, easy narratives and easy
authors, should be begun as soon as possible.
The best author to begin with is XENOPHON. For the sweetness and
graceful simplicity of his language he was styled the “Attic Bee.” In
former times his _Cyropaedia_ was the favorite book, also in Jesuit
colleges. But this work is not as easy, nor as interesting as the
_Anabasis_. The _Anabasis_, or _The Retreat of the Ten Thousand_, is
a book most fit for youth,[691] and a good preparation for Herodotus.
The speeches which are interwoven with the narrative prepare for the
reading of Demosthenes. The geographical and ethnographical details
about Asia Minor will prove useful for the study of the _Acts of the
Apostles_ (Travels of St. Paul) and of the Crusades. Books I-IV should
be read with maps, and with the plans of battles drawn on paper or
on the blackboard. If this is done, and the reading is not too slow,
the boys will take a real interest in the clear and simple narrative
of battles and marches through the countries of hostile tribes. Boys
delight in warfare and travels.--Whether the _Memorabilia_ should be
read is questionable, as a better picture of Socrates will afterwards
be given in Plato’s works. After the _Anabasis_ selections may be read
from the _Cyropaedia_ and the _Hellenica_.
HERODOTUS, the “Father of History”, as Cicero styles him, is a most
attractive author. He seems not to have been read in the colleges of
the Old Society. In modern times, in many plans of study, he receives
more attention; some selections may well be read, especially such
stories as have been taken into the literatures of all civilized
nations. In their original garb they will exercise a special charm on
account of their naive character.
THUCYDIDES, the “Father of Pragmatic and Political History,” wrote
the history of the first part of the Peloponnesian War. He ranks very
high as historian, being distinguished for critical spirit, accurate
research, and severe impartiality. His style is concise, often so
concise as to degenerate into obscurity. This conciseness and the depth
of thought make him a difficult author for young students. In the
highest class, choice passages may be read: v. g. the plague in Athens,
the funeral oration of Pericles. Demosthenes was an ardent admirer
of the harangues of Thucydides, and the two great Roman historians,
Sallust and Tacitus, have taken him for their model.
PLATO. Plato is recommended in the Ratio as one of the authors for
Rhetoric class; in modern Jesuit colleges Plato is mostly read in
Freshman class, for which he is an excellent author. In the words
of a Jesuit critic, “Greek philosophy is one of the choicest fruits
of Greek culture which, together with Greek poetry, history and
oratory, was destined to form the basis of the culture of the Western
nations.”[692] Plato, one of the greatest thinkers of all ages, vaguely
felt and presaged some of the grand religious and moral truths which
were to be clearly revealed by Christ. Thus he became the παιδαγωγὸς
εἰς Χριστόν. No philosopher, in fact no writer of antiquity, exerted
a greater influence on the early Christian writers. His many errors,
mixed with some Christian truth, gave rise to numerous heresies in the
earlier centuries, and misled even gigantic intellects like that of
Origen. On the other hand, as Father Baumgartner observes, “numerous
minds, searching after truth, have through his writings been raised
out of the depths of materialism to the purer heights of idealistic
speculations.”[693]
In Plato, there is, in the words of his disciple Aristotle, “a middle
species of diction, between prose and verse,” and Cicero said: “If
Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would use the language
of Plato.”[694] Some of his dialogues are so sublime, so harmonious,
so rhythmical, that they may truly be styled poetical. There are not
many which, both for contents and style, can be read in colleges. Best
suited for this purpose are the Apology and Crito. The _Apology_, or
_Defense of Socrates_, the only work of Plato which is not in the form
of a dialogue, probably contains the substance of the answer Socrates
made to the insidious charges of his accusers. The tone is throughout
fearless, at times even defiant, the accused merely pleading that,
whatever he did, was done at the bidding of the divinity, who spoke
to him through a mysterious inner voice, and that all his doings were
directed towards improving the minds and morals of his fellow-citizens.
It is, on the whole, grand and elevating reading. A Jesuit professor
and distinguished critic, Father Stiglmayr, wrote recently: “What
a pity, if youths should no longer drink inspiration from such a
source!”[695]
In the _Crito_ we find Socrates in prison, during the interval between
his condemnation and death. Crito advises him to fly, Socrates refuses,
“as it was not allowed a good citizen to withdraw from proper authority
and violate the laws of the state.” The dialogue contains very fine
passages.
The _Phaedo_ is one of the most remarkable of Plato’s dialogues. It
relates a conversation held shortly before the death of Socrates, in
which the great Athenian undertakes to prove the immortality of the
soul. The last chapters narrate in a touching manner, how, when the
summons came, Socrates with much composure and tranquillity of mind,
drank the fatal cup, in the midst of his weeping friends. This dialogue
may be read, as Nägelsbach says, with a good class of students. It is
always advisable to read the _Apology_, then the _Crito_, and finally
the last chapters of the _Phaedo_. Thus the students will get a clear
picture of the whole life and the heroic death of the most remarkable
man of antiquity.
DEMOSTHENES. Rhetorical talent was a gift common to all Greeks. The
splendid speeches in Homer’s poems are not accidental fictions, but the
expressions of old traditions, of national manners and peculiarities.
The diplomatic Agamemnon, the subtle Odysseus, the passionate Achilles,
the conciliatory Nestor are oratorical types which were renewed in the
life of the Greeks from generation to generation.[696] Greek oratory
reached its zenith in Demosthenes, the “prince of orators”. The Ratio
Studiorum assigns his masterly orations to the highest class of the
literary curriculum, which is, indeed, the proper place for this
author. One or other of the _Olynthiacs_ or _Philippics_ should be
studied, as was done early in Jesuit colleges. It may be questioned
whether it is possible to do justice to the oration _On the Crown_,
except with a very good class of pupils. This speech is not only
the masterpiece of Demosthenes, but is regarded as the most perfect
specimen that eloquence has ever produced.
A word must here be said on the reading of the GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.
Professor Bristol says that the present ignorance of the Greek New
Testament on the part of the people who have had a classical education
is little short of disgrace, and he wishes that it should be read an
hour a week.[697] This is exactly what was done in many colleges of the
Old Society, as may be seen from Father Kropf’s programme of 1736, in
which the reading of the _Greek Gospel_ (chiefly that of St. Luke), is
prescribed for every Saturday in the fourth and fifth classes, and the
_Acts of the Apostles_ for Rhetoric (Sophomore).[698]
§ 5. Greek Poets.
HOMER is “the Father of Poetry.” He was truly the “educator of Greece”
and influenced the literature of all coming ages as no other writer
ever has done. To dwell on his excellence, would merely be, as the
Greek adage has it, γλαῦκ’ εἰς ἈΘήνας. The _Odyssey_ and _Iliad_ should
be read so as to give the pupil a perfect view of the whole. There are
but few passages which cannot be read with boys. Homer is very naive
and outspoken, as, in general, ancient literature is more honest,
direct, and straightforward than modern literature, which often merely
suggests what is offensive. But this very suggestiveness makes modern
writings more insidious, as the mind is set thinking to find out what
is meant. Homer is never licentious; the song in the Odyssey which is
most objectionable is put into the mouth of another bard, and even in
this song there is no glorification of sin, no mistake as to what is
right or wrong. This straightforwardness in delicate matters must not
offend the mature reader, or he must also object to Holy Scripture. It
is evident that not all passages of Scripture are to be read by the
young, no more than many of the profane writers. As to Homer, Jouvancy
says very appositely: “A few comparisons which are somewhat low, and
other traces of primeval simplicity and of a _naiveté_ no longer known,
must not shock any one. Every sensible reader will also make allowances
for the lies and other crimes which the pagan writer imputes to his
gods.”[699] If single lines with rather objectionable contents occur,
the only way is to translate them correctly, but in careful and decent
expressions, which have to be thought out beforehand; to omit them
would almost surely lead some pupils to study them out at home. To
give a wrong translation is dishonest, and “the end does not justify
the means.” Besides, as all sorts of translations may be had from our
public libraries, and actually are in the hands of the students, such
a fraud would be detected and would surely undermine the confidence of
the pupils in their teacher. When the first passage is met with, the
teacher may call attention to the above mentioned characteristics of
ancient literature, sacred as well as profane. If a few prudent and
grave remarks of this kind are made, the pupils will not suffer any
harm from such reading.
We have said above that the epic dialect is to be studied inductively.
When the first difficulties are overcome, the pupils will begin to like
Homer, provided the teacher is what he ought to be. The introductions
of the Odyssey and Iliad, as also other passages from Greek and
Latin poetry, should be learned by heart. As of Virgil’s Aeneid, so
also of the Odyssey and Iliad, the whole cannot be studied. But care
should be taken that the selections are such as to give the pupils a
clear view of the whole work.[700] The translation of Homer must be
simple and natural. Anglo-Saxon words ought to prevail.[701] It has
been previously stated, and it is self-evident, that the teaching of
antiquities, descriptions of the life and manners of the heroic age,
should accompany the reading of Homer.[702]
It is not necessary to dwell on the GREEK TRAGEDIES, and their
importance for the higher classes of the literary curriculum. The Ratio
does not mention them in particular; but Sophocles and Euripides are
recommended by Jouvancy, and they were read in the colleges, as appears
from the catalogues given on previous pages.[703]--The amount of the
world’s best literature, with which the student in the Jesuit Colleges
was made acquainted, is certainly not insignificant.
FOOTNOTES:
[639] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. II, art. 7.
[640] Rev. F. Heiermann, S. J., in _Woodstock Letters_, 1897, p. 376:
“The Ratio Studiorum and the American College.”
[641] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1898, vol. II, p. 83.
[642] From various rules of the Ratio Studiorum, and Jouvancy, _Ratio
Docendi_, ch. II, art. 7.
[643] Now universally considered spurious, although even in the 19th
century scholars were not wanting who defended their genuineness, as
Grimm and Grote.
[644] _Monum. Paed._, p. 92.
[645] See above p. 8, note 11 .
[646] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 1-29.
[647] Hartfelder, _Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae_ vol.
VII of the _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_. Berlin 1889, pp. 360-397.
[648] Koldewey, _Braunschweigische Schulordnungen_, vol. I and VIII of
the _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, passim._
[649] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 442.
[650] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. I, art. I, § 2; art. 2, § 5; ch. II, art.
2, § 7, and art. 3, § 3.
[651] _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, especially vol. III, which deals
with the classical literature of Greece and Rome; on this work see
above p. 233-234.
[652] We quote chiefly from Nägelsbach, _Gymnasial-Pädagogik_ (3. ed.);
Dettweiler, _Didaktik und Methodik des Lateinischen_ and _Didaktik und
Methodik des Griechischen_; Willmann, _Didaktik als Bildungslehre_;
Anthon, _Class. Dictionary_.
[653] Dettweiler, _Did. des Lat._, p. 193.
[654] _Historical Sketches_, vol. I, pp. 239-300.
[655] Transactions of the Berlin Conference 1900, p. 207.--See also
Weisweiler, _Cicero als Schulschriftsteller_, and Zielinski, _Cicero im
Wandel der Jahrhunderte_, Leipsic, Teubner.
[656] Cf. Dettweiler, _l. c._, p. 193 sq.--Nägelsbach,
_Gymnasial-Pädagogik_, p. 123.
[657] There exist good separate editions of the _Somnium Scipionis_,
for instance, Reid’s (Pitt Press Series).
[658] In the introduction to his excellent commentary on the latter
work, Professor Seyffert says: “_De Senectute_ may be read in
Tertia (fourth class), _De Amicitia_ should not be taken up before
Upper-Secunda (sixth class).”
[659] See Dettweiler, p. 200.--On Cicero’s philosophy see also
Döllinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, vol. II, p. 118 sq.
[660] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, p. 755 (see also p. 803).
[661] On “Cicero’s Letters as Class Reading,” see the excellent article
of Dr. O. E. Schmidt in _Neue Jahrbücher_, vol. VIII, pp. 162-174. This
author wishes them to be read, after the orations against Catiline, _De
Senectute_, or _De Amicitia_ have been studied. He adds also a plan for
a new selection of the letters.
[662] See also various works on Cicero, by Middleton, Forsyth,
Trollope, Collins, Boissier, etc.
[663] Father Baumgartner, vol. III. p. 383.
[664] A magnificent and most helpful work for the study of the
Commentaries is T. Rice Holmes’ _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul._ London,
Macmillan, 1899.
[665] _Rat. Disc_., ch. 1, art. 2, § 5.
[666] See Father Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 531-538.
[667] Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 175.
[668] Father Baumgartner, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 534, speaks of the
“_markige, lapidare, ur-römische Stil des Tacitus_.”
[669] De Maistre, _Soirées de St. Pétersbourg_, IX.--On the spurious
_Letters of Seneca to St. Paul_, see Bardenhewer, _Gesch. der
altkirchl. Literatur_, vol. I (Herder, 1902), p. 470.
[670] Nägelsbach.
[671] O. Ribbeck, _Geschichte der römischen Dichtung_, vol. II, pp.
217, 265.
[672] Schanz, _Geschichte der römischen Literatur_, vol. II, p. 147;
see Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 466-488.
[673] _Tristia_ IV, 10, 26.
[674] Vol. III, p. 478.
[675] Dante, _Inferno_, I.: “_Lo mio maestro et lo mio autore._”
[676] _Odes_ I, 3: _animae dimidium meae_.
[677] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 415.
[678] _Homère a fait Virgile, dit-on; si cela est, c’est sans doute son
plus bel ouvrage._
[679] See _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_ etc., 1898,
vol. I, pp. 105-128: “Every unbiased mind must admit that Hellenistico
Jewish sources furnish the best explanation of this eclogue.” Cf.
Isaias 11, 6-8. Lactantius, _Div. Inst._, VII, 24, 11.--Josephus,
_Bell. Jud._, VI, 312.--Suetonius, _Vesp._, 4.
[680] Nägelsbach.
[681] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 436.
[682] See Father Baumgartner’s sympathetic sketch, vol. III, pp.
437-457.
[683] Fabri, _Euphyander_ (1669).--Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_,
p. 286.
[684] Chapter XII, _Classical Studies_, p. 347.
[685] Dr. Karl Hildebrand; see _The Month_, 1886, Feb., p. 167.
[686] Dettweiler, _Didaktik und Methodik des Griechischen_, p. 11.
[687] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 5.
[688] Perhaps one of the best modern grammars is the _Small Greek
Grammar_ by Professor Kaegi, which has been recently translated into
English by J. Kleist, S. J. (Herder, St. Louis, 1902.)
[689] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 404.
[690] “Also the epic dialect should not be studied systematically
before reading Homer, but incidentally, and afterwards systematized.”
(_Prussian School Order._)
[691] “_Ein rechtes Jugendbuch._” Dr. Dettweiler. See this author
on Xenophon, _Didaktik des Griechischen_, p. 29; also Willmann’s
_Didaktik_, vol. II, p. 519.
[692] Father Baumgartner, vol. III, page 268. Further references
see in Histories of Philosophy, v. g. by Zeller, Brandis, Ueberweg,
Windelband; Willmann, _Geschichte des Idealismus_. Döllinger, _The
Gentile and the Jew_, vol. I, pp. 304-332.
[693] Father Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 277.
[694] _Brutus_ 31; _Orator_ 20.
[695] A beautiful appreciation of the Apology is given by this
Professor in two articles in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. LXII,
1902.--Professor Bristol, in his _Teaching of Greek in the Secondary
School_, thinks the Apology not a suitable introduction to the study of
Plato. His arguments are not convincing.
[696] See Father Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 257.--As a confirmation of
this statement take the IX. book of the Iliad with its magnificent
speeches.
[697] _The Teaching of Greek in the Secondary School_, pp. 267-268.
[698] Kropf in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol.
X, pp. 341-344.--See above pp. 123-124.
[699] _Ratio Disc._, ch. I, art. 1, § 2.--See also Nägelsbach’s
_Homeric Theology_.
[700] Professor Bristol, in his excellent work _The Teaching of Greek
in the Secondary School_, suggests that books IX-XII of the Odyssey
should be read first, then V, VI, VII, VIII, and part of book XIII.
I must confess that such an inversion seems not advisable. Why not
follow the author? I doubt also whether of book I. not more than the
first 79 verses should be read. The whole first book is interesting and
important for the correct appreciation of the whole.
[701] A good help for class translation is found in the prose
translation of the _Odyssey_ by Butcher and Lang; of the _Iliad_ by
Lang, Myers and Leaf.
[702] Works by Jebb, Gladstone, Mahaffy, Grote, Nägelsbach, etc.--A
splendid literary appreciation of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, see
Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 19-63.
[703] See pp. 373-374; see also Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 133-244.
CHAPTER XIV.
Scholarship and Teaching.
The aim proposed by the _Ratio Studiorum_ is a great and noble one,
which tasks the undivided energy of able and experienced men. Does
the Society fit the teachers for this work? This is a most important
question. However good and excellent a system may be, it is of little
avail if the teachers know not how to apply it, or if they apply it
badly. Professor Münsterberg rightly insists on the truth that all
effective school reform must start with a reform of teachers. “Just as
it has been said that war needs three things, money, money, and again
money, so it can be said with much greater truth that education needs,
not forces and buildings, not pedagogy and demonstrations, but only
men, men, and again men,--without forbidding that some, not too many
of them, shall be women. The right kind of men is what the schools
need; they have the wrong kind. They need teachers whose interest in
the subject would banish all drudgery, and they have teachers whose
pitiable unpreparedness makes the class work either so superficial that
the pupils do not learn anything, or, if it is taken seriously, so dry
and empty that it is a vexation for children and teachers alike. To
produce anything equivalent to the teaching staff from whose guidance
I benefited in my boyhood, no one ought to be allowed to teach in a
grammar school who has not passed through a college or a good normal
school; no one ought to teach in a high school who has not worked,
after his college course, at least two years in the graduate school of
a good university; no one ought to teach in a college who has not taken
his doctor’s degree in one of the best universities; and no one ought
to teach in a graduate school who has not shown his mastery of method
by powerful scientific publications. We have instead a misery which
can be characterized by one statistical fact: only two per cent of the
school teachers possess any degree whatever.”[704]
It would certainly be an ideal state, if all teachers came up to the
Professor’s requirements, as laid down in this proposition; but one
may justly object to the importance assigned to the doctor’s degree
and the scientific publications, as necessary requisites for teaching.
Although this degree and productive scholarship are very desirable,
still we must consider it a mistake to expect from them alone or
even chiefly the men needed in our educational institutions. The
present writer, in his own school days, had some teachers who neither
possessed the doctor’s degree--of course they all had undergone the
“State examinations”--nor had published any books, and yet as teachers
were far superior to others who possessed the doctor’s degree and had
published books. Scholarship and capability for teaching are by no
means identical. Too much weight has been given of late to scholarship
in preference to practical experience, combined, as is understood, with
a sufficient knowledge of the matter to be taught. The documents of
the Society insist strongly that the teacher should thoroughly master
the subject which he is to teach. Father Ledesma wrote three hundred
years ago: “In all classes the teachers should be such that they could
teach a much higher class” [than that which is actually assigned to
them],[705] and Father Nadal said: “All the professors should be
distinguished in their respective branches, and no one can teach in
the classes of Humanities and Rhetoric (Freshman and Sophomore) who is
not a Master of Arts.”[706] In these words Father Nadal virtually lays
down as a postulate what Professor Münsterberg wants, namely, that the
professors in the college course should have the doctor’s degree. But
the Society attached still greater weight to skill in teaching than
scholarship, and we think rightly so.
Within the last two years this question of the relation of
scholarship to teaching has received more attention than before,
and some articles in leading reviews and periodicals found one of
the reasons of the decline of teaching exactly in the excess of
scholarship. It was especially the New York _Nation_ which in the
spring of 1900 brought the topic before the eyes of the public. On
March 8, 1900, the _Nation_ had an editorial on _The Decline of
Teaching_, in which we find this statement: “It is at least a curious
coincidence that the development of the modern science of pedagogy,
with its array of physiological and psychological data, should have
been accompanied by a distinct decline in the prominence of the
teacher. No one, we suppose, will question that the number of great
teachers is less now than it once was, and that the depleted ranks
are not being adequately filled up. While this dearth of teaching
power, notwithstanding the persistent efforts to overcome it, is
characteristic of all departments of education, it is especially
noticeable in the colleges and universities; perhaps in no single
respect, indeed, does the average college of the present day contrast
more sharply with the college of a generation or two ago.” On March 22,
the _Nation_ published the following correspondence. “Your editorial
upon the Decline of Teaching ought to arouse very general solicitude
throughout the profession: it gives notable emphasis to the condition
which some of us have perceived for several years, although, so far as
I am aware, stress has not hitherto been laid upon it in any public
way. Your statement of the facts implies, without directly asserting,
both the magnitude of the evil and its causes. Possibly both of
these should receive, at the proper time and place, more extended
and more exhaustive consideration.... In the upper schools--high
schools and colleges--the evil which has brought about the decline of
teaching is an entirely different one. There is no evidence that the
pseudo-pedagogy has won any hold on these men, except as subjects for
wise admonitions to elementary teachers. The evil here is that original
research has been confounded with true teaching. Original research
is an independent profession, worthy of all honor and respect, but
its processes are not in any essential or fundamental way those of
education. We can never bring back to our colleges the nobler ideals
of character and culture until we separate them from an ideal which is
purely that of a trade or profession. We should have a very analogous
confusion if our lawyers were to contend that education consisted in
mastering the process and methods of the law. In so far as our colleges
are converted into workshops where ‘the bounds of knowledge’ are
widened, their real and greater function becomes restricted, if not
forgotten.”[707] Dean Briggs of Harvard College shortly after wrote as
follows: “Another doubt about the new-fashioned education concerns the
abnormal value set on the higher degrees. That a teacher should know
his subject is obvious; but the man of intelligence and self-sacrifice
who bends his energy to teaching boys will soon get enough scholarship
for the purpose; whereas no amount of scholarship can make up for the
want of intelligence and self-sacrifice.”[708]
Many years ago Arnold had expressed the same opinion. In a letter
of inquiry for a master he wrote: “What I want is a Christian and a
gentleman--an active man, and one who has common sense and understands
boys. I do not so much care about scholarship, as he will have
immediately under him the lowest forms [classes] in the school; but
yet, on second thoughts, I do care about it very much, because his
pupils may be in the highest forms; and besides, I think that even the
elements are best taught by a man who has a thorough knowledge of the
matter. However, if one must give way, I prefer activity of mind and an
interest in his work to high scholarship, for the one can be acquired
more easily than the other.”[709]
The views of prominent German educators are not less pronounced on
this subject--and yet, no nation insists more on scholarship than the
German. Says one: “We have no more educators in the true sense of the
word.”[710] The opinion of Professor Paulsen is especially worthy of
notice. We summarize what he says on this subject in his _History
of Higher Education_. It cannot be doubted that scholarship of the
teacher, as a rule, tends towards raising teaching. But it should not
be overlooked that the success of a teacher depends not only upon the
amount of his scientific knowledge, but as much on his inclination
and practical skill for teaching. Do the latter qualities increase in
proportion with the teacher’s scholarship? This is not always the case.
It should be expected that, the richer, the clearer and the deeper
the knowledge is, the stronger the inclination, and the facility of
imparting it to others. But between philological scholarship proper and
elementary instruction in Latin grammar and style, we find rather the
reverse proportion. Scholarship can become an obstacle to teaching.
_First_, it weakens the liking for it, or rather it strengthens the
aversion to it. For the “drilling” in the elements of a language is
undoubtedly one of the least attractive tasks to a man who feels in
himself an inclination to educate the souls of the young.--_Secondly_,
scholarship easily leads to introducing into class-instruction things
that are important for the teacher’s own scientific grasp of the
subject. Hence the common complaint: the more grammar and the study
of antiquities increase, and the more deeply the teachers enter into
these sciences, the less the pupils learn; or rather the more the
pupils learn of these things, the less thoroughness and facility they
acquire in reading and writing; but this last is exactly what they
need. From this it appears that it was in part disadvantageous to
replace theologians in the gymnasia by philologians and mathematicians,
a change which for a long time was wished for, undoubtedly not without
good reasons. The theologian, owing to his whole training, had a
tendency towards caring for the souls; an interest in the _whole_
man was the centre of his calling,--if indeed he was an honest
theologian,--not an interest in science, nor an interest in the student
as student. Everything leads the theologian and the true philosopher
to be an educator; the scholar, the learned specialist, may content
himself with being an instructor. Add to this that the theologian
through his studies was everywhere led to view things philosophically.
And, after all, it is philosophy and religion alone that impel a man
to communicate what he knows. He who has no philosophic views of life
and of the world, has nothing to communicate; it is only the relation
to some such ultimate object which gives learning pedagogical power
and motives.[711] Be it remembered that the man who says this is no
ecclesiastic, but a layman, one of the foremost professors of the
University of Berlin.
In his latest important work,[712] he speaks still more emphatically
on the drawbacks and dangers that menace teaching, even in the
university, from scholarship. The professor, he says, considers
himself in the first place not so much a teacher as a scholar, as the
man of science, and so scientific research appears to him nobler and
more important than instruction. Consequently, it happens very easily
that he becomes indifferent about perfecting himself as teacher,
he devotes scarcely the necessary time to preparing his lectures,
he loses interest in teaching, which is an unwelcome interruption
of his researches. It is evident that no great success is to be
expected from such teaching or lecturing. There are also dangers on
the part of the students. Not unfrequently they are introduced too
early to the specialized treatment of the sciences, before they have
acquired general information about their subject. This danger is the
greatest for the most talented and zealous students. If afterwards
they are teachers in a _gymnasium_, they feel altogether out of
place; nearly all they had to study in the university is inapplicable
in this present position, and it takes very long before the mental
equilibrium is found again. The author then points out the dangers for
science. If manifestation of scholarship is required for obtaining a
position as teacher, the unavoidable consequence will be a kind of
“pseudo-productivity” and other evils.
Of recent utterances from England the following of the Hon. George
C. Brodrick (Warden of Merton) will suffice. In an article, “Amateur
Nation,” he says: “Strange to say, the higher branches of the great
educational profession in England are strongholds of amateurism. The
masters and mistresses of elementary schools are now well trained,
and even when they teach mechanically, they teach as persons who have
grasped the difficulties of teaching, and mean business, as most
professionals do. But what of masters at the great public schools,
grammar schools, and private academies, or of the great multitude of
private tutors who keep boarding houses or ‘coach’ pupils in their own
houses? Not a twentieth of them have received any training whatever,
or have the smallest idea that anything beyond a certain amount of
scholarship and a certain power of commanding attention is required
for teaching young people.” The writer then states what he thinks is
needed: “_It is teachers of average ability instructing_ pupils of
average industry, not individually, but in classes, who specially need
training--not of necessity in training colleges, _but through close
attention at lessons given by masters of tried experience_.”[713]
This is exactly the idea of the Ratio Studiorum. The aim is to
provide teachers, who are “men of intelligence and self-sacrifice,
who _possess, besides an excellent general culture, a good knowledge
of their subject_, and who are trained through close attendance, by
masters of tried experience.” Before attempting to prove this from
the Constitutions of the Society and the Ratio Studiorum, we beg to
make one remark. The Society does not undervalue scholarship, but, on
the contrary, appreciates it highly and wishes always a considerable
number of her members to possess it to an eminent degree. This is
proved beyond doubt by the list of distinguished Jesuit writers given
in two preceding chapters (V and VII). The Society recognizes also the
value of university studies. We have quoted previously the decree of
the 23rd General Congregation of the Order (1883, _Decretum_ XXI): “It
is expedient to send select members to the universities to obtain the
degrees which empower them to teach in the public [i. e. Government]
schools.”[714] We learn that the English Jesuits in late years have
opened a Hall at Oxford (Pope’s Hall), to afford young members an
opportunity of attending the university lectures and of taking
the degrees. We learn further that a number of Jesuits from other
countries are there pursuing linguistic and scientific studies. The
same is done in Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Austria, France and other
countries. In some places, as in Austria, several Jesuit colleges are
wholly under the supervision of the government, and all the teachers
have made the prescribed studies at the universities and passed the
rigid “state examinations”. One of the professors of the Jesuit
college at Feldkirch, Austria, has been chosen as “one of the seven
prominent Latinists who are working at the great _Historical Grammar
of the Latin Language_.”[715] It is evident that in all professional
schools conducted by Jesuits, as in the Medical and Law Departments
of Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., the instructors and
professors are able professional teachers.
As far as America is concerned there existed peculiar handicaps to
the cultivation of scholarship especially in Catholic institutions.
Throughout the nineteenth century missions had to be established,
chapels and churches built, and missionaries found to care for the
spiritual wants of a rapidly increasing population.[716] This work
claimed the greatest part of the interest of the Catholic Church in
general, and a comparatively large share of the time and energy of the
members of the Society. But a teacher overburdened with work cannot
devote himself to original research. Add to this the general poverty of
the Catholic population, who had to support not only their churches,
but also their schools, and it will be easy to understand that Catholic
colleges had serious difficulties in acquiring the libraries, museums
and laboratories which are essential for higher studies, and much
more so for scholarly work. How much better situated are the secular
institutions of learning in this country! “The National Government has,
from the very beginning, made enormous grants of land and money in
aid of education in the several states. The portion of public domain
hitherto set apart by Congress for the endowment of public education
amounts to 86,138,473 acres or 134,591 English square miles. This is
an area larger than the New England States, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, and Delaware added together, as great as the kingdom of
Prussia. The aggregate value of lands and money given for education by
the National Government is nearly $300,000,000.”[717] Besides, of the
three hundred and fifteen million dollars given by private individuals
within the last nine years for educational purposes,[718] very little
has gone to Catholic institutions.
In spite of the liberal national and private assistance granted,
the public institutions have, until a short time ago, not been
overconspicuous for scholarship, as is openly declared in a number
of recent articles on this subject, by Professor Münsterberg of
Harvard,[719] Mr. Carl Snyder,[720] and Professor Simon Newcomb of the
Naval Observatory, Washington.[721] These writers repeat the complaints
which Professor Rowland of Johns Hopkins had uttered more than
twenty-five years ago.[722] Professor Münsterberg, in the said article
of the _Atlantic Monthly_, repudiates the charge that America has no
scholarship at all; he affirms that the situation is infinitely better
than Europeans suppose it to be--in certain branches of knowledge
excellent work has been done. Nevertheless the author is compelled to
continue: “And yet I am convinced that the result stands in no proper
relation to the achievements of American culture in all the other
aspects of national life, and the best American scholars everywhere
frankly acknowledge and seriously deplore it.... American publications
cross the ocean in a ridiculously small number; in the world of letters
no Columbus has yet discovered the other side of the globe.”[723] Years
ago, Dr. McCosh had passed a similar verdict: “The scholarship of the
great body of the students is as high in America as in Europe; but they
rear in Great Britain and Germany a body of ripe scholars to whom we
have nothing equal in the New World.”[724]
Can we, then, be surprised to find that the Catholic institutions
could not yet develop productive scholarship? However, as was said
by many distinguished writers, productive scholarship is by no means
the first requisite for an efficient teacher, much more essential are
“intelligence, self-sacrifice, and close attention to lessons given by
masters of tried experience.” In the next chapter we shall show that
the training prescribed by the Ratio Studiorum for the young Jesuit is
excellently suited to furnish him with these requisites, and thus to
make of him a good teacher.[725]
FOOTNOTES:
[704] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1900, p. 667.
[705] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 156.
[706] _Ibid._, p. 104.
[707] Mr. Frederick Whitton, Michigan Military Academy.
[708] _Atlantic Monthly_, October 1900.
[709] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 69.
[710] Lehmann, _Erziehung und Erzieher_, Berlin, Weidmann, 1901.--_Neue
Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VIII, p. 237.
[711] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, pp. 628-629. (2nd ed.,
vol. II, pp. 389-391.)
[712] _Die deutschen Universitäten und das Universitäts-Studium_,
Berlin 1902, pp. 213-222.
[713] _The Nineteenth Century_, October 1900. Italics ours.--As early
as 1880 Father Pachtler had enunciated, almost literally, the same
principles, in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. XIX, p. 167.
[714] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123. See above pp. 198-199.
[715] Körting, _Handbuch der romanischen Philologie_ (Leipzig 1896), p.
247.
[716] See the remarks of the Right Rev. Th. Conaty in the _Catholic
University Bulletin_, July 1901, p. 305.
[717] _Education in the United States_. Edited by Professor Butler of
Columbia University, Albany 1900, pp. VII-VIII.
[718] See _Educational Review_, May 1902, p. 492. In 1901 the
educational gifts were not less than 73 million dollars. Mrs. Stanford
leads the list with 30½ million to the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
In 1900 the private gifts amounted to 48 million, and in 1899 to 63
million dollars.
[719] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1901.
[720] _North American Review_, Jan. 1902.
[721] _North American Review_, February 1902.
[722] See _Popular Science Monthly_, June 1901.
[723] _Atlantic Monthly_, _l. c._, p. 615.
[724] _Life of James McCosh_, p. 204.
[725] On p. 409 it is said that a sort of “pseudo-productivity” is
likely to attend the excessive emphasis laid on scholarship. This
statement finds a striking confirmation in the latest _Report of the
Com. of Ed._ (1901, vol. I, pp. 127-128). In a brief article “Higher
Education made in Germany,” we read among other things: “To deplore
the fact that our scholarship has a strong German tinge would be
like apologizing for the loins from which we sprang. And yet it is a
question if of recent years we have not followed German methods too
exclusively and too unintelligently.” The Germans themselves often
misuse the scientific method on trivial subjects. “Scholarship suffers
from an enormous over-production of monographs in which an ambitious
method stretches a thin substance to the cracking point. There is a
craze not to prove something valuable, but to prove something.” A
few remarkable instances of such “scholarly” productions of American
graduate students are given in the same article.
CHAPTER XV.
Training of the Jesuit Teacher.
It is generally admitted that even at present the Jesuits exercise
considerable influence in the world. What is the secret of their hold
on Catholics? What the source from which their power springs? The real
secret of the Jesuits’ influence is to be found in their training. Dr.
Freytag in his review of Father Duhr’s work on the Ratio Studiorum
remarked: “After the perusal of this learned work, one will understand
that only highly talented young men can join that Order; for what is
demanded of them [in the line of studies] is extraordinary.”[726]
We have to see how far this training of a Jesuit is a satisfactory
preparation for his work as teacher in high schools and colleges, how
far it tends to make the Jesuit teacher--in the words of the Hon. G.
C. Brodrick--“a man of self-sacrifice,” and whether it gives him a
“solid knowledge of his subject and the art of teaching, through close
attendance from a master of experience.”
The first requisite is, that the original material, the candidate for
the Order, is good. The statue, however deftly carved, will not be a
success if the marble has serious defects. Therefore, such only are to
be admitted into the ranks of the Society, as are capable of receiving
the Jesuit ‘form,’ only those who show a capacity for imbibing its
spirit and submitting to its discipline.[727] The Constitutions of
the Society are quite explicit on this point. They say that the
person having the power of admission “should not be turned by any
consideration from that which he shall judge most conducive in the Lord
to the _service of God_ in the Society; to promote which he should
not be too eager to grant admission.”[728] The Provincial Superior
is further exhorted “to watch that his subjects are not too anxious
(_ne nimii sint_) to attract people to the Society, but by their
virtues they should endeavor to lead all to Christ.”[729] The teachers
in particular are told “even in private conversations to inculcate
piety, but without attracting any one to the Order.”[730] Now what
qualities does the Society require of those applying for admission?
The Constitutions want men endowed with the highest gifts of nature.
In order that they may be able to benefit their fellow creatures, the
candidates of the Society should be endowed with the following gifts:
as regards their _intellect_, they should possess good judgment, sound
doctrine, or the talent to acquire it. As to _character_, they must be
studious of all virtue and spiritual perfection, calm, steadfast and
strenuous in what they undertake for God’s service, and burning with
zeal for the salvation of souls. In _externals_, facility of language,
so needful for the intercourse with fellow men; besides, the applicant
should possess good health and strength to undergo the labors of the
Institute.[731]
Such is the material of the future Jesuit; no mean material indeed.
How does the Society carry out the modelling of the young members?
How does she--to confine ourselves to the question of training
teachers--train them to become efficient instructors and educators?
To understand this better, it will be good to follow a young Jesuit
through the course of his training. Take a young man, a student of a
college, perhaps of a university. May be, he has been educated in a
Jesuit college, he has seen the Jesuits working for education, has
heard them preaching and lecturing, he feels attracted by their work:
he wants to become one of them. Perhaps he has never seen a Jesuit,
but he has heard of them, has read of the great achievements of the
famous missionaries of the Order, beginning from St. Francis Xavier
down to our days; he has come across a book written by a Jesuit, he
hears how much they have done in the defense of Christianity, above all
how they are hated and persecuted by the enemies of the Church: the
ideal inspirations of his heart grow stronger, and he inquires where
he can find these men so much spoken of. It is a fact that during the
_Kulturkampf_ in Germany, the German Province of the Society almost
doubled its numbers. Many students, who had never seen a Jesuit,
left the gymnasium or university to join the exiles, just because of
the singular hatred of which the outlawed Order was the object. They
concluded that a body of men thus singled out, must possess something
extraordinary, something especially praiseworthy, as they could not
believe that the calumnies spread by the enemies of the Jesuits could
have any foundation. The student, frequently the brightest of his
class, travels to the nearest place, perhaps to a foreign country,
where he finds a house or a college of the Order.[732] He is introduced
to the Superior, to whom he expresses his desire of joining the ranks
of the sons of St. Ignatius. He is strictly examined as to his studies,
his character, the motives which led him to apply for admission to
the Society, and above all, whether any one, especially a Jesuit, has
influenced him to take this step, which latter fact would be considered
an impediment to his admission. The hardships of the religious life,
the long course of studies prescribed by the Society, the sacrifices
to be undergone, the obedience to be rendered, all this is explained
to him. But suppose these representations do not deter him, then after
a careful examination conducted by several Jesuits, if the student is
thought to possess sufficient talent, and a good moral disposition, he
is received as a novice of the Society.
Perhaps the young candidate expected soon to be sent to the missions,
or to be employed in teaching or writing, but the Society holds to the
old principle that he who is to teach, is first to learn. Above all, he
has to learn the most necessary science, expressed by the old _Nosce
teipsum_: “Know thyself,” and that not in a merely speculative, but
in a severely practical manner. By this intense self-knowledge, the
young religious is enabled to understand the characters of others and
to deal with them successfully. During the first two years, in strict
seclusion from the world, he learns that self-knowledge, self-control,
and “self-sacrifice,” which are necessary to the future missionary,
and no less so, to the future teacher. It is a religious, a spiritual
training which the future educator receives first as the foundation
of all other training. Education and reform must begin at home. The
teacher is to instruct his pupils in the principles of true and solid
morality. If he does not possess and practise these principles himself,
he will be a corrupter of youth instead of a father and friend, “a
blind leader of the blind, and both shall fall into the pit,” as the
Divine Teacher expresses it. If without practising these principles
he endeavors to teach them, he is a hypocrite; his deeds will belie
his words, and the eyes of the young are sharp and their perception is
keen; they will soon discover the discord between the teacher’s action
and his precepts, and the former will have a more powerful influence
on them, than the latter, as the Latin adage has it: _Verba movent,
exempla trahunt_. Even the pagan rhetorician Quintilian insists on this
point: _Ipse (magister) nec habeat vitia, nec ferat_: “The teacher
should neither have nor tolerate faults.”[733] The teacher is daily for
hours with his pupils, speaking to them, moving before them, his every
word, his every gesture, his every smile is watched by a set of keen
critics. All this must imperceptibly exercise a deep influence on the
youthful mind. How perfect, therefore, ought the teacher to be, how
faultless, how exemplary! But this moral perfection cannot be acquired
except by severe self-control, by rigorous self-discipline, the
acquirement of which forms the great end of the religious noviceship.
It was St. Ignatius' oft-repeated maxim, not only: _Nosce te ipsum_,
but, _Vince te ipsum_: “Conquer thyself.” This is the way of training
men, characters, of whom there is greater need than of scholars.
In frequent meditations on the end of man, on the life of the Divine
Master, the young religious beholds the true dignity of man, the true
“sanctity of the individual,” which consists in his relation to God,
his Creator. These truths brought home to the religious by daily
reflection will inspire him with that genuine zeal, that pure love of
man, which is ready to undergo any hardship, to spend time, talent,
health, and life, in order to make his neighbor’s soul good and noble
on earth and happy throughout eternity. To the practical study of
the character, of the life, of the words and actions of the Divine
Master, not only the novice, but every Jesuit, devotes an hour every
day in his morning meditation. In this school he learns to deal with
pupils, seeing with what patience, kindness and love Christ dealt
with little ones and with His disciples whose “slowness of grasp and
understanding” (Luke 24, 25) would have been too much for any teacher,
except him who was so “meek and humble of heart” (Matt. 11, 29). From
Christ, the poor, and the friend of the lowly, he learns to “slight
no one, to care as much for the progress of the poor pupils as of the
rich,” as his rule enjoins him.[734] From Christ, who sacrificed the
most tender relations on earth to the will and service of God, in
order to be “about his father’s business” (Luke 2, 49), the future
teacher must learn how to control the affections of his heart, so as
not to show any partiality, any special love to particular pupils. All
these qualities and virtues, so necessary for the teacher, the young
religious endeavors to acquire during the time of his preparation. The
new school of educators may sneer at this “asceticism,” still we know
that godliness, although not sufficient for everything, is nevertheless
profitable for everything,[735] especially so for education.
The first two years of the life of the young Jesuit are principally
devoted to this religious and moral training. However, his future life
work is not lost sight of even during this time. Many exercises and
practices of the novitiate have a direct bearing on his scientific
preparation. As a rule, the students are admitted only after they have
finished their classical course, in Germany and Austria for instance
after completing the gymnasium, which is a classical course of nine
years; in this country, after Sophomore class, which amounts to four
years academic or high school work and two years of college properly
so-called. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, not a few
enter after having finished a course of philosophy or after having
taken special courses at a university, in addition to their classical
studies, while sometimes students are admitted who have not completed
the whole college course. During the first two years, novices have
frequent oratorical exercises, they receive theoretical instructions on
explaining Christian doctrine, and still more frequently--in accordance
with the fundamental maxim of the Society, that practice and exercise
are most important means of training--they have to give catechetical
instructions. This exercise is an excellent preparation for explaining
any subject in a simple and intelligent manner, a thing most valuable
for instructors in lower classes. Their conversations throughout a
great part of the day are to be carried on in Latin. Besides, there are
several hours a week devoted to regular schools in Latin, Greek, and
the mother tongue; thus the knowledge of languages is at least kept
alive, if not perfected.
After the two years novitiate, the young Jesuits have to repeat
the classical studies for one, two or three years--the time varies
according to the studies made previous to admission to the Society.
Special attention is paid to the precepts of aesthetics, poetics, and
rhetoric, and to various practical applications of these precepts.
Then follows a three years’ course of philosophy, mathematics and
natural sciences, especially physics, chemistry, biology, physiology,
astronomy and geology. The system pursued is entirely different from
that followed at our universities, where the student listens to the
lectures of the professor, takes down notes and studies them at home,
and then goes up for examination at the end of the year. Not so with
the Jesuits. The lectures of the professor are not the only, perhaps
not even the most important part in the philosophical and scientific
training. Characteristic and most essential are again the exercises,
foremost among them the _disputations_, for which three or four times
a week a full hour is set apart. In what do they consist? One of the
students has to study carefully a thesis previously treated in the
lectures, in order to expound and defend it against the objections
which are being prepared in the meantime by two other students. On
the appointed day the _defender_ takes his place at a special desk in
front of the class, opposite him the two _objectors_. The defender
states his proposition, explains its meaning, and the opinions of the
adversaries, ancient and modern, then gives proofs for it, in strictly
syllogistic form, all this in Latin. After a quarter of an hour, the
first objector attacks the proposition, or a part of it, or an argument
adduced in its proof, all this again in syllogisms. The defender
repeats the objection, then answers in a few words to _major_, _minor_
and _conclusion_, by conceding, denying, or distinguishing the various
parts of the objector’s syllogism. The opponent urges his objection, by
offering a new subsumptive syllogism to the defender’s solution. After
a quarter of an hour the second objector does the same for fifteen
minutes. During the last quarter, either the professor, or any student
present, may offer objections against the defender’s proposition.
These disputations are regular intellectual tournaments, the objectors
trying to show the weak points of the thesis, the defender striving to
maintain his proposition. “This system of testing the soundness of the
doctrine taught, continued as it is throughout the theological studies,
which come at a later period of the young Jesuit’s career, provides
those who pass through it with a complete defense against difficulties
which otherwise are likely to puzzle the Catholic controversialist. It
is a splendid means of sifting truth from falsehood. Many of those who
take part in it are men of ability and well versed in the objections
that can be urged against the Catholic teaching. Such men conduct their
attack not as a mere matter of form, but with vigor and ingenuity....
Sometimes the objector will urge his difficulties with such a semblance
of conviction as even to mislead some of those present.... So far
from any check being put on the liberty of the students, they are
encouraged to press home every sort of objection, however searching
and fundamental, however bold and profane (e. g. against the existence
of God, free will, immortality of the soul, Divinity of Christ, the
Catholic Church etc.), that can be raised to the Catholic doctrine.
In every class are found to be men, who are not to be put off with an
evasion, and a professor who was to attempt to substitute authority
for reason, would very soon find out his mistake. This perfect liberty
of disputation is one of the many happy results of the possession of
perfect and unfailing truth.”[736]
Every six or eight weeks, all the more important theses discussed
during the preceding time, are defended in the monthly disputations,
at which all the different classes of the institution and all
the professors of the faculty are present. Sometimes more solemn
disputations are held, to which frequently professors from other
institutions are invited, and any one is free to offer objections
which the defender has to solve. There can be no doubt that this
method has many great advantages. First of all, it forces the student
to study his proposition most thoroughly; for he is not aware what
objections shall be made. Therefore, both defenders and objectors have
to prepare most carefully, to examine closely the proposition on all
sides, to know its exact meaning, to understand the arguments, and to
discover its weak points. The professor, of course, is present, sees
that strict syllogistic form is kept, and in case the defender is
unable to solve the difficulties, has to give the final decision. At
the same time it forces the professor to be most careful and accurate
in the opinion he holds, and especially in the arguments which he
proposes, as fullest liberty is given in attacking every point, and as
the students, frequently mature men and highly gifted, try their very
best to show any weak point in the argumentation of the text book, or
in the professor’s propositions. Professor Paulsen observes on the
disputations of the medieval schoolmen, of which the disputations of
the Jesuit schools are a modification: “As regards the disputations,
it may be said that the Middle Ages were hardly mistaken. They were
undoubtedly fitted to produce a great readiness of knowledge and a
marvellous skill in grasping arguments.”[737]
It has frequently been asserted that this uniform training of the
Jesuits crushes out all individuality. Professor Paulsen says: “Great
individualities do not appear in the history of the Order,” and
Cardinal Newman writes: “What a great idea, to use Guizot’s expression,
is the Society of Jesus! what a creation of genius in its organization;
but so well adapted is the institution to its object that for that very
reason it can afford to crush individualities, however gifted; so much
so, that, in spite of the rare talents of its members, it has even
become an objection to it in the mouth of its enemies, that it has not
produced a thinker like Scotus or Malebranche!”[738]
Does uniform training necessarily result in uniformity of character?
Certainly not. If all those trained had the same disposition, the same
nature to be worked upon, perhaps it would. Does the same nourishment
given to a number of children produce the same result, the same
complexion, the same color of hair, the same seize? Why should mental
food? Does the same training in a military academy produce a perfect
likeness in all? The military system of the “Great Powers” gives the
most uniform training in the world. Does it crush out individuality of
the generals and officers in tactics and strategy? Jesuit pupils will
be surprised at being told that their teachers have all the same mould
of character and are destitute of individuality. But no one smiles more
at the above mentioned assertion than Jesuit Superiors, whose hardest
task it is to unite all the different characters in one common effort,
without interfering too much with their individuality. They know too
well that the crushing out of the individuality would mean the crushing
of energy and of self-activity so much insisted on by St. Ignatius in
his _Spiritual Exercises_. It was St. Ignatius who told those who have
charge of the spiritual training of the members of the Order: “It is
most dangerous to endeavor to force all on the same path to perfection;
he who attempts this does not know how different and how manifold the
gifts of the Holy Ghost are.”[739]
If one studies the works of the great writers of the Society,
he will be struck by the variety and difference of opinions held
by professors and writers of the same period, v. g. Suarez and
Vasquez.[740] It is amusing to read how one attacks and refutes
the other, speaking of “the opinions of a certain modern author
which cannot be maintained at all” etc. Cardinal Newman says in his
_Historical Sketches_: “It is plain that the body is not over-zealous
about its theological traditions, or it certainly would not suffer
Suarez to controvert with Molina, Viva with Vasquez, Passaglia with
Petavius, and Faure with Suarez, de Lugo and Valentia. In this
intellectual freedom its members justly glory; inasmuch as they have
set their affections, not on the opinions of the Schools, but on the
souls of men.”[741] Professor Paulsen seems to have forgotten his own
statement: “Greatest possible power of the individual is preserved
without derangement of the organism of the Order, spontaneous activity
and perfect submission of the will, contrasts almost irreconcilable,
seem to have been harmoniously united in a higher degree by the
Society, than by any other body.”[742] A recent English writer,[743]
speaking of the “crushing of individuality practised by the Jesuits,”
seems to trace it to the pernicious influence of the spirit of the
Latin races. The Latins “keep men in leading strings;” “liberty to
Latins means license;” “true Latins cannot understand the principle
of personality.” The Spaniards, in particular, are regarded with
special horror. The Roman Curia is said to have adopted the system
used by the Spaniards, “who could not endure discussion or publicity;
centralization was the ideal; routine the practice,” and so on.
“The Jesuit system of blind obedience was founded to bring about
the absolutism of authority;” this “makes them akin (strange though
it may seem) to that Puritan strain so often found in those doing
or desirous of doing great things.” This is strange indeed, but far
stranger are the absurdities and contradictions into which prejudiced
men are led. The Jesuits are said to be deprived of personality and
individuality, and in the same breath it is sometimes asserted that
everywhere they know how to adapt themselves to the most different
circumstances: In England, America, Germany, Spain, France, Russia,
China, Japan, Paraguay, Abyssinia. It is said the General wants a man
for some secret mission. He opens his list and there he finds a man
especially fitted to influence the court of St. Petersburg, or the
Padisha in Constantinople; then one who knows so well how to ingratiate
himself with Cromwell as to become his friend, dine at his table, play
chess with him;[744] then one who is fitted for guiding his Celestial
Majesty in Pekin; here one to rouse the starving peasants of Ireland
to enthusiasm for their ‘Romish’ faith, then one who by all sorts
of devices tames the savages of Paraguay; one who disputes with the
bonzes in Japan, or becomes a Brahmin in India, as the famous Robert
de Nobili; there is one who is best suited to conquer the refractory
Professors at the University in Louvain, and the Doctors of the
Sorbonne, then another who wins the confidence of the townspeople and
villagers in Switzerland, the Tyrol, and Germany--in short men for
every possible mission.[745] Such are the opinions of the adversaries
of the Society. But is not the greatest variety of characters needed
for all these employments? And yet, they are supposed to be deprived of
individuality! Or is that _unpersonal_ trait which is _infused_ into
every Jesuit so universal that all other individualities are contained
in it, as the scholastic philosophers express it, _eminenter_, in a
subtle and mysterious form? Is every Jesuit a sort of Proteus, who
could change himself into a lion, a serpent, a pard, a boar, a tree,
a fountain? A wonderful system of training, indeed, for which the
diplomats of our modern courts might envy the Jesuits. To be serious,
that depriving of personality, attributed to the Jesuit system, is
nothing but one of the numerous Jesuit myths.
We have left our young Jesuit in his philosophical course. But what
becomes in the meantime of the study of the classical languages? It
is not neglected during the course of philosophy, at least the Ratio
Studiorum provides special means to foster and promote this important
branch of study. The lectures in mathematics and natural sciences
are given in the mother tongue, but the lectures and disputations in
philosophy are all conducted in Latin, so that the young Jesuit is in
the habit of speaking Latin and may speak it with ease and fluency. It
is true, the Latin of these disputations and lectures is not exactly
Ciceronian, still it is by no means as barbarous as the opponents of
this system represent it. Some of the Latin text books on philosophy
are written in accurate Latin.[746] It is not, however, this custom
of speaking Latin which we wished to adduce as a provision of the
Ratio Studiorum, to advance the study of Latin during the course of
philosophy. But we find in the Ratio, among the rules for the Prefect
of the higher studies, the following clause: “He shall give every
student of philosophy a classical author and admonish him not to omit
reading it at certain hours.”[747]
In this manner six or seven years of training have been spent in the
Society in addition to about the same number of years devoted to higher
studies previous to the admission into the Order; thus, before the
Jesuit begins his work as teacher, twelve years, on the average, have
been spent in studies after the completion of the elementary or public
school course. The Jesuit teacher is then employed in the academical
or high school department. His training compares favorably to that
of the high school teachers in this country, at least as far as the
length of time is concerned. In Massachusetts (1897) one per cent of
high school teachers were graduates of scientific schools, thirteen
per cent of normal schools, sixty-six per cent of colleges, twenty
per cent unclassified.--In the State of New York (1898) there were
thirty-two per cent college graduates, thirty-nine per cent normal
school graduates, nineteen per cent high school graduates, ten per
cent had other training.[748] Thus the average of higher studies is
certainly not more than eight years, against the twelve years of the
Jesuit teacher.
It may be asked how far the Jesuit’s studies are preparatory to
his work as teacher? The repetition of the classics in the two
years “Juniorate” previous to the study of philosophy, is not only
considered as part of the general culture, but is especially viewed as
a preparation for the Jesuits’ work as teachers. Quick has correctly
said that the Juvenats or Juniorates were the training schools where
the young Jesuit learned the method of teaching.[749] That this was
the aim of this course is apparent from what the General Visconti
said: “Immediately after their novitiate they [the young Jesuits]
must have the most accomplished professors of Rhetoric [by which word
is understood general philological knowledge], men, who not only are
altogether eminent in this faculty, but who know how to teach and make
everything smooth for the scholars; men of eminent talent and the
widest experience in the art; who are not merely to form good scholars,
but to train good masters.”[750]
But there are other most important regulations concerning the direct
training for teaching. Towards the end of the philosophical course,
before going to the colleges, there should be an immediate preparation
for those who in the near future are to enter on the momentous career
of teaching boys. The outline of the Ratio Studiorum of 1586 demands
the following course:[751] “It would be most profitable for the
schools, if those who are about to be preceptors were privately taken
in hand by some one of great experience, and for two months or more
were practised by him in the method of reading, teaching, correcting,
writing, and managing a class. If teachers have not learned these
things beforehand, they are forced to learn them afterwards at the
expense of their scholars; and then they will acquire proficiency
only when they have already lost in reputation; and perchance they
will never unlearn a bad habit. Sometimes such a habit is neither
very serious nor incorrigible, if taken at the beginning; but if the
habit is not corrected at the outset, it comes to pass that a man,
who otherwise would have been most useful, becomes well-nigh useless.
There is no describing how much amiss preceptors take it, if they are
corrected, when they have already adopted a fixed method of teaching;
and what continual disagreement ensues on that score with the Prefect
of Studies. To obviate this evil, in the case of our professors, let
the Prefect in the chief college, whence our professors of Humanities
and Grammar are usually taken, remind the Rector and Provincial,
about three months before the next scholastic year begins, that, if
the Province needs new professors for the following term, they should
select some one eminently versed in the art of managing classes,
whether he be at the time actually a professor or a student of theology
or philosophy; and to him the future masters are to go daily for
an hour,[752] to be prepared by him for their new ministry, giving
prelections in turn, writing, dictating, correcting, and discharging
the other duties of a good teacher.”[753] Professor Ziegler, commenting
on this regulation, says: “To the Jesuits must be given the credit of
first having done something for the pedagogical preparation of the
future teachers in higher schools; and of having paved the way for the
_Probe-_ und _Seminarjahr_ of our days.”[754]
Another regulation laid down in the Ratio of 1599, as a duty of the
Provincial,[755] is of the greatest importance: “In order to preserve
the knowledge of classical literature, and to keep up a Seminary of
teachers, he shall try to have in his Province at least two or three
men distinguished in these branches. This he shall accomplish, if,
from time to time, he takes care that some of them who have a special
talent and inclination for these studies, and are sufficiently trained
in other branches, devote themselves exclusively to this vocation, so
that, through their efforts and industry, a stock of good teachers is
formed.”
In order to give the young teachers, who were to be trained in this
Seminary, a reliable guide, the general assembly of the Society, in
1696-97, passed a decree that, “besides the rules whereby the masters
of literature are directed in the manner of teaching, they should be
provided with an Instruction and proper Method of Learning, and so be
guided in their private studies even while they are teaching.”[756]
Father Joseph de Jouvancy (Latinized Juvencius), one of the greatest
authorities on education of his age, was ordered to revise, and adapt
to the requirements of this decree, a work which he had published
five years previously. This book, after a careful examination by a
special commission, appeared in 1703, as the authorized handbook for
the teachers of the Society, under the title: _Magistris scholarum
inferiorum Societatis Jesu de ratione discendi et docendi_.[757] The
General Visconti in 1752 wished the little book to be in the hands of
all Jesuit teachers.[758] The little work has been styled a pedagogical
gem, and it was highly praised by Rollin and Voltaire.[759] Dr. Ernst
von Sallwürk said of it a few years ago that its importance reaches far
beyond the Jesuit schools. “We may consider it a reliable source for
information of what Jesuit pedagogy at his time aimed at and achieved.
Besides, this book is one of the most prominent works on college
pedagogy (_Gymnasial-Pädagogik_).”[760] In the following chapters we
shall frequently refer to this excellent work of Father Jouvancy.
The account we have given so far of the training of the Jesuit
teacher furnishes an answer to the charge, which is brought forward now
and then, that the Jesuit teachers were too young. No matter how things
stood in the Old Society, at present, according to the above data,
the average age of the Jesuit teacher when he begins teaching cannot
be less than twenty-four years. Besides, every college, according to
the Ratio Studiorum, ought to possess a number of _magistri perpetui_,
permanent teachers, i. e. of men who spend their whole lives in
teaching. This is clearly stated in the rules of the Provincial: “He
shall procure as many as possible permanent teachers of grammar and
rhetoric. This he shall effect if, at the end of the casuistic or
theological studies, some men who are thought to fulfil the duties of
the Society better in this ministry than in any other, are resolutely
(_strenue_) destined for it, and admonished to devote themselves
wholly to so salutary a work, to the greater glory of God.”[761]
Father Sacchini devotes the fourth part of his _Protrepticon_ to
encouraging the members of the Society first, to offer themselves to
the arduous but noble work of education: “The education of youth for
many reasons deserves to be preferred by a zealous Jesuit to all the
other ministries of the Order.” He quotes the words of Pope Paul III.,
in the Bull of the confirmation of the Society: “They [the members of
the Society] shall have expressly recommended to them the instruction
of boys and ignorant people.... For it is most necessary that the
General and his council diligently watch over the management of this
business; seeing that the edifice of faith cannot be raised in our
neighbors without a foundation, and there may be danger among ourselves
lest, as each is more learned, he may endeavor to evade this duty
[of instructing the young], as at first sight perhaps less engaging:
whilst in fact none is more productive, either of edification to our
neighbors or of the practice of the duties of charity and humility
to ourselves.”[762] Father Sacchini says that this volunteering and
application for the work of education, far from being in any way
opposed to obedience, on the contrary, is the most beautiful flower and
perfection of that virtue, which St. Ignatius recommended when saying,
one should not wait for the Superior’s _command_, but should anticipate
his very suggestions and silent wishes.
In the second place Father Sacchini exhorts the teacher to devote
generously his whole life to this great work. Some writers on the
history of education have stated that the Jesuits, after having been
admitted to Priest’s Orders, did not teach the grammar classes, but
gave only the higher instruction.[763] Compayré goes so far as to
assert that “in their establishments for secondary instruction they
entrust the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their Order,
and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher classes.”[764]
This is utterly false. Lay teachers are only employed when the
insufficiency in the number of Jesuits makes it necessary; or for
certain branches, as commercial branches, or in professional courses,
as in the faculties for Law and Medicine, preparatory schools for Army
and Navy, in short, wherever lay experts are needed. The history of
Jesuit schools, old and new, refutes the statement of Compayré and
other writers. Many priests have taught the lower classes for many
years, some for their whole lives. Besides, if priests did not teach
these classes, the regulations of the Ratio about “permanent teachers,”
the earnest appeals of Sacchini and other Jesuit writers, would be
altogether meaningless.
Father Sacchini, in order to encourage the Jesuits to devote their
whole lives to this noble work, enumerates the various emoluments
accruing from this perseverance to the teacher himself, as it gives him
facility, interest, and experience in his work. He further points out
the advantages of this stability for the pupils and for the Society.
He cites in this connection the words of _Ecclesiasticus_[765]: “Be
steadfast in the covenant, and be conversant therein, and grow old in
thy work. Trust in God and stay in thy place.” The Greek text has,
instead of “place”, πόνος, _i. e._ “hard work, toil, drudgery,” a word
admirably suited to express the toilsome labor of education. Therefore:
“stay in thy place, bear patiently the toil and drudgery necessarily
connected with teaching,” is the advice given to the teacher of the
Society. In fact, numerous Jesuits have heeded this advice, and have
spent thirty, forty, fifty, and more years in college work. Not to
speak of times long gone by, or of foreign countries, we mention the
following fact. In 1888, died at Spring Hill College, near Mobile,
Alabama, Father Yenni, author of a Latin and a Greek grammar, who for
fifty years had been teaching boys, and, at his special request, always
in the lowest classes.
The Ratio speaks more explicitly of the training of the teachers
for the literary curriculum; it is understood that those who have
to teach mathematics, sciences, etc., receive a special training in
their respective branches. Other documents of the Society state this
principle in the clearest terms. In the memorandum of Father Clavius,
written more than three hundred years ago, it is said: “In order to
have always in the Society able teachers of these sciences, some who
are especially fitted for this task should be selected and trained,
in a private course, in the various mathematical branches.”[766] In
another document we read: “The best way, perhaps, is that those who are
chosen for this office [teaching mathematics] should, after the course
of philosophy, study for a _whole year_ the branches which they will
have to teach.”[767] This special course, in addition to the general
training in mathematics received in the course of philosophy, was
certainly a sufficient preparation for the amount of mathematics which
was taught in former centuries.
It is evident, then, that both the general and special training of the
Jesuit teacher were well attended to before he was sent out to teach.
Several weeks before the beginning of a new scholastic year, the
young Jesuit arrives at the college which is to be the first field
of his educational labors. After some time, during which the Rector
of the college and the Prefect of Studies have formed acquaintance
with the new-comer, a certain class is assigned to him for the next
year. It is according to the spirit, not only of the Ratio Studiorum,
but of the whole Institute of the Society, that great care be taken
that the positions in colleges, as well as elsewhere, are assigned
according to the talent, the knowledge and the practical abilities of
the individuals. To quote only a few regulations of the Institute, the
Constitutions declare: “Every one should be trained according to his
age, talent, and inclinations,” of course always considering “where the
common good can be advanced best.”[768] The Provincial is told “to take
care that those who have a special inclination for a certain branch
of study, in which they can distinguish themselves, spend more time
in this branch,”[769]--certainly for no other reason than that they
should use this knowledge for teaching, or if circumstances require,
writing on this special subject. Specialization is, accordingly, no new
invention of modern times, but was recognized as important centuries
ago, but a specialization which presupposes the solid foundation of
general culture. Unless this be done, the educational structure becomes
“top-heavy”; “time, money, and labor are put on the superstructure at
the expense of the foundation,” as an American writer complains of
modern educational systems.[770] The specialties to be provided for
by the selection and fostering of special talents, are, in the terms
of the second last general assembly of the Order (in 1883), “ancient
languages, philosophy, ethnology, history, higher mathematics, and all
the natural sciences.”[771] The Institute emphasizes the necessity of
selecting the teachers according to their abilities: “In universities
and colleges learned and able professors are to be appointed,”[772]
and the Provincial Superior is exhorted “to consider in due time what
teachers are to be taken for the single branches, and look out for
those that seem best fitted, who are learned, studious, and assiduous
(_docti_, _diligentes_, _assidui_), and intent upon the progress of
the pupils.”[773] Now, there is scarcely any studiousness or assiduity
possible, unless a man takes a natural interest in the subject which he
has to study or teach. True, the Jesuit is told by his Institute to do
everything from a supernatural motive; still in the special field of
studies “great success is hardly possible if one possesses no natural
liking for such work,” as a distinguished living Jesuit used to tell
the younger members of the Order.
Different documents of the Society state the same principle most
emphatically. We have heard that those men were to be appointed as
teachers of mathematics, who were especially fitted for this task, and
who felt an inclination and a liking for this branch.[774] A second
document says: “Those should be chosen who, all other things being
equal, are superior to all others in talent, diligence, inclination
for these subjects, and in the method of teaching.... For it happens
sometimes that some, proficient enough in other branches, are not
mathematicians, be it for want of study or of natural talent for this
branch.”[775] The same principle was, of course, applied to other
subjects. Father Nadal had laid it down as a general rule of the
Prefect of Studies, to see that all the younger members of the Society
receive a solid general training, and that special talents should be
diligently cultivated. “He must take pains to discover what talent our
young men have, and endeavor to advance them accordingly. If one is
fitted for the study of rhetoric, see that he is given a longer and
more accurate training in the humanistic studies and oratory. The same
care must be taken if one is thought to have a talent for poetics,
for Greek, for philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of
the Church, the Councils, and Canon Law. On the other hand, if one
seems not to be fitted for a certain branch of study, he should not be
detained therein longer than is necessary for acquiring an ordinary
knowledge.”[776]
Thus it is clear that the Constitutions of the Society and the
documents directly concerning the studies, from the very beginning,
insisted on the necessity of assigning each teacher’s work according
to his natural abilities. The General of the Society, Father Visconti,
inculcated this principle later on, saying that “special care should be
taken to assign the classes to the teachers according to their talent,
knowledge and practical skill.”[777] This must be emphasized much more
in our days. For in the sixteenth century, the subjects taught in
colleges were fewer, and it was not so difficult to appoint teachers.
But in our times, other branches must be taught. This cannot be done
effectively by the same man who teaches languages and literature. There
are exceedingly few men who can excel in many branches, or can be good
teachers in several of them.
Here, however, there is another danger which must be avoided: that
of splitting up too much the work of teaching in the same class. This
is most injurious to education properly so-called, especially in the
lower and middle classes. One teacher should have a prominent position
in the class; he should be _the_ teacher, and, in the first place,
_the educator_ of his pupils. For this reason he should teach as many
subjects as possible in his class--provided he masters them--, all
those branches which are more closely connected, as Latin, Greek, also
English, in short, languages and literature. With Latin and Greek it is
natural to combine also Roman and Greek history. Medieval and modern
history may be taught by a special teacher. Mathematics and natural
sciences go well together and can easily be taught by the same teacher.
In a word, the Society wishes to have _class_ teachers preferably
to _branch_ teachers. As is well known, the class system is, to a
certain extent, prevalent in Germany. For some time the branch system
had been favored, but experience proved that the old class system was
unquestionably better. So the “New School Order” for Prussia, 1901,
strongly recommends the strengthening of the influence of the class
teacher as distinct from the branch teacher, in order to secure, above
all, better education. “The splitting up of the teaching in the lower
and middle classes among too many teachers, as well as frequent changes
of teachers, are considered an obstacle to any enduring educational
influence. To put a stop, as far as possible, to these evils, the
provincial school authorities are strictly bound to see to it that a
professor proposed as a _class teacher_ be suitable for the position,
_and that he teach in his class as many subjects as possible_, so far
as his scholastic attainments and practical experience allow it.”[778]
The advantages of this system for education need not be demonstrated.
It is the only system which gives the teacher a thorough knowledge of
the pupil and influence on the formation of his character.[779]
There is another practice of Jesuit colleges which had for its
end the strengthening of the educational influence of the teacher.
According to the Ratio Studiorum, it was customary that the teacher
should not always remain in the same grade, except the professors of
the two highest literary classes, of Humanities and Rhetoric, where
more erudition is required. But the young teacher should begin with
the lowest class, then year after year advance with the better part
of his pupils to the next higher grade, at least for three or four
years. Thus the students have not to pass so often from one master,
and consequently from one kind of management, to the other; master and
pupil understand each other, and if the teacher is a good religious and
a fairly efficient teacher, he will have won the esteem, the affection,
and the confidence of the pupils, all which gives him inestimable
advantages for the real and thorough education of his charges. On the
other hand, frequent changes interfere considerably with the training
of the pupils. As early as 1583, Father Oliver Manare, visiting the
colleges of the German provinces by the General’s authority, laid it
down as a directive that “frequent changes were burdensome to the
students, because they were forced to accommodate themselves often to
new teachers and prefects.”[780]
If, for want of a sufficient number of men, some of the regulations
laid down for the training of the teacher, were, perhaps, not
everywhere and always complied with, the Ratio Studiorum is not to
be censured on that account, nor the Society as such, as by wise
legislation she endeavored to obviate any such shortcomings.[781]
Moreover, the uniformity of the previous training of the Jesuit
teachers, as well as the uniform system of teaching in the colleges
of the same province, has the effect that, although teachers are
changed, there is no change in the method of teaching. Besides, is not
every institution, secular or ecclesiastical, however well organized,
open to such or similar temporary defects? Exceptional shortcomings
must naturally be expected in any system, as there is nothing on
earth altogether perfect and ideal. Deficiencies in individual Jesuit
teachers, or in single colleges, do not prove anything against the
system, no more than the inefficient administration of one Governor
or President proves the worthlessness of the constitution of a State
or the Republic. Our contention is only that excellent teachers are
trained if the regulations of the Jesuit system are followed.
The young teacher has received his appointment, let us say for one of
the high school classes, to teach Latin and Greek. He knows his grammar
well, he has in the course of years read many classical authors. Is
anything still wanting? Indeed very much: an intimate acquaintance with
the authors, facility in handling their languages, skill in explaining
the grammar and the authors. All this he has to acquire by a system of
_continued self-training_, under the direction of the Rector or Prefect
of Studies. Above all he must study the classic authors themselves.
Second-hand knowledge will not suffice for the teacher. Reading over
the regulations of the Society in former centuries concerning the
preparation of the teachers,[782] one must be surprised to see what
an amount of reading was required of the young teacher, in Latin,
Greek, and history. Thus the teacher of the second lowest Grammar class
(_Media Grammatica_) had to study, besides the authors he explained in
class, _all_ the philosophical writings of Cicero (the epistles he had
read the year before), and some of the orations of the same author;
the poets Claudian, Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, Martial, the first
ten books of Livy, Justin, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus,
and the whole of Caesar. In Greek, Aelian, Aesop, and Xenophon’s
Cyropaedia. Various books on style, poetry, and rhetoric.[783] The
teacher of the third class was to study all the orations of Cicero
with a commentary; Horace, Seneca, and other poets; some more books
of Livy, Curtius, Sallust; the Philippics of Demosthenes.--Every
minute was to be utilized in order to master these authors. Catalogues
of books on philology and antiquities were printed from which the
young teacher might find assistance in studying and explaining the
authors.[784] The young teacher has to look not so much for pedagogical
theories, as for practical knowledge. He is to read carefully the
authors, closely observe peculiarities of their style, accurately
translate and intelligently expound their meaning. It is exactly the
system, according to which Professor Hermann of Leipsic trained his
philologians. This practical method of self-activity and self-training
we find explained in the first part of Jouvancy’s commentary on the
Ratio Studiorum, in _The Method of Learning_.
As the object of this training is to form practical teachers, not a
word is said about higher criticism and the like; but Father Jouvancy
urges the teacher to acquire in the first place a thorough mastery of
three languages: Greek, Latin, and the vernacular. The means of gaining
this mastery are plentiful reading of the best authors, and practising
compositions of various kinds: letters, orations, essays.
The second part of the learning proper to the master of literature
consists, according to Jouvancy, in the thorough knowledge of certain
sciences. “The erudition of a master is not confined to mere command of
languages; it must rise higher to the understanding of some sciences
which it is usual to impart to youth in the classical schools. Such
are rhetoric, poetry, history, chronology, geography, philology.”[785]
As regards history, it is superfluous to speak of its usefulness for a
higher education. History is, indeed, a _magistra vitae_, a teacher and
mirror of life, a school of practical wisdom. Of particular importance
for the teacher is the thorough knowledge of the history of Greece and
Rome. A scholarly appreciation of the classics is impossible without an
intimate acquaintance with the history: political, social, religious,
and literary, of these nations.
Here we must say a few words on the teacher’s attitude towards
ancient history. The religious teacher’s viewpoint of history is
radically different from that of the agnostic. To the religious teacher
historical events are not merely the products of natural agencies. He
sees rather in history, to use the words of the Jesuit Kropf, “the
wonderful manifestation of God’s power and a revelation of the wisdom
of a Divine Providence.”[786] History, in this sense, is a record of
the development of mankind under the providential guidance of God; or,
more precisely, a record of the systematic training and improvement
of the human race by divinely appointed means as a preparation for
the birth of Christ, that God might, through the coming of His Son,
secure from man a spontaneous homage, a worship worthy of Himself.
The coming of Christ, in this view, gives a definite character to
history, and the periods both before and after that event--the greatest
in history--constitute its two grand divisions,[787] the one the
preparation for the coming of Christ, the other the spread and struggle
of Christ’s kingdom, to the final triumph on the day of Judgment.
Christ, therefore, is the central figure of all history, “the stone
which was rejected by the builders, which is become the head of the
corner.”[788]
From this standpoint, then, the Jesuit masters will study and teach
the history of Greece and Rome. Of this viewpoint he will not lose
sight when reading and explaining the classic authors. It need not
be feared that this view will prevent the teacher from doing full
justice to these two great nations. On the contrary. In the Greeks he
will acknowledge those brilliant gifts of nature which made them the
foremost promoters of human art, human knowledge, and human culture.
In the history of Rome he will admire that wonderful talent for ruling
the world, and that system of jurisprudence which exercised so potent
an influence on the formation of later codes of laws. However, the
Christian view of history will prevent the teacher from sharing that
one-sided admiration of antiquity which was so disastrous among the
humanists during the Renaissance, and which is found sometimes in the
ranks of professional philologists. The Greeks were indeed a race
endowed with exceptional gifts of body and mind. However, we need not
and cannot shut our eyes to their many moral defects, especially to
that frightful kind of immorality which has received its name from the
Greeks, and which manifests itself even in the finest pieces of their
literature.
Nor is the Christian teacher’s attitude towards imperial Rome very
different. At the time when Christ appeared on earth, Rome under
Augustus had risen to the zenith of her glory, and the poets sang that
the golden age had returned on earth. But under a glittering surface
lay hidden the misery of slavery, universal corruption, scepticism
and despair. In the midst of this darkness appeared the “Light to the
revelation of the Gentiles.”[789] Yet the darkness did not surrender
without a fierce struggle, the greatest which the world has ever
seen. The history of this struggle between Christ and Caesar, between
Christianity and paganism, between faith and infidelity, is the keynote
of the first three centuries, nay more, of the nineteen hundred years
which have since elapsed.
The Christian historian, although objecting to Gibbon’s explanation
of the spread of Christianity from merely natural causes,[790] admits
that, apart from the intrinsic worth and positive character of
Christianity as a divinely revealed religion, external circumstances
also contributed to the rapid propagation of the religion of Christ.
He discovers that the coming of the _Desired of Nations_ had been
prepared directly, through “the Law and the Prophets,” among the
chosen people of Israel, _indirectly_ also among the Gentiles. This
indirect preparation was first a negative one; the ancient world had
to realize the limitation of the natural powers; it had to experience
that all progress in philosophy, art and politics could neither quiet
the mind nor satisfy the heart, and was utterly unable to save either
the individual or the family, the state or society.[791] But there
was also a more positive preparation of the Gentile world. The Greek
methods of philosophy, especially those of Plato and Aristotle, in
spite of their many shortcomings, became efficient means with which
the early champions of the Church successfully combated the errors
and absurdities of paganism and logically defended the doctrines of
Revelation. Thus Plato, in the words of Clement of Alexandria, was a
παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν, a teacher who prepared the way for Christ.
Origen, Eusebius and St. Augustine see a special providence of God in
the conquest of the world by the Roman Empire. It is this tracing of
God’s working in history which Father Kropf suggested to the teacher,
and it is in this light that he has to study the history and literature
of Greece and Rome.
With ancient history and the classics, the teacher has to connect
the study of antiquities. Those who have heard it said again and
again that the Jesuit system aims at nothing but “mere formalism, at
cleverness in speaking and disputing,” will naturally ask in surprise,
whether the Jesuits had any place for these subjects in their course
of instruction. However, a mere glance at the Ratio, the commentary of
Jouvancy and other sources will convince any one that the teaching of
antiquities is even prescribed in the colleges of the Society. Under
the name of _eruditio_, i. e. general erudition or general learning,
the study of antiquities forms an essential part of the explanation of
the authors. The professor of Rhetoric (Sophomore) is told that “one of
the three principal points of this grade consists in general erudition.
This is to be drawn from the history of the nations and their culture,
from the best authors and from every field of learning; but it is to
be imparted sparingly and according to the capacity of the pupils.”
The fifteenth rule of the professor says that “for the advancement of
erudition, sometimes, instead of reading the historical author, other
subjects might be treated, e. g. hieroglyphics, and symbolic signs,
epitaphs,[792] the Roman or Athenian Senate, the military systems of
the Romans and Greeks, the costumes, gardens, banquets, triumphs,
sibyls, etc., in short--as the Revised Ratio has it--archaeology. The
first rule of the professor of Humanities mentions the same.” But that
it was intended for all classes, though naturally not to the same
extent, is evident from Jouvancy’s treatise “On the Explanation of
Authors,” which we shall give in substance in the next chapter. There
it will also be explained why antiquities, according to the Ratio,
should be imparted “sparingly.”
If antiquities are to be taught in Jesuit colleges, the teacher
must carefully study them. This is done partly in the two years of
philological studies which follow the novitiate. One of the great
teachers of the first century of the Society, Father Bonifacio, who
for more than forty years labored in the Spanish colleges, writes: “In
the philological seminaries, our young men, besides studying Latin,
Greek and Hebrew, should acquire an intimate knowledge of history and
classical antiquities.”[793] However, this archaeological learning
has to be acquired chiefly throughout the course of teaching. It will
always form a part of the preparation of the authors which are, at
the time, read in class. Father Jouvancy advises the young teacher to
devote especially the holidays to this study, which he calls a useful
and, at the same time, pleasant change.[794]
In the Old Society there existed special lists or catalogues of
various works, from which historical and antiquarian information could
best be obtained. Very interesting in this regard is the _Catalogue_ of
the province of Upper Germany of the year 1604.[795] In an introductory
remark it is stated that the list of philological helps is not made
for the old and experienced professors, but for the young masters,
for the beginners; and a great number of works is given that every
one might suit his own taste and select those authors whom he likes
best. The first part of the catalogue contains the best commentaries
on the classical authors. The second enumerates works on Roman Law,
which will help towards a better understanding of the writings of
Cicero. The third gives the titles of about sixty works on antiquities:
Roman and Greek games, triumphs, chronology, religion and sacrifices,
mythology, banquets, costumes, the army and navy, numismatics, measures
and weights, architecture, the triumphal arches, the circus, the
amphitheatre, topography, geography, etc.[796] Several works on these
subjects were written by Jesuits. It will appear, then, that although
antiquities were to be taught but sparingly, the information of the
teacher on these subjects was supposed to be thorough. Jouvancy, at the
end of his _Method of Learning_, reminds the young master that “he must
beware of superficiality; he must not be satisfied with a smattering
but should endeavor to master thoroughly, to exhaust, if possible, that
branch to which, by his natural gifts and God’s will, he is destined to
apply himself. Above all he must be constant in his studies and devote
all his time to earnest self-training. Should he trifle away his time,
he would seriously fail in his religious obligations; for God’s glory
and the honor of the Society demand of him as much progress in learning
as he can possibly attain, and one day God will ask of him a rigorous
account of his time and his work.”
This is the training which the Society gives its young teachers. It
is a solid and practical training, one, we think, fitted for forming
competent teachers.
FOOTNOTES:
[726] In the _Centralorgan für die Interessen des Realschulwesens_.
Berlin.
[727] See Father Clarke’s article in the _Nineteenth Century_, Aug.
1896.
[728] _Const. Soc. Jesu_, Pars I, cap. 1, 4.
[729] _Reg. Prov._, 33.
[730] _Reg. com._, 6.
[731] _Constitutions of the Society_, P. I. c. 2.
[732] The entrance into religious life and the happiness enjoyed in the
novitiate, is beautifully told by the German Jesuit Denis, translator
of Ossian’s poems, and by the French Jesuit Ravignan, famous for his
conferences at Notre Dame, Paris.
[733] _De Inst. Orat._, II, 2.
[734] _Reg. com. mag. schol. inf._, 50.
[735] I _Tim._ 4, 8.
[736] Father Clarke in the _Nineteenth Century_, August, 1896.
[737] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, vol. I, p. 38.
[738] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, III, p. 71.
[739] _Selectae S. Ignatii Sententiae_, VIII.
[740] However, these two theologians did not teach _together_ in the
same university, as is often said. See the dates given by Fathers
Frins, S. J., and Kneller, S. J., in the _Kirchen-Lexikon_, XI, 923,
and XII, 634.
[741] _Hist. Sketches_, vol. II, p. 369. Does not this great writer,
by so true a statement of facts, refute what, in another passage, he
quoted about crushing out individuality?
[742] See above p. 18.
[743] Father Taunton, _A History of the Jesuits in England_, 1901. See
_Month_, May 1901, p. 505.
[744] Taunton, _l. c._
[745] There was a time “when behind every Roman Catholic Court in
Europe there stood a Jesuit confessor, and a Jesuit emissary ascended
the back stairs of every Protestant palace.” _English Review_, vol. V,
1846, p. 65.
[746] “Monkish Latin” has become a byword from the days of the
humanists on to our age. The technical terms introduced by the
scholastics are, it is true, not found in the writings of the ancients.
Still we cannot deny that the schoolmen had a right, for the sake of
greater brevity and precision, to form new words, from old roots,
in order to avoid the cumbrous circumlocutions of a Cicero. Many
modern scholars view the scholastic Latin much more favorably than
was customary a few decades ago. Thus Mr. Leach, who is anything but
friendly to the scholastics, says: “The medieval schoolmen sinned no
more against pure Latinity, than the modern scientific writer sins
against English undefiled, if such there be.” And Mr. Rashdall writes:
“Among the students of a University and among the clergy generally much
villainous Latin was no doubt talked, just as much villainous French is
or was encouraged by the rule of French-speaking in English Seminaries
for Young Ladies. But the Latin which was written by the theologian,
or historian ... was not as bad as is commonly supposed by those who
have only heard it abused. J. S. Mill has rightly praised the schoolmen
for their unrivalled capacity in the invention of technical terms. The
Latin language originally rigid, inflexible, poor in vocabulary, and
almost incapable of expressing a philosophical idea, became in the
hands of medieval thinkers, flexible, subtle, rich.” _Univers. of the
M. A._, vol. II, pp. 595-596. See also Paulsen, _l. c._, vol. I, pp.
45-48.
[747] _Reg. Praef. Stud._ 30.
[748] From _Education in the United States_, vol. I, p. 190.
[749] _Educational Reformers_, pp. 36-37.
[750] Pachtler, vol. III, pp. 130-131.--Hughes, p. 184.
[751] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 154.--See Hughes, p. 160.
[752] In the final _Ratio Stud._ of 1599, it was laid down as a duty of
the Rector to see that this was done, but the time was limited to three
hours a week. (_Reg. Rect._ 9.)
[753] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 154, no. 6.--Hughes, p. 160.--Duhr, p. 39.
[754] _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 111.
[755] _Reg. Prov._ 22.
[756] Pachtler, I, pp. 101-2.--Duhr, p. 40.--Hughes, p. 162.
[757] A German translation of this work, with introduction and notes,
by Robert Schwickerath, S. J., was published in 1898, in Herder’s
_Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, pp. 207-322.--An
excellent sketch of the life and the works of this “model of a Jesuit
Professor” is contained in the _Études religieuses_, Paris, November
and December 1872.--The correct form of the name is _Jouvancy_, not
Jouvency, which latter originated from the Latinized Juvencius.
[758] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 132; IV, pp. 401, 435.
[759] See above page 163, note 332.
[760] In Schmid’s _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. IV, Abteilung I, pp.
460 and 538-543.
[761] _Reg. Prov._ 24.--By a very curious mistake some writers (as
Professor Müller in Schmid’s _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. III,
Abteilung I, page 41) represent these “permanent teachers” as a
separate and inferior grade in the Society, “who received only a
special drill in pedagogical courses and were not much esteemed.” And
yet the Ratio Studiorum, in the rule just quoted, states explicitly
that the members of the Society should be appointed as _magistri
perpetui_ after the completion of their _theological_ course. Therefore
the priests are meant.
[762] English transl. from _Constitutions of the Society of Jesus_,
London, 1838.
[763] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 36, note a.
[764] _History of Pedag._, p. 143.
[765] _Eccli._ 11, 21, 22.
[766] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 471.
[767] _Ibid._, p. 475.
[768] _Pars_ IV, _cap._ V, _Declar._ C.
[769] _Reg. Prov._ 55 (No. 55 of the Rules in the _Institute_, not of
the _Rat. Stud._).
[770] _Is our Educational System Top-heavy?_ By Elliott Flower, in the
_North American Review_, February 1898.
[771] See Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[772] _Reg. Prov._ 47. (_Institute._)
[773] _Rat. St._, _Reg. Prov._ 4 and _Const._, _Pars_ IV, cap. VI, 6.
[774] “_Necessarium etiam videtur, ut praeceptor habeat inclinationem
quandam et propensionem ad has scientias praelegendas._” In the
treatise: _Modus quo disciplinae mathematicae in scholis Societatis
possent promoveri_. See _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 471.
[775] _De re mathematica instructio._ (_Mon. Paed._, p. 476.)
[776] _Ordo Studiorum_, in _Mon. Paed._, p. 133. It appears from the
whole context that by “talent” a “special” talent is meant. Be it added
that by “oratory” and “poetics” we have to understand all the studies
pursued in the two classes “Humanities” and “Rhetoric”.
[777] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 131.
[778] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, p. 75. See _Messenger_, New
York, Sept. 1901.
[779] On this subject there is a splendid article, written by Father
Pachtler in the year 1880, in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol.
XVIII, pp. 49-66.
[780] Pachtler I, 415.--Father Ledesma made the regulation that in the
beginning of the scholastic year substitutes should be appointed, who
had to be ready to step in if a teacher should, by sickness or some
other cause, be compelled to discontinue teaching. _Mon. Paed._, p.
144, 156.
[781] _Reg. Provinc._ 4, 22, 24, 28, 30, etc.
[782] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 175-235.
[783] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 203-204.
[784] See Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 12-19, where lists of such books,
recommended in the Old Society, are given.
[785] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. II.--It has been proved in chapter IV,
pp. 124-129, that history and geography were never neglected in the
colleges of the Society. In the mean time I found that the Protestant
writers of Schmid’s great _Geschichte der Erziehung_ (1884-1901), in
sharp contrast with the assertions of M. Compayré, candidly admit
the services rendered to history and geography by Jesuit schools
and scholars. Thus Dr. von Sallwürk says: “The study of history was
considerably advanced by Jesuit writers, but the colleges of the
University [of Paris] did not imitate the example of the Jesuits.”
_Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. IV, Abteilung I, p. 436. “The Fathers
Sirmond, Petavius, and Labbe have well deserved of historical studies
and of the teaching of history in the schools.... Geography was
henceforth zealously cultivated by the Jesuits.... Of great practical
importance were the labors of the remarkably diligent Father Buffier;
especially on geography and grammar he has written good books, in
which the traditional scholastic _tone_ is happily avoided.... His
_Philosophy and Practical Grammar_ was for a long time considered the
only useful grammar of the French language.... In the schools of the
Oratory we find geography as a branch of study; but to the Jesuits
must be allowed the merit of having taught this branch before the
Oratorians. In their College at Amiens was trained Nicolas Sanson, the
‘Father of Geography’.” _Ibid._, p. 456 and 466.
[786] _Ratio et Via_, chapter V, art. 9. (German translation p. 423.)
The new Prussian School Order of 1901 uses the same words in regard to
Church history, p. 16.
[787] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. I, p. 6.
[788] _Acts_ 4, 11.
[789] _Luke_ 2, 32.
[790] Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, ch. XV. See
Newman’s criticisms on these chapters in _Grammar of Assent_.
[791] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. I, pp. 127-135.
[792] In 1830 the German Jesuits declared these three points to be
antiquated. (Pachtler IV, 439.)
[793] Father Bonifacio’s pedagogical works lately appeared in a German
translation, together with those of Father Perpinian and Father
Possevin: in the _Bibliothek der kathol. Pädagogik_, vol. XI.--Herder,
Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1901.
[794] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. III, art. 2.
[795] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 12-19.
[796] These works were in the 17th century of the same importance as
at present the standard works on antiquities, such as Guhl and Koner,
_Life of the Greeks and Romans_; Schömann, _The Antiquities of Greece_;
Mahaffy, _Social Life in Greece_; Ramsay, _Antiquities_; and the works
of Mommsen, Becker, Lang, Lanciani, Boissier, Friedländer, Marquardt
etc. They took also the place of our modern Classical Dictionaries and
of such great collections as Iwan von Müller’s valuable _Handbuch der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_.
CHAPTER XVI.
The Method of Teaching in Practice.
It was said before that the intellectual scope of the Jesuit system
is the general training of the mind; the means for obtaining this
end are the various exercises. In this chapter we shall treat the
exercises of the literary course, and this for several reasons.
_First_, because the study of languages and literature should form
the backbone of, at least, the secondary schools and of part of the
college course. _Secondly_, because the Ratio Studiorum treats the
exercises in languages and literature very minutely, whereas it makes
only a few suggestions concerning the exercises in mathematics and
natural sciences. _Thirdly_, because it is especially in the literary
studies that there exists a danger to neglect the exercises, as is, in
fact, the case in some modern systems. No one will doubt for a moment
that for the successful teaching of mathematics continual exercises
are absolutely necessary. In natural sciences, particularly in physics
and chemistry, the equivalent of the exercises are the experiments and
especially the laboratory work.[797] On teaching physics and chemistry
the Ratio has one very important remark, viz., the professor should not
treat them merely theoretically and mathematically, so that no time
is left for the experiments; nor should he, on the other hand, spend
so much time on the experiments that the teaching seems to be purely
experimental; but sufficient time should be devoted to the principles,
systems, theories, and hypotheses.[798] The object of all these
exercises, be they scientific or literary, must be clear from what
has been said in previous chapters, especially in the chapter on the
_Intellectual Scope_. There we compared the different branches of study
to the tools of the artisan or the dumb bells of one who takes a course
of physical training; the exercises are the practical handling of these
instruments, not by the teacher, but by the pupil. The teacher has to
show how they are to be handled, but then the pupil has to lay hold of
the intellectual tools and handle them himself. Thus, and thus only,
not by merely listening to the lectures of a teacher, will the youthful
mind be trained and acquire that readiness and nimbleness which is
the object of true education. The literary exercises laid down in the
Ratio Studiorum shall be treated under four headings: the “prelection”,
memory lessons, compositions, and contests.[799]
§ 1. The Prelection or Explanation of the Authors.
The typical form of Jesuit instruction is called _praelectio_.
This word is largely the equivalent of “lecturing” in the higher
faculties;[800] of “explanation” in the lower. In either case, however,
it is something specific.[801] For this reason the word may be used in
an English dress, as “prelection”. We are here not concerned with the
lecture in the higher faculties, but with the prelection or explanation
in the literary or classical course. This prelection is two-fold: one
is upon the authors, the other upon the precepts of rhetoric, poetry,
and style in the higher classes, of grammar, prosody, etc., in the
lower classes. The Ratio gives some useful hints as to teaching the
principles of rhetoric in connection with the reading of the authors.
Taking up a passage, let us say of Cicero, the professor will, in the
first place, make clear the sense of the text; secondly, analyze the
artistic structure; thirdly, explain the force and meaning of the
rhetorical precept contained in the passage; fourthly, adduce other
examples which are similar in thought or expression, especially famous
and striking ones; cite other orators or poets, whether in the classics
or the vernacular, in which the same principles are employed; lastly,
weigh the words singly, comment upon the propriety of their use, their
rhythm, variety, beauty. The comparison of Latin and Greek authors with
those of the vernacular, that treat of similar subjects, was especially
recommended by the Jesuits in Germany, in 1830.[802]
The method of explaining authors is sketched admirably in the 27th
of the common rules. The first thing the professor is told to do is
to read the whole passage through, unless it be too long. There is a
very good reason for this. It makes an impression on the ear of the
pupils, and accustoms them to the rhythm of the language. Again, the
reading is calculated, better than the rules of prosody, to impress on
them the correct quantity of Latin syllables. Remember that the boys
are understood to be employing Latin words a year, two years, before
they learn the prosody; they are surely not supposed to be pronouncing
incorrectly all that time. How, then, do they acquire accuracy in
this important detail? Simply by imitating their professor. He reads
every lesson for them before explaining; they read every lesson before
translating, when they repeat next day. The rules of prosody afterwards
only complete the work. Jouvancy observes that the teacher should
accustom the pupils from the very beginning to distinct and articulate
reading[803]; the same holds good of the recitations. From the first
lesson in Latin and Greek the teachers should insist on the correct
quantity, particularly of the final syllables (_os_, _es_, _is_, etc.).
If in the lowest classes the students acquire a faulty pronunciation,
they will never get rid of it in later years. Some modern teachers go
to an extreme in insisting too much on quantity and other points. This
is affectation. Years ago many colleges used the English pronunciation
of Latin: _pueri_ = pyueray, etc.; others follow more or less the
(European) continental system; of late the high schools and most
colleges have adopted the ancient or Roman pronunciation: _Cicero_ =
_Kikero_, etc. This is not the place to enter on a discussion about
the relative value of the different systems. The opinions of leading
educators differ considerably.[804]
The reading of the text is not merely intended for correctness of
pronunciation; the passage should be so read that the sense may
fully appear, and that the sentiment may be rendered expressively.
Inflection, tone, quality of voice, all the elements of elocution
applicable to reading should be carefully attended to, and represented
faithfully. A distinguished Jesuit professor even went so far as to
employ gesture in this part of his prelection. What is easier in an
oration than to put that spirit into the reading which shows the pupils
that they are not examining a dead series of words, but a living
organism with life and feeling in it, that they are studying the actual
expression of real human feelings? One would not be too venturesome in
asserting that the reading of the passage well done is the very best
introduction to the matter studied. Of course, the repetition of this
excellent reading should be exacted immediately, as often as possible;
the next day at all events. It will prove the easiest and surest means
of teaching elocution. The Rule does not say _legat_, nor _recitet_,
but _pronunciet_; _legat_ or _recitet_ would be satisfied by any
reading, monotonous or not; _pronunciet_ necessarily implies delivery,
the attempt at elocutionary finish.
The delivery of the passage well done--and, when possible, exacted
immediately,--the professor proceeds to sketch the _argumentum_, or
gist of the passage. This he does briefly. Father Jouvancy, in his Odes
of Horace, gives us examples of _argumenta_ which are all that could be
desired; other instances, found in the _Ratio Docendi_, will be given
below. Of course, the professor gives the argument mostly from his
notes, and he usually, or often, dictates it,--a reason for his writing
it out at home. It should be brief, pithy, striking, and clear, and
given in Latin in the higher classes, in the vernacular in the lower
classes.
Then, when the passage is connected with the preceding, the professor
has to set forth the nature of the connection; this refers especially
to points of history, and, in general, to such references as come under
the head of _eruditio_. It will seldom be necessary when, as often
occurs in the lower grades, the passage for prelection is the whole of
a short story. In Freshman class and Sophomore, on the contrary, it may
require some time to explain this connection.
The professor next passes on to consider each sentence by itself. He
explains each one, shows the grammatical or rhetorical connection or
dependence of its successive members and phrases, and, in general,
clears up any obscurities or difficulties which the words contain. If
the explanation is in the vernacular,[805] he is careful to keep at
first, as far as possible, the order of the Latin words, to accustom
the ear to the _numerus_ of that language. If this cannot be done,
then he first translates nearly word for word, almost regardless of
vernacular excellence, then afterwards returns and gives a version,
with all attention to the elegancies of diction. This last translation
must be a model of the vernacular, the very best the professor can do.
Jouvancy says that all translations and dictations in the vernacular
must be in strict accord with the most exact rules of the language, and
free from any defect.[806] The Ratio of 1832, in the eighteenth rule
for the teachers, insists on the same.
By all odds the better way for the teacher, as Jouvancy has said, is
to elaborate his version for himself. It is a risky thing to rely on
printed translations; many of them, especially the “Handy Library
Translations” and the like, are frequently done in awkward and
slovenly English. Further, as now-a-days the pupils have easy access
to libraries, they will soon detect what sort of translation the
teacher uses. In consequence the professor will lose a great part of
his authority, the first element of which is esteem for the teacher’s
learning. Besides, as soon as the students have discovered the source
of the teacher’s translation, the careless and lazy ones will no longer
pay any attention in class. Of course, the most conscientious and
painstaking teacher has sometimes to have recourse to translations. But
he should procure the most scholarly translations, and use them with
discretion.
There can be no objection to the teacher’s reading the translation
from his paper; by which means he will be ensured against slips and
sins against idiom, such as otherwise can hardly be avoided. If he
chooses, after his own version, he may read a printed translation,
which is especially useful in the case of such works as Butcher and
Lang’s Homer.
Notes and remarks are now to be given. Many professors prefer the
alternative suggested in the Rule, of putting these in here and there,
where they belong, in the course of the explanation. This plan, and
that of presenting all the remarks together at the end, have both their
own advantages. The former is more in keeping with unity, the latter
affords a good opportunity of going over the passage again, and gives
the pupils an occasion to make a little review of what has been done so
far. Repetition is always good: it impresses and enforces. It is for
this reason that the second rule of the several classes orders that
immediately after the prelection a short repetition be “exacted” of the
students. While the matter is still fresh, this can be done more easily
and will have a more lasting effect.
The notes given should be made brief and striking and should be
carefully worded. _Littera scripta manet._ The Grammar classes are not
to write unless bidden. This evidently supposes that the higher classes
may write when they choose. They are considered to have acquired
discretion enough to guide them in their choice of what to note down
from the professor’s explanation. The lower grades are not to do this
for themselves, because, as Father Hughes[807] says, “it happens now
and then that, with much labor, waste of time and to no good purpose
whatever, the boys take down and preserve with diligence a set of notes
which have not been thought out very judiciously nor been arranged
very carefully, notes simply trivial, common, badly patched together,
sometimes worse than worthless, and these notes they commit to paper in
wretched handwriting, full of mistakes and errors. Therefore let the
dictation be only of a few points and those extremely select.”
The _Trial Ratio_ of 1586 bids the professor and the Prefect look over
the students’ note books occasionally.[808] This examination ensures
the notes being written neatly and in order. It must not be forgotten
that one great advantage of notes in general is the habit of system
which they tend to foster; hence they must be diligently seen to. The
teacher leads the way, as in every other detail of class work, by being
orderly himself; he exacts the same care of his pupils.
The Ratio strongly recommends careful _preparation_ on the part of the
professor. He is not to give the prelection _ex tempore_, but after
careful thought and even writing. What a splendid thing it would be
if every teacher could so thoroughly make himself _ready_ as to go to
class with nothing but the text of the author and give his prelection,
reading, argument, explanation, version, notes, dictation and all
without so much as looking on his book before the boys! This would be
the perfection of preparation and has been attained in the Society, old
and new, but would possibly require too much time of professors of but
a few years’ teaching. At any rate, the one who wishes to be successful
in his work and do it faithfully, will not only have taken the pains to
have studied carefully beforehand--the long vacation is the best time
to do this--the book or oration which he is to explain, but will never
come to class without having prepared, at the very least, some notes
put in order as he designs to give them to the pupils.
These notes may be more or less _in extenso_: if the professor has
sufficient fluency in expressing himself, they can be simple jottings,
mere hints of what he is to say, and in what place. He will also have
carefully fixed such points as he means to dictate. It will seldom be
necessary for one to write out the entire prelection word for word.
Such a practice would be good at times, no doubt, by way of exercising
oneself in neatness and accuracy, and in style; but ordinarily mere
notes will suffice. What will they consist of? That will depend
largely on the passage under discussion. Now they will include a
bit of history, the narration of which is called for by the passage
for prelection; now geography; at other times archaeology; oftener
grammatical or rhetorical precepts will enter, and similar passages
from other authors, ancient and modern, may be quoted. When possible,
these notes should embrace such moral hints as may be brought in
naturally. The teacher will depend to a great extent on such occasional
hints for his moral influence on his pupils.
A prelection written one year, even if the same author is read, will
rarely do another if not modified. The circumstances of the class
will have changed. A prelection has this in common with an oration,
that it must suit the present audience. Contemporary events, to
which reference is at times in order, will differ. These and other
circumstances will naturally make the prelection matter different,
even on the same passage. Each lesson should, therefore, be prepared
for each class especially. This is the chief work which a teacher has
to attend to during his free hours each day. It is rarely good to make
this preparation a week ahead of time; unless the professor reviews
and adapts his notes shortly before delivering them. It is evident
that to prepare a prelection in this manner is a serious thing, a work
by no means trifling; but easy or not, it must be gone through. It
supposes that the professor spends his hours free from class in honest
preparation.
_Repetition_ has been called the _mater studiorum_, and in truth, few
points are of more vital importance. The Ratio insists on repetition
throughout the course, but particularly in the lowest classes. Without
constant, steady, persistent drilling on the same matter in the
beginning of the student’s career, no solid foundation for the future
literary edifice can be hoped for. Perhaps it is owing to inadvertence
to this necessity that in some instances the fruit does not correspond
to the labor of the professor. It has been well said that young
teachers think mainly of stimulating their pupils’ minds, and so
neglect the repetition needed for accuracy.[809]
The 25th rule enjoins explicitly two distinct repetitions, one of
yesterday’s lesson, the other of the lesson just explained. A short
repetition should immediately follow the prelection. This is of great
importance; it shows the professor whether his meaning has been
well grasped by the pupils, and, moreover, brings home to their yet
untrained minds the salient points of the previous explanation. This
particular repetition should not be omitted in the lower classes.
It does not require much time, ordinarily a very few minutes will
suffice. The chief result to be gained is that the pupils should
really understated what has just been said. In this it differs from
the repetition of the lesson which was explained on the preceding day;
for the principal end of this exercise is so to fix the matter in the
boys’ minds that it may really become their own. The more advanced
students may be called to give the short repetition at the end of
the prelection, whereas the duller, or perhaps the more indolent
ones should be asked especially for the fuller repetition of the
lesson of the previous day. But never should the teacher follow the
order in which the pupils are seated, or the alphabetical order of
the names. Jouvancy thinks that the teacher, before going to school,
should go over the names of the boys and reflect whom he is to call up
for repetition.[810] Every one should have his turn, but duller and
indolent ones should be called more frequently, as they need it most.
The 26th rule establishes an excellent principle, namely “to repeat on
Saturday everything that was seen during the week.” Monday or any other
_fixed_ day will do as well. By _everything_ is understood a thorough
and careful review of the more important parts of the matter taught,
especially the rules of grammar, precepts of style and rhetoric.
Jouvancy has drawn up several _schemata_ or specimens of a prelection
on Cicero, Virgil and Phaedrus as adapted to different classes.[811]
We give the substance of two. Be it remarked, however, that the same
order need not and cannot be followed strictly in all details in every
prelection. They are specimens exhibiting a general rule, which is to
be applied with discretion. Professor Willmann has well observed: “As
all similar _schemata_ also Jouvancy’s _canon explanationis_ is useful
if applied properly, whereas if it is carried through pedantically in
all subjects and with stereotyped regularity, it makes instructions
mechanical.”[812]
A. _Explanation of a Passage from Cicero in Rhetoric (Sophomore)._ Take
the exordium of Cicero’s second _Philippic_ from _Quonam meo fato_ to
_Cui priusquam_. We distinguish five parts in the explanation.
I. _Argumentum._ (Willmann: “In this part Jouvancy recommends
a paraphrase of the contents, whose place is now taken by the
translation.”)--When Cicero had delivered his first _Philippic_, Mark
Anthony attacked him vehemently. To this attack Cicero replied in this
oration, the second _Philippic_, showing that Anthony’s invectives were
groundless, and that Anthony himself, because of his crimes, deserved
the severest reproaches.
We explain the exordium of the oration in which Cicero declares that
he has incurred the enmity of many; but that Anthony’s animosity was
unfair and less called for, than that of his other adversaries, as
he had never offended him as much as by a single word. But Anthony
believes he could demonstrate his enmity to the Republic by being an
opponent of Cicero.
II. _Explanatio._ (Willmann: “Linguistic and logical.”) _Quonam meo
fato._ This may have a double meaning; either: to what misfortune shall
I say that I have been born; to what destiny of mine is it owing, by
what fate of mine does it come to pass, that on me alone light all
the arrows with which our enemies try to harm the country; or: what a
happy and enviable lot that all who attack the Republic believe they
must become my enemies. Either meaning is apt to gain the good will
of the audience.--_His annis viginti_, i. e. from the beginning of
his consulship, the year 690 A. U. C.--_Nec vero etc._ Cicero points
to men like Catiline, Clodius, Piso, etc.... _Tuam a me alienationem
commendationem tibi ad impios cives fore putavisti._ Construe:
_Putavisti alienationem tuam a me fore tibi commendationem [gloriae]
ad impios_; literally: You thought your alienation from me would be a
recommendation for you to the wicked, i. e.: You thought to gain in
the estimation of the destructionists, if you turned away from me and
became my enemy.
III. _Rhetorica._ Attention is called to all that pertains to rhetoric
in the highest class, to poetry in the next, to grammar, syntax in the
other classes. For the class of Rhetoric this explanation may run as
follows: This is the _exordium_ of an excellent oration. The exordium
or introduction has to prepare the audience for the coming speech. It
has to gain their good will, and to make them attentive and docile.
Let us see how Cicero complies with these three requirements of the
exordium.
_Good will_ may be gained in three ways. _First_, by showing that
the speaker is possessed of a respectable character. _Secondly_, by
manifesting interest for his hearers’ welfare. _Thirdly_, by cleverly
predisposing them against his adversaries. The first Cicero effects by
pointing to his character to which all feeling of revenge is alien,
to his previous career, and to the flattering testimony of the senate
with regard to his consulship.--The second he effects by stating that
all enemies of the Republic had ever become his personal enemies.--The
third, by imputing to Anthony a passionate character, hatred against
his country, and intimate friendship with the very dregs of the
population.
The orator gains _attention_ by telling how important the point at
issue is: how the enemies of the country have become his enemies, etc.
He makes his hearers _docile_ by briefly stating what he is going to
speak about: little in his own defense, much against Anthony.
Fine exordiums of other orations may be mentioned, and also the faults
which are easily made in the introduction. The rhetorical figure of
_subjectio_: _Quid putem_, its force and use, may be explained.
IV. _Eruditio_ (“General learning;” Willmann translates it
appropriately by “antiquarian and subject-explanation, _antiquarische,
also Sacherklärung_.”) In the beginning occurs the word _fato_. Explain
what the pagans understood by this and what we Christians have to think
of it.--_His viginti annis._ Say (or better: ask) in what year Cicero
was born, when he was made consul, when he died.--_Bellum indixerit._
Explain how the Romans used to declare war. (The solemnities of the
_Fetiales_).--The word _maledictum_ affords an opportunity to show the
difference between _maledictum_, _convicium_ and _contumelia_.--_Mihi
poenarum plus_ etc. A few words may be said on revenge, how little it
becomes a noble character. For this end copious material may be taken
from the 13th Satire of Juvenal and from the _Adagia_ of Erasmus.
Illustrations may also be taken from the treasure of Christian doctrine
and Church History.
V. _Latinitas._ (Willmann: “The gain for vocabulary and phraseology, in
short the proper technics of the pupils.”).
_Bellum mihi indixerit_, add a few other meanings of this verb.
Mention the _indictiva funera_, i. e. funerals which were publicly
announced.--_Perhorrescere_, give a few examples illustrating the force
and meaning of compound words.
_Verbo violatus_, similarly: _corpus violare vulnere, ebur ostro;
fidem, foedus, jura sacra violare_.
The second specimen is on Virgil’s Aeneid XII, 425-440. At its
close Jouvancy adds: “In the second highest class, called Poetry or
Humanities (Freshman), the same order is observed except that here more
attention is paid to poetics. The strictly rhetorical part should be
sparingly dealt with. In the highest Grammar class, grammar and beauty
of expression claim more attention. In the two lowest classes the
difference is still more striking. Here the teacher has to sail along
the coast and only seldom may he venture out into the sea (of longer
explanations). He must beware of the reefs along the shore, i. e. he
must not become disgusted at, nor neglect, what they call trifles. To
explain even one little fable will require great skill and is a sign of
considerable talent.”
The third specimen is the explanation of a little fable of Phaedrus
in the lowest Grammar class. The fable is: “_Personam tragicam forte
vulpes viderat: O quanta species, inquit, cerebrum non habet._” The
teacher explains in the vernacular.
I. _Contents_ of the Fable.
II. _Explanation_: _Vulpes_, a fox; _viderat_ (translate), _forte_
(translate); _personam_. _Persona_ now means “person,” but originally
meant a “mask,” as used in carnival masquerades, and at mask-balls;
(_per_--through; _sonare_, sound, speak; speak through); _tragicam_,
as it was used by the players in Greek and Roman tragedies. Similarly
explain all the other words, _and not once only, but twice or three
times, if necessary_.
III. _Grammar._ Give declension, gender of nouns and adjectives;
conjugation, tense, mood etc. of every verb. This should be done
as much as possible by putting questions to the pupils. _Vulpes_
is a noun of the third declension; like...?--_Proles_, _clades_,
etc. mention such as are known already to the pupils. Then give the
rules of declension, gender. _Viderat_, is a verb. What form? Third
person singular Pluperfect Active. Present tense? _video._--Like?
_doceo...._ Perfect: _Vidi._ Conjugate: _Vidi_, _vidisti_,
etc.--Why third person?--_Forte_: is an adverb. Adverbs are words
which....--_Personam._ What case?--Why accusative? Because it is the
direct object of _viderat_.[813]--_Tragicam_, why not _tragicum_, or
_tragica_? Explain the rule....
IV. _General Erudition._ Could not a short description of the cunning
fox be given? Or could not a litte story be told? Or the adage: _cum
vulpe vulpinandum_, be explained?
_Tragicam._ A short easy explanation of tragedy might be
given.--_Cerebrum._ The Latin words for other parts of the head should
be added.
V. _Latinity._ Show the order of words and let the pupils imitate it in
other sentences, e. g. _Fratrem tuum nuper videram_, which is better
than _Fratrem tuum videram nuper_.
A short theme may be written in Latin: _Fratrem tuum nuper videram. O
quanta eruditio, dixi, mercedem non habet._
VI. _Morals._ The teacher may show that prudence and common sense are
preferable to other natural possessions. A short story illustrating
this may be told, which could be translated into Latin and repeated by
one of the better pupils.
For the sake of comparison we add a _schema_ drawn mostly from the
writings of Nägelsbach and Willmann. A careful examination will prove
that it is not so different from that of Jouvancy, as might appear at
first sight.
I. _Preparation._--1. The passage which is to be prepared by the
pupils for the following day, is assigned in class. The teacher gives
extensive hints on difficult points, on which the pupils otherwise
might lose too much time. (In the lower and middle classes the whole
text should be translated. See p. 478.)
2. At home the pupil tries to find out the meaning of the whole text.
Dots on the margin should mark the passages which he could not make out.
3. In class the text is read by a student.
II. _Translation._--1. The boy who has read the text translates, the
teacher and the other pupils correct the translation.
2. Explanations, linguistic and logical, are given to understand the
text fully.
3. A correct and fluent translation is repeated by a boy with the help
of the teacher and other boys.--The translation has to be different
according to the authors: plain in Caesar and Xenophon; simple and
direct in Homer; elaborate and dignified in Virgil and Cicero, etc.
III. _Handling of the Text._
1. _Explanation_ of contents. (_Realerklärung._ _Explanatio_ and
_eruditio_ of Jouvancy.)
2. Pointing out of _ethical momenta_ (_quae ad mores spectant_.
Jouvancy).
3. _Technics_ of rhetoric, poetry and style. (_Rhetorica_ of Jouvancy.)
4. _Latinity_ etc.: vocabulary, phrases, grammatical rules.
(_Latinitas._ Jouvancy.)
IV. _Repetition._--1. Let the student translate and explain the text.
2. Frequently let the pupil, instead of a strict translation, give the
contents in Latin, in a simple clear style.
3. Always see whether everything is understood.
4. Put questions of such a kind as force the boys to group and view
things in a new manner. Thus they are led to reflect on the subject at
home. This advice is also given by the Jesuit Kropf in his _Ratio et
Via_ (ch. V, art. 9): “The repetition ought to be conducted partly in
the form of an examination etc.”
A few remarks about the prelection must be added:
1. _After the whole work has been studied_, a retrospective view is
to be taken; the work is to be estimated as a whole, with its leading
ideas; as a masterpiece of art; as a product of a certain age or
school, from the aesthetical, philosophical, and historical point of
view. This should be done especially in higher classes;--but _ne quid
nimis_, and everything, in the words of the _Ratio_: “sparingly and
according to the capacity of the pupils.”
2. _Longer explanations_ should not interrupt the translation, but
should be put off to the end; occasionally, however, they might be
given earlier in the prelection, if the text without the explanation
would be hardly understood.
3. The first preparation done by the pupils at home ought not to be the
principal part of the work; the principal part consists in the handling
of the text in class.
This principle of the prelection of the Ratio Studiorum is also
advocated by an able English schoolman. Sir Joshua Fitch says in his
_Lectures on Teaching_, that home work should be “supplementary rather
than preparatory.” It should have a bearing on the school teaching
of the previous day, “the best part of it is supplementary, and the
chief value of home lessons, also of written exercises, is to give
definiteness to lessons already learned (in class), and to thrust
them home into the memory rather than to break new grounds.”[814]
And Professor Bain of Aberdeen University writes: “I hold to this
principle, in a still severer view of it--namely, that the teacher
should not ask the pupil to do anything that he himself has not led
up to,--has not clearly paved the way for. The pupils should not be
called upon for any species of work that may not have been fully
explained beforehand--that their own faculties, co-operating with each
one’s known attainments, are not perfectly competent to execute. A
learner should not be asked even to show off what he can do, outside
the teaching of the class.”[815] Dr. Stanley Hall said recently[816]:
“As to the dead languages, if they are to be taught, Latin should
be begun not later than ten or eleven, and Greek never later than
twelve or thirteen. Here both object and method are very different.
These languages are taught through English, and the one-hand circuit
should have much more prominence. Word matching and translation are
the goal. The chief reason why the German boy of fifteen or sixteen
in _Unter-Secunda_ does so easily here what seems to us prodigious,
is because he is taught to study; and the teacher’s chief business in
class is not to hear recitations, but to study with the boys. One of
the best of these teachers told me that the boy should never see a
dictionary or even a vocabulary, but the teacher must be a ‘pony’. The
pupil should never be brought face to face with an unknown sentence,
but everything must be carefully translated for him; he must note
all the unknown words from the teacher’s lips, and all the special
grammatical points, so that home study and the first part of the next
lesson will be merely repetitions of what the teacher has told and
done.”
The statement that this is the practice of the German schools, needs
considerable modification. It may be partly so at present, but it
certainly was not common before 1890. On the contrary, in German
higher schools, throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century,
it was generally insisted on that the students should prepare the
translations without any or much help from the teacher. In fact, most
professors[817] assigned some chapters in the author which were to be
prepared for the next lesson without giving as much as a hint about a
difficult passage. The next day a fairly good translation was expected,
and by many teachers exacted rather rigorously. It was said that this
system stimulated self-activity and independent thought; and more than
once the opposite system, as followed by the Jesuits, was condemned,
because, as it was asserted, it did not develop independence and the
spirit of research. But did the results of the German system come up
to expectations? The less diligent pupils had recourse to all sorts of
“ponies”,--in fact, the less talented were often practically forced to
use other helps, as it was impossible for them to give a translation
of many passages. In this way a spirit of dishonesty was fostered.
The more scrupulous and eager students lost much time on difficult
passages, often without finding a satisfactory translation. All this
time might have been spared by a few remarks of the teacher, pointing
to the solution of the difficulty. Above all, too much time was wasted
unprofitably by thumbing the dictionary. No wonder that at length
serious complaints were made. Besides the six hours spent in class, the
average student had to devote at least four hours to hard home work, if
he wanted to do all his tasks conscientiously.
Of late years there is a decided change of opinion among educators,
and this change is, to a great extent, a return to principles which
were always followed in the Jesuit system. Thus writes Professor
Schiller, Director of the Pedagogical Seminary in Giessen, one of
the most celebrated German educators: “In the middle classes the
preparation of the new translation is to be done in class, and even
in the higher grades this can be done usefully.” Further, “the more
difficult passages, and those which contain many unknown words, should
be explained beforehand.”[818] In general “new material is added only
in class; the object of home work is to strengthen, practise and apply,
what has been given by the class instruction.”[819] The new Prussian
School Order of 1901 has laid down the general rule, that “directions
for the preparation of new and difficult passages are to be given
in all classes; even in the higher grades the preparation of a new
author is, for some time, to be done entirely in class.”[820] Is not
this a striking justification of the wise conservatism of the Jesuit
system? After a century of severe criticism and condemnation, it is
thought necessary to return to what is essentially the Jesuit method
of preparing the authors. And this return has been made in the country
that prides itself on its school system.
According to the Jesuit method the teacher studies with the pupils, and
thus shows them how to study. We need now no longer defend the Ratio
against the charge frequently raised in former years, that it does too
much, in fact everything for the pupil. It does not do everything;
neither does it overtax the pupil’s abilities. It follows the wise
middle course, which will effect a solid training without giving
reasonable cause to complaints of overwork.
However, some preparation of the new text, on the part of the pupil, is
useful and stimulates self-activity, especially in the upper grades.
It is prescribed for the higher studies by the Ratio which enjoins the
students of the Society “to be diligent in _praevidendis lectionibus_,”
i. e. in preparing the new lesson of the day.[821]
Before concluding the discussion on the prelection, I quote a passage
from the _Woodstock Letters_ (1898). The question had been put: _Has
the method of prelection advocated by the Ratio, especially the plan
of translating the author for the student, been used in any of our
American Colleges not belonging to the Society? If so, with what
success?_--On October 31, 1898, the Editor of the Letters, the Reverend
Samuel Hanna Frisbee, S. J., a graduate of Yale (1861), and a pupil of
the matchless scholar, Professor Hadley, answered as follows:
“The professor who used the method of the Ratio, and especially the
prelection, was Arthur Hadley, well known as the author of _Hadley’s
Greek Grammar_. He was professor of Greek for many years at Yale and
was known as a fine Greek scholar. Though he was _the_ professor of
Greek--there were several tutors in Greek--and far the best Greek
scholar in the university, he was appointed to teach the Freshmen
during the first term, from the middle of September to Christmas. It
was thought best they should have an experienced teacher, one who
would train them thoroughly and thus give them a good start. During
the rest of the scholastic year he taught Greek to the Junior class.
What concerns us at present is the method he adopted for training
these Freshmen. It was as follows, and from its description you can
easily judge how much it resembled the method of the Ratio.
“The author to be read was Homer’s Iliad, and in our year, 1857,
the fourteenth book of the Iliad was the book assigned. The
students used to say that some book after the first six was chosen,
because Anthon’s copious notes to these six books amounted to a
translation. The real reason which was given to us at the time I have
forgotten, but it was doubtless because this book is one of the most
characteristic of the Iliad. Whatever was the reason, the Freshmen
of our year were told that the fourteenth book was to be read. The
class--numbering 120--was divided into three divisions. The first
division went into Greek for the first hour, 7 A. M., the second
division at 11, and the third at 5 P. M. Professor Hadley had thus
three hours of class daily, but to each division he explained the
same matter.
“We came to class, then, with the fourteenth book of Homer, and to
our amazement, Prof. Hadley asked no recitation--for we had been
already told to prepare some lines of this 14th book--but, after
giving a short history of Homer, and of the places which claimed him
as their son, he carefully read through the first five lines, reading
according to the accent, and then scanning them. Then he gave a
literal translation of these five lines, and coming back to the first
word he parsed it, gave the different dialectic forms of it and, if
it was a geographical word, he explained where it was to be found on
the map, and if the name of a person, he gave a short account of his
life. This occupied a half hour and then the class was dismissed.
The next day a half hour was spent in recitation. One was called up
to scan, another to translate, and several to parse the different
words, nothing being asked which had not been explained the preceding
day. Then the second half hour was taken up by the professor who
translated five more lines, parsing and explaining each word. It is
an old Yale custom to repeat each day the lesson of the preceding
day, so that we really had ten lines to translate and parse, five
which some students had already recited in class. This second
translation was recommended to be more elegant than the first which
was literal, and only the important words were asked for parsing,
etc. This manner of teaching was continued all the term--three
months--only five lines of new matter being translated and explained
each day. Besides we were made to review thoroughly the important
parts of the grammar. A small book of a few pages containing the
declensions, conjugations and a few rules, was given to each student,
and it was repeated till it was known by heart. The students used to
call it ‘Hadley’s Primer.’
“As the results of this method, those who studied--for you know only
about ten per cent of the students are really studying in earnest,
the honor men--acquired such a facility in reading Homer that they
could read the rest of the Iliad with comparative ease, while the
moderate students had no difficulty in preparing the lesson assigned
during the second term, which was fifty lines daily in another book
of the Iliad, the eighteenth, if I mistake not. Then we took up
Herodotus, at the rate of two pages a day, after an introduction
about the author and his book. This was also accompanied on some
days of the week by recitations from an excellent book on Greek
History--Wheeler’s if I mistake not.
“Professor Hadley was the only one in the University to follow the
method of the prelection of the Ratio, but he followed it most
thoroughly. He was regarded in his time as one of the very best
professors in the University, and he merited this reputation.”
It remains for us to investigate _how much_ is to be read. The first
question which presents itself is: Should the reading of the classics
be slow or quick, _stationary_ or _cursory_? It has been said that in
stationary reading the boys _read_ little, in cursory they _learn_
little or nothing. What, then, is to be done?
It all depends _first_, on the _text_, whether difficult or easy;
_secondly_, on the _character_ of the book. Epics and historical
works, as a rule, should be read more rapidly, because they are in
themselves slowly progressing, whereas lyrics and drama should be
dwelled upon.--The Ratio Studiorum of 1599 expresses quite clearly the
principle enunciated by schoolmen of the nineteenth century. The 28th
rule says: “The historical books [and epic poetry is of a historical
character] should be read more rapidly (_celerius excurrendus_).”
_Thirdly_, in every case it depends on the pupils’ knowledge, capacity,
practice and age. But above all these two principles should not be
forgotten: _in medio est virtus_, and _non multa, sed multum_.
_How much, then, is to be read in one prelection?_[822] In many modern
institutions, in fact in most of them, the students are to read and
translate whole pages of the classics for a single lesson. The Ratio
calls for a thorough study of a few lines. In the 6th rule for the
lowest class, the old Ratio says four lines should be explained in one
lesson, for the next class seven lines--of course the teacher should
not stop in the middle of the phrase. In the Revised Ratio no number
of lines is mentioned. If we keep in mind that in these classes the
pupils are gradually to be initiated into the reading of authors there
is nothing surprising about this small number of lines. They are to be
explained to perfection, learned by heart for the following day and
to be employed for an imitation theme. For the higher grades the old
Ratio did not state the exact number of lines, neither does the Revised
Ratio. Still, on reading the rules for the prelection it becomes
evident that fifty or sixty lines cannot be studied so thoroughly in
one hour. But are ten lines all that must be read in class? Is this
to be understood as the full demand of the Ratio? “At the rate of ten
lines a day it would require fourteen months to translate Cicero’s
oration _Pro Milone_, so that to finish even the single speech within
a year many parts of it must be run over more or less rapidly. At
this rate of ten lines a day, it would require more than five years
to translate the _Aeneid_, and twelve years to translate the _Iliad_,
or two years longer than the siege of Troy lasted. The Ratio cannot,
therefore, wish to bind the student and professor down to these few
lines.”[823] It wishes merely to show the student how to read and study
the classics, how to do thorough work. Many more lines are to be read
in a lesson, but the few should serve as the model. The _schemata_ of
Father Jouvancy do not want more. Nor is it to be inferred that all the
lines are to be explained with the same thoroughness and at the same
length. This would be impossible.
Moreover, we are led to the same conclusion from the programmes of
some of the celebrated colleges of the old Society. They prove with
certainty that the thorough study of a limited number of lines was not
considered sufficient to make a student a classical scholar. In the
history of the college of La Flèche,[824] we find programmes of the
astounding work done by the students. Perhaps the plan of the Ratio has
never been carried out more thoroughly than it was at this college,
which for a long time was a rival of the great University of Paris.
Here, too, one of the best commentators of the Ratio, Father Jouvancy,
taught and wrote. When, therefore, we see the students of this college,
studying hundreds of pages of the classics in one year, we must
grant that such a method comes within the scope of the Ratio.[825]
For the rest, it remains unintelligible how any real benefit can be
derived from the reading of hundreds of lines in one hour. Jouvancy
well observes, the teacher should remember that the minds of young
pupils are like vessels with a narrow orifice. If you pour water in
great quantity upon them, it quickly runs off; if you pour it upon
them slowly, they will be filled in a shorter time. Recently German
schoolmen speak to the same effect: “We must limit the amount of
reading matter and work on less material, but must try to make capital
out of it by a thorough and exhaustive treatment. Only in this way
can the ‘intellectual growth’ be expected. Limitation is the first
principle of our art. A clear understanding of the classical authors
must be obtained by labor (_das Verständniss ist zu erarbeiten_). For
this reason the modern tendency of increasing the amount of reading
excessively must be combated.”[826] This holds good of English reading
as well as of Latin and Greek.
One part of the prelection is called “eruditio”. We heard that
Professor Willmann translated it, and rightly so, by “antiquarian
explanation.” For some time past there was a tendency, particularly
in German schools, to devote too much time to the explanation of
antiquarian allusions, a method which was detrimental to the linguistic
and literary study of the authors. Last year a writer[827] said that
it was about time to recover again the real authors, Virgil, Horace,
etc., who were almost lost in a mass of archaeological, historical,
and critical details. In fact, the “Homeric Question” absorbed the
interests of some teachers to such a degree that the grand poems
themselves were nearly lost sight of. Antiquities should not be taught
in high schools and colleges _ex professo_, for this belongs to the
university, but incidentally, as some antiquarian subject occurs in
the reading. Thus, while reading Caesar, Roman military antiquities
are explained: the legion, weapons, military roads, etc. Xenophon’s
Anabasis affords an opportunity for giving details on Greek and Persian
warfare. Cicero’s various works will call for explanations of the Roman
constitution, courts, elections, of the different offices of Consul,
Praetor, Tribune, Aedile, Pontifex; for descriptions of the forum,
villas, family life, etc. Plato’s Dialogues demand a fair knowledge
of Athenian life and manners; Homer’s epics can be made interesting
by details of the life and customs of the heroic age of the Greeks,
which may be compared with similar traits found in the epics of other
nations: the Anglo-Saxon _Beowulf_ and the German _Nibelungenlied_ (a
good translation should be read).
The practical method of teaching antiquities in Jesuit schools
we learn from Jouvancy. Thus speaking of the word _fatum_, which
occurs in a sentence, he says: explain the meaning which this word
had with the ancients, and what we Christians have to think of it.
_Bellum indixerit._ Explain the manner in which the Romans declared
war. This is described in Rosinus,[828] Abram,[829] and Cantel,[830]
etc.--Speaking of an explanation of Virgil’s Aeneid XII, 425-440,
Jouvancy says: “In the fourth place, as to erudition: _Major egit
Deus_: Explain which gods were called _Dii majores_ or _majorum
gentium_, which _minorum gentium_.--When you come to the word
_clypeus_, describe the different kinds of shield, show the difference
between _parma_, _pelta_, _scutum_, etc., and explain how the soldiers
formed the _testudo_, etc.”--Speaking of the ninth chapter of Cicero’s
_De Senectute_, he wants some explanation of the Roman warship and
navy, descriptions of how the votes were taken in the senate, etc.
Another very instructive document shows how much was comprised under
the term “general erudition.” In 1710, the text book of the third class
(_suprema grammatica_) of the College of Aix in France was Cicero’s
_De Senectute_. The pupils had to answer the following questions: Who
and what was Cicero? What is the subject of his book on _Old Age_?
Why was Cato chosen as speaker on this topic? Which motives induced
Cicero to compose this work? Who was Atticus, and how did he obtain
this name? Who was Flaminius? What victory is recorded of him? Who
were Titon and Ariston? What does the legend say of the former? What
did the Stoics mean by saying that we must follow nature? What were
the consuls, praetors, aediles, and quaestors among the Romans? What
the tribunes of the people, and the augurs? What opinions were held
about omens? What was the _Lex Cincia_? By whom and on what occasion
was it made? What do you know about the war to which Cato urged the
Romans so persistently? What was the senate? What is the derivation
of the word? Who was Naevius? Relate what you know about his poems,
his exile, and his death. Who was Cyrus? Narrate the foundation of the
Persian kingdom, etc. What was the _Summus Pontifex_, the dictator, the
military tribune? Describe the legion. What did the Romans understand
by clients? What were the sentiments of the Romans about patriotism?
What do you know about Thermopylae, Tarentum, Capua, Mount Etna,
Picenum, Cisalpine Gaul? What was the Rostra? What do you know about
the Olympian games? etc., etc.[831]
It is clear, then, that the history of literature, the history of
manners, customs, and political institutions, biography, mythology,
and geography, found a place in the explanation of authors. This
field was so wide and so attractive that there was a great danger
lest the teachers, especially the younger, should spend too much time
in antiquarian details, to the detriment of the less interesting,
but more necessary linguistic and literary training of the pupils.
It is for this reason that both the Ratio and Jouvancy exhort the
teacher to give such explanations but “sparingly”. By this it is not
implied that the information should be meagre, but that it should be
moderate, not excessive. The preceding testimonies prove also how
unjustly Huber, Compayré, and others have asserted that the Jesuits
aim at mere literary dilettantism, cleverness of speech; that they
direct the pupil’s attention not to the thought but to form.[832]
This is what they call “Jesuitical formalism.” However, it is not
Jesuitical at all. The above-cited questions certainly were directed
towards the understanding of the thoughts of the authors. This
method of questioning the pupils about the contents, the ideas of a
literary work, was also eminently fitted to stimulate in the pupils
self-activity and independent thinking. For this reason Quick’s
judgment on the Jesuit system is not correct, when he says that it
“suppressed originality and independence of mind, love of truth
for its own sake, the power of reflecting and of forming correct
judgments.”[833] Should he, however, take independence of thought in
the sense now usually attached to it, as unrestrained rationalism
which places private judgment above the teaching of the Bible and the
whole deposit of Divine Revelation, then we admit that the Jesuits are
opposed to this independence of thought; for it is the proud spirit
of rebellion against God. Yet this is no longer an educational, but
rather a philosophical and theological question, and those authors have
unwarrantably dragged this discussion into their books on the history
of educational methods.
We stated before that the linguistic training must always remain a
more prominent part of the prelection than the antiquarian and other
information. Here, however, another mistake must be avoided, which
easily creeps into the teaching of the classics, a mistake which
was not uncommon in the German schools before the recent reforms,
namely, to make the authors the means of studying, repeating, or
“drilling” the rules of grammar, etymology, and syntax. This makes
the reading unpleasant, as every now and then a grammatical rule is
asked, paradigms are repeated, etc., so that the author merely becomes
subservient to the grammar, whereas the very contrary ought to be
the case, especially in the higher classes. This faulty practice is
altogether opposed to the Ratio, which assigns a special time every
day for repeating, studying, and drilling grammar or the precepts
of rhetoric and poetry.[834] The 27th rule of the teachers, which
lays down the method of explaining authors, does not even mention
among the various suggestions the asking of grammatical rules. Nor is
this grammatical drill contained in the _schemata_ of Jouvancy for
the higher classes among the five or six points to be observed in
the prelection of authors. There is one called _Latinitas_, but an
examination of what is said there shows that it is not a repetition
of grammar, but, as Professor Willmann says, it deals with the
technique of language, phraseology, etc. Jouvancy remarks that in
the _lower_ classes more attention is to be paid to grammar, which
at this stage is not yet mastered by the pupils. This is in perfect
accordance with the Ratio. The teacher of the lowest class is told
when repeating the lesson of the previous day, “_often_ to have
words declined, or conjugated, and to ask questions about grammar in
various directions.”[835] The teacher of the next following class
should _sometimes_ do the same.[836] This is a wise prescription, as
in the lowest classes the pupils are to be introduced slowly into the
reading of the authors, and the grammatical part must be treated more
extensively. But the corresponding rules of the third class no longer
mention this point. Certainly in the higher classes, particularly
Freshman and Sophomore, it is an abuse to make the classics the
vehicle of teaching grammar. An occasional question is, of course,
not excluded, on the contrary necessary, whenever it appears from the
student’s translation that he does not understand the etymology, or
the syntax of a phrase. But this is by no means the abuse to which we
referred.
This, then, is the prelection, the most important and most
characteristic point in the practical application of the Ratio
Studiorum. It is scarcely necessary to add that the Society needs no
apology for this part, nor has she any reason to attempt any change of
it.
As this manner of explaining authors is so much in accord with sound
reason, we cannot be surprised that the Ratio insists on following the
same system--of course, _mutatis mutandis_--in the teaching of the
mother-tongue. The authors in the mother-tongue should be explained
in nearly the same manner as the ancient writers.[837] The very same
principle is emphasized by some of the best teachers of English, as
for instance by Professor Bain. This writer distinguishes two methods
of teaching higher English. The one a systematic course, in which “an
exemplary lesson would consist in the statement and illustration of
some rhetorical point or rule of style--say, the figure of hyperbole,
the quality of simplicity, or the art of expounding by example. This,
however, I deem a superfluous lesson; it would be little better than
making an extract from a rhetorical treatise. There is another kind of
lesson which does not exclude the methodical teaching of rhetoric, but
co-operates with that in the most effectual way. It is the criticism of
authors, with a view to the exhibition of rhetorical merits and defects
as they turn up casually. An outline of rhetoric is almost essential to
the efficiency of this kind of lesson; yet with only an outline it may
successfully be carried out. It suffices to raise the questions most
proper to be considered in English teaching.”[838]
The second method which this writer advocates is that of the Ratio.
Professor Bain illustrates his principle by various examples from
leading authors: Macaulay, Samuel Bailey, Carlyle; and he develops
these examples exactly as Jouvancy did in the case of Cicero and
Virgil. The Scotch Professor finds fault with the “too much” of
explanation on archaic forms, sources of the play, etc., in the
modern editions of Shakespeare.[839] Is not this again the principle
of the Ratio which insists on such details being given _sparingly_?
Naturally the treatment of passages varies according to the character
of the book, that of a sketch from Irving must be quite different
from that of a play of Shakespeare, just as a chapter from Caesar or
Nepos is explained differently from an Ode of Horace, or a Chorus of
Sophocles. We may add a _schema_ for reading an English author.[840]
The principles are the same as those in the preceding _schemata_.
_How to read English authors, v. g. a drama of Shakespeare?_
1. Read first the whole piece, quickly, uncritically, to gain a
knowledge of its contents; or induce the pupils to do it at home, but
in this case examine whether they do so.--2. Explain then part after
part: all archaic words, difficult constructions, until everything is
understood.--3. Explain historical and literary allusions.--4. Explain
the plot, the tragic idea, the chief characters (in an oration, the
proposition and the argumentation).--5. Criticise the work as a whole.
Show its excellences and shortcomings.--6. Have choice passages learned
by heart, and delivered well. Besides, for each lesson make the pupils
write something on the lesson previously explained: let them give the
contents of a scene, write a synopsis, criticise a passage, or explain
a beautiful sentence. Otherwise there is a danger that some will not
even look at the author at home.
§ 2. Memory Lessons.
The nineteenth rule prescribes the regular recitation of memory
lessons. These frequent practices of the memory in Jesuit schools have
often been censured by modern writers.[841] But renowned teachers as
Dr. Arnold of Rugby,[842] in fact, all educators that are not mere
theorizers, strongly insist on the necessity of these exercises.
Why should we exercise the memory of the pupils?[843] The answer to
this question in general is: because we must train the whole man. An
old adage has it: “_Tantum scimus quantum memoria retinemus._” Boyhood
is the best season for memory work, and also the time when that faculty
should be thoroughly drilled. Professor Schnell, quoted by Father
Kleutgen,[844] says: “The school of the second period of childhood (10
to 14) is before everything else a school of memory, and during it more
will and must be given to and absorbed by the memory than during any
other period of life.” And Father Pachtler[845] observes: “The lower
the class the more is exercise of the memory to be insisted on.” Again:
“The mental power which is first developed is the memory. It is the
strongest in boyhood and in the first years of youth, and decreases
gradually with the development of the body, until, in old age, it
is confined to the impressions produced in youth, and is remarkably
weak in retaining impressions fixedly. We must strike the iron whilst
it is hot, and so make use of boyhood for the acquisition of those
subjects which require the most memory, the learning of grammar and the
languages which are the foundation of a college career.”
If it is asked what should be learned by heart, it is not easy to give
an adequate answer. This much is certain that the more important rules
of grammar must be committed to memory; then choice passages from the
best authors in English and Latin, and a few from the Greek. Among the
finest _loci memoriales_ in Latin are the orations of Livy, v. g. that
of Hannibal to his soldiers, the _exordia_ of the orations of Cicero,
striking passages from Virgil, some odes of Horace, the account of the
“four ages” from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, etc. In Greek it will be well
to have the _exordia_ of the Odyssey and Iliad learned by heart; Greek
_gnomes_ are also χρυσᾶ ἔπη, truly “golden words”; they may serve to
fix easily certain important rules of syntax in the mind of the pupils.
At the same time, they well illustrate--as in fact the adages and
proverbs of every nation--the most common ethical and every day life
principles. To make clear what we mean, we may be allowed to quote a
few of these Greek gnomes; they should be compared with similar English
proverbs, if such exist, or with those of other nations, or with the
sayings of Scripture and great authors.
Ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται.
Ζήσεις βίον κράτιστον, ἂν θύμου κρατῇς.
Ἐν ταῖς ἀνάγκαις χρημάτων κρείττων φίλος.
(A friend in need, a friend indeed.)
Οὔτοι ποθ’ ἅψει τῶν ἀκρῶν ἄνευ πόνου.
(_Per aspera ad astra._--No pains no gains.)
Σοφίας φθονῆσαι μᾶλλον ἢ πλούτου καλόν.
Κακοῖς ὁμιλῶν καὐτὸς ἑκβήσει κακός.
Ἀρχὴν σοφίας νόμιζε τὸν θεοῦ φόβον.[846]
It is not necessary to give specimens from the English. In general,
such passages should be chosen whose contents are worth remembering,
be it from the ethical, aesthetical, poetical, or historical point of
view. The most beautiful and most elevating thoughts from the world’s
literature, treasured up in the memory, will also afford considerable
help for the writing of essays.
A few suggestions may be added about the _manner_ of learning by
heart. Passages from good authors are to be known word for word. The
same will ordinarily apply to the rules of grammar; the precepts of
rhetoric and of poetry may either be gotten in the same way, or the
sense simply may be exacted. The matter which is to be committed to
memory should be understood. It will be most useful to instruct the
pupils how to memorize. They should not try to learn the lesson as one
whole, but rather they should memorize one or two lines at a time, a
sentence, or a clause; then the second sentence or line of poetry.
After two are well known they should be repeated together. Then a third
sentence is learned and again united with those learned previously. The
principle of the old Romans: _Divide et impera_, will here be applied.
These suggestions may appear minute, and it may be objected that each
individual has a way of his own which is just right for him. However, a
little questioning of pupils will show that their method of memorizing
is very frequently erroneous, and that instruction on such matters will
be far from amiss. One great mistake of students is to try to learn by
heart when their minds are bothered and distracted. Memory work is best
done when body and mind are quiet; impressions then made are deeper
and will last. This is the fundamental secret of the various much
vaunted systems of memory which have been paraded about in different
times. Concentrate the mind, is their motto, and then you will memorize
with ease and tenaciously. Very few people, boys or not, have the
self-control to concentrate their minds when they are disturbed. This
is one of the reasons why it is best to learn by heart in the early
morning, before the thoughts and feelings of a new day crowd upon one.
Father Sacchini[847] recommends the pupil to go over his task when
walking or alone, the same principle, as is clear, being involved.
_When should the lessons be recited?_ By looking into the Ratio, in
the second rule for the several classes, we find that the beginning
of both sessions is set aside for the recitation of memory lessons.
On Saturday the lessons of the whole week are to be repeated. Father
Sacchini[848] speaks of monthly and yearly repetitions by heart. He
adds an exhortation to the professor never to omit the recitation of
memory lessons, and to exact them to the letter. It is hardly possible,
in this case, to hear everything from everybody, so the professor may
call on a few only, or ask but a part from each. It is very useful to
have, say a whole exordium, or an entire description, thus repeated.
Another such recitation is held when a whole speech or book has been
seen. This public recitation is to take place from the platform; it
might be made an item in the entertainments given one another by the
different classes. It is incomparably more advantageous to the pupil to
deliver thus by heart and declaim with the pomp and ceremony of public
elocution a masterpiece of literature which he has been taught through
and through, than to fit gestures and modulate his voice to some
half-understood and often inferior composition which he has not had the
time, nor the patience, nor the ability to make his own.
The habit of giving memory lines, for punishment, from passages which
the offender does not understand is to be seriously deprecated. If it
produces no other evil effect, it at least is a great loss of time,
seeing that the hours so spent might have been devoted to learning
something that would educate all the faculties.
It seems very important that the pupils should be directed to be
careful to give their memory lessons according to the sense and
feeling; in reciting poetry attention is to be paid to the quantities
and, above all, to the _caesuras_; then the lines will sound like
music. This is unquestionably the surest way of making good speakers,
and is far superior as an elocutionary practice to any weekly or less
frequent class of elocution. It is also for this reason of the utmost
importance that the professor should read the authors well, and see
that the pupils read according to the sense of the passage.
§ 3. Written Exercises.[849]
Themes, in the broadest sense, including imitation exercises and
free essays, are of the greatest importance. They force the pupils
to concentration of thought, and give them patience and facility in
writing. As we said before, it is most advisable, also in the teaching
of English, to make the students write at least some sentences every
day. A short Latin theme should be given almost daily, and a Greek
theme at least once a week. It is a good custom in many Jesuit colleges
in this country to give an English composition for Monday. If the
principle maintained by St. Ignatius in the “Spiritual Exercises”
is true, that one advances according to the amount of his own
self-exertion, not that of his director merely, then these provisions
for much and frequent written work were well made. It is not easy to
conceive, in the light of this rule, how any one can complain that in
the Jesuit system the pupil has nothing to do. He rather has everything
to do; the professor goes before him, indeed, and shows him how, but
then demands personal application, and that of not the lightest kind,
from the pupil who means to advance.[850]
The subject of Latin and Greek themes, whether they are a translation
of the teacher’s dictation or a free work of the pupils, should be
taken, as far as possible, from the authors read in class. Shorter
single sentences must be translated especially in the lower classes,
in order to apply and practise the rules of grammar. But the exercises
should as early as possible consist of connected pieces, descriptions,
narrations etc. and should contain the vocables of the Latin and Greek
authors read during that period; in short, the exercises should be
based on the authors read in class. During the greater part of the
last century there was an excessive use of so-called exercise-books,
consisting either of unconnected sentences, or of such connected pieces
as had no relation to the authors studied at the time. Of late years
this practice is condemned more and more, and we think rightly so. The
new “Prussian School Order” prescribes the former system.[851] And
recently an American writer could state that “the grammatical training
is now brought into more vital connection with the study of classic
literature. The writing of Latin verse is generally discarded. Prose
composition is receiving increased attention, and is now more imitative
in its character than formerly, being commonly based on the Latin and
Greek masterpiece which the class is studying at the same time.”[852]
Is this a new invention? It is exactly the method prescribed by the
Ratio. Thus the 30th of the Common Rules reads: “The theme should be
dictated not off-hand but after careful consideration and generally
from a written copy. It ought to be directed, as far as possible, to
the imitation of Cicero.” Two things are contained in this rule: First,
the teacher is to write out the dictation himself, not to take it
from an exercise book; secondly, the dictation is to be based on the
author studied at the time. Cicero is mentioned because he was formerly
the author read with preference. Besides, other rules say that the
dictation may follow other authors, especially historians.[853] The
rules for the teachers of the different classes enjoin that the same
method be followed.[854] Thus the professor of Humanities is told that
“it is often advantageous so to compose the theme that the whole may be
gathered here and there from passages already explained.”
Indeed, this system affords many great advantages. The reading is made
useful for the writing, and the writing helps considerably for the
thorough understanding of what has been read. The students will have to
ponder over the author, to examine the words, the figures, the phrases,
and so they imbibe little by little the genius of the language. Thus
imitation-exercises are made useful and easy at the same time. The
dictionary need not be consulted for every expression, a custom which
entails much waste of time with relatively little fruit. We quoted Dr.
Stanley Hall’s words,[855] that “one of the best German teachers told
him that the boy should never see a dictionary or even a vocabulary,
but the teacher must be a ‘pony’.” This is the old principle of the
Ratio. The teacher is told that “after the dictation of the theme he
should straightway call for the reading of the theme. Then he should
explain anything that may be difficult, suggest words, phrases and
other helps.”[856] Is not here the teacher, what modern educators want
him to be in their ‘ideal school,’ the boy’s dictionary, vocabulary
and ‘pony’? But above all this practice produces unity in the various
exercises. It is needless to say that the same principle can be
followed with best success in the teaching of English. The compositions
ought to be based on the work studied in class.[857]
The imitation exercises should, however, not be a slavish imitation
of the author; there may be a great variety in these exercises. Father
Jouvancy gives some valuable hints on this subject.[858] “Translate,”
he writes, “a passage, say from Cicero, into the native tongue;
afterwards, without looking at Cicero, retranslate it into Latin. Then
compare your Latin with that of Cicero and correct yours wherever it
is necessary. Experience has proved that many have greatly benefited
by this excellent practice. Another time you may write out a sketch of
an argument or write down the train of thought found in the original
author, then work it out, clothe, as it were, this skeleton with flesh
and nerves. This being finished the new production is to be compared
with the original; not only will the difference appear but also many
improvements will be suggested. There is a third way of imitating
authors. Take a beautiful passage from an author, change the subject
matter into one similar or opposite. Then, following in the foot-steps
of the author, use, as far as possible, the same figures, periods,
connections, transitions. Thus in the oration against Piso, Cicero
shows that a seditious mob is not to be honored with the name of the
‘Roman people.’ In a similar manner it may be shown who really deserves
to be styled a Christian, a gentleman, a scholar.” Jouvancy justly
remarks that this method of self-training is the best substitute, if
another instructor and guide cannot be obtained. For the great authors
themselves become the teachers, guides and correctors of the student.
That such imitations may be masterpieces in themselves, is proved by
more than one instance. A great number of the works of Latin writers
are imitations of Greek types. And many fiery harangues of the speakers
of the French Revolution are fashioned after Cicero’s invectives
against Catiline and Anthony.[859]
Every one sees that this excellent method of imitating good authors can
be applied to the study of English with the greatest advantage.[860] He
who takes a descriptive passage from Washington Irving, or an argument
from Burke, Pitt, or Webster and works it out according to these rules
of Jouvancy, will surely improve his style--provided he keeps for a
long time to the same author. For changing from one author to another,
as a butterfly flits from flower to flower, like all desultory work,
will produce very little result.
The _correction_ of the written exercises is a very troublesome and
uninteresting work, the worst drudgery of the teacher’s daily life. But
it is, as the 21st rule says, of the greatest importance and therefore
to be done conscientiously. The Ratio advises the teacher to correct
the exercises in class, while the boys are writing or studying for
themselves. One boy after the other is called up to the teacher’s
desk, and his mistakes are pointed out to him; he may himself be asked
why it is wrong and correct it himself; particular instructions may
be given, a word of praise or of rebuke may be added. Such private
corrections afford many advantages. But much time may be lost to
teaching and for this reason the rule says “those themes which, owing
to the great number, cannot be corrected in class, should be corrected
at home.” Many teachers have the following system. They correct all
themes at home and return them to the students the following day,
with the mistakes marked. Then, if it is a dictation, a boy is called
up to translate, the other boys correct him, all comparing their own
translations. The pupils will see in most cases why their translations
are marked, if not, they should ask immediately, and the teacher may
ask other boys why such and such a translation is a mistake. A correct
copy should then be made, dictated by the teacher; in lower classes it
may be well to have it written by someone on the blackboard.
It is evident that great neatness is to be insisted on in the themes.
It is easier to keep paper neat and clean if the themes be exacted on
single sheets. But the boys will, as a rule, be more careful, if they
have copy books, which are to be used until they are filled. They do
not like to see many mistakes in their copy books. In the German and
Austrian gymnasia there exists an admirable system. Every exercise
in the copy-book has at the top the running number, opposite on the
margin the date. Corrections of the teachers and marks are made in red
ink: the pupils’ corrections are to be added at the end. Every month
one review in Latin and one in Greek, written in ink on single sheets
of the same size and kind, marked by the teacher, are to be handed in
to the Director of the institution, who at any time may also ask for
the copy-books of the class. The Government-Inspectors, who from time
to time visit the colleges, carefully examine the copy-books, thus
controlling the work of teachers and pupils alike. This system has
many and great advantages. It requires hard and conscientious work
on the part of the teacher especially, but is producing admirable
results. A similar system exists in some Jesuit colleges. During the
semi-annual examinations all the copy-books are exhibited in the class
room or wherever the examination is conducted, to be inspected by the
President, and the Prefect of Studies. It is very important that the
copy-books be returned as soon as possible, as the work done by the
pupils is still fresh in their mind. An exception to this rule must
necessarily be made in the case of English composition, especially
longer essays, the correction of which naturally requires more time.
This exercise of writing Latin and Greek themes, particularly free
Latin compositions, has within the last decades met with great
opposition. And yet, no exercise is more useful and more necessary if
a solid knowledge of these languages is to be obtained. The reading
of authors alone will not suffice. This is the conviction of the most
experienced schoolmen. Even Greek exercises must be written, that a
firmer hold may be obtained on the facts of accidence, of syntax, and
of idiom.[861] And without any practice in writing the understanding
of the classical authors will scarcely be more than superficial.[862]
Even the writing of Latin verse may not be so useless as some represent
it. Quite recently one of the most distinguished scholars of Germany,
Professor von Wilamowitz, of the Berlin University, made a strong plea
for this much decried exercise.[863] Similarly Dr. Ilberg of Leipsic,
who wrote last year: “The ‘antiquated’ art of writing Latin verses
does not deserve the contempt and the sneers with which it has been
treated. It is an exercise which requires not only knowledge of the
language, but also exertion of the imagination. The writing of Latin
verses belongs to those exercises which challenge the pupil to produce
something of his own, and which make him enjoy the pleasant sensation
of having achieved something.”[864] Hence Sir Joshua Fitch goes beyond
the bounds of moderation when he asserts that “enormous injury is done
to the rank and file of boys by this antiquated and soulless exercise;
which inevitably produces weariness and disgust, and sets a false and
ignoble ideal of scholarship before the pupils.”[865] There is in this
sweeping condemnation, as in most similar indictments of old customs, a
false supposition. We doubt whether any one considers the “manufacture
of Latin verses the ultimate test, the ideal and crown of scholarship.”
Still, it is one of the many means, although a very subordinate one,
of acquiring an accomplished and all around scholarship. Above all,
the writing of verses will help to appreciate more fully the classical
poets.
In this connection we must say a few words on another exercise, much
insisted on by the Ratio, viz. speaking Latin. Few points of the Ratio
have been more misrepresented and derided than this. But this without
good cause. Facility in speaking Latin is not the principal aim of the
Jesuit system. This follows from the tenor of the whole Ratio, and is
sufficiently proved by our former statement that branches of study
are merely the means to attain the one object of all instruction, the
cultivation of the mind. A language--so our modern educators say--is
learned much more quickly, if spoken; it becomes easy and familiar
and, in a way, natural. That the speaking of Latin is, after all, not
so absurd, may be seen from the fact that some of the ablest scholars
of the nineteenth century have advocated it. Thus the great Latinist,
Dr. Seyffert, says: “Without speaking, the writing of Latin will
always remain a half-measure and patch-work.” Also Dr. Dettweiler,
one of the best modern authorities on the study of Latin, recommends
the speaking of this language.[866] However, the attitude of the
Society in this point has changed. The Society adapts itself in this
respect, as in many others, to the tendency of the times. This may be
inferred from a comparison between the Ratio of 1599 and that of 1832.
The old Ratio enjoins the teacher to insist rigorously that the boys
speak Latin in all matters pertaining to school work, except in the
lowest class, where they do not know Latin.[867] The corresponding
rule in the revised Ratio reads as follows: “The teacher should take
great care that the pupils acquire practice in speaking Latin. For
this reason he should speak Latin from the highest grammar class on,
and should insist on the use of Latin, especially in explaining the
precepts, in correcting Latin compositions, in the _concertationes_
(contests between the boys), and in their conversations.” The revised
rule does not prescribe the colloquial use of Latin as early as was
done in former days. But still it must be remembered that the practice
of speaking Latin must be gradually introduced, and, therefore, the
lower classes are supposed also to have Latin in use, although not so
extensively.
Be it remarked, however, that the colloquial use of Latin is, by no
means, insisted on in the Ratio for its practical value; for Latin
is no longer the universal language of the educated world, as it was
some centuries ago. From time to time, indeed, we hear of efforts
being made to restore Latin to its old place. Thus in the oration at
the Leibnitz celebration of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin,
May 29, 1899, the chief speaker advocated the introduction of Latin
as the international language of learned men. However, such efforts
are too few, too sporadic, to influence the wider circles, at least
for the near future. Nay more, it seems almost certain that Latin will
never acquire that domineering influence which it formerly exercised.
In those days the national languages and literatures were not fully
developed. But now they have attained a high degree of perfection,
and have gained a stronghold on the mind of the people. Besides, most
of the books of great scientific value are either written in German,
English, or French, or are speedily translated into one of these
languages, and in our days, no one can lay claim to scholarship who
does not master one or other of them besides his mother-tongue. The
Society of Jesus has simply, in the words of the Jesuit Ebner, watched
the trend of events, and adapted herself and her teaching in this
point, as in others, to the new conditions.[868] She strives to teach
Latin thoroughly, and therefore urges the colloquial use of Latin as a
most valuable means to that end, although at present not in the same
degree as in former centuries when facility in speaking Latin had,
moreover, a directly practical purpose.
The educational experiments of Germany during the last ten years
afford an interesting illustration of what has been said in this
chapter. It is known that, after the Berlin Conference of 1890, Latin
lost fifteen hours a week in the nine classes of the gymnasium. The
Latin compositions particularly were reduced considerably, almost
completely abolished. What was the result? Very soon complaints were
heard from all sides that in consequence of these changes the teaching
of Latin had been greatly injured.[869] It became evident that more
extensive writing of Latin was necessary to obtain the linguistic and
logical training of the mind, which is one of the foremost objects of
Latin instruction. Only these exercises, the practical application
of the rules of etymology and syntax, the careful examination of the
peculiarities of style in the higher classes, and constant comparison
with the mother-tongue, by means of translations and re-translations,
give a thorough knowledge and insight into the language.[870]
These are the principles on which the Ratio and Jouvancy had insisted
centuries ago, and which were emphasized by the General of the Society
in 1893, at the very time when the German schools saw fit to abandon
them. But experience soon forced the German authorities to revert to
what had been thrown overboard. In 1895 permission was granted to add
one hour weekly in the higher classes, which was to be devoted to
practice in writing and to the application and repetition of rules
of grammar and style. For, as Professor Fries declared,[871] the
curtailing of these exercises had proved to be the weakest point of the
changes made after 1890. In the second conference, in 1900, the opinion
of the most distinguished scholars was most positive in demanding a
further strengthening of these exercises.[872] It was proposed[873]
that a Latin composition should again be required for the last
examination. Nay more, Dr. Kübler advocated--one would have thought
it impossible after the vehement denunciations of this exercise--the
practice of speaking Latin. “It has been exceedingly gratifying to
me,” he said, “to learn that the Ministry of Instruction will grant
greater liberty for these exercises, especially that the speaking of
Latin shall no longer be proscribed as heretofore.”[874] Before him the
commissary of the Government, Dr. Matthias, had declared that besides
more frequent translations into Latin, more time and attention should
be devoted to the practice of speaking Latin, a practice which in the
Goethe-Gymnasium in Frankfurt (Reform-School) was carried on with most
gratifying results.[875]
In this reaction we may justly find a vindication of the principle
maintained all along by the Society, in spite of the censures of some
modern reformers.
§ 4. Contests.
Among the various school exercises mentioned by the Ratio Studiorum,
we find the so-called _concertationes_, or contests between boys of
the same or of different classes on matter that has been studied
previously. These contests have the same end in the lower classes
as the disputations in the higher: accustoming the boys to speak on
the subject matter of the class, giving them readiness of reply in
answering questions, in a word, making them masters of their subjects.
Ribadeneira speaks of them as follows: “Many means are devised, and
exercises employed, to stimulate the minds of the young, assiduous
disputation, various trials of genius, prizes offered for excellence
in talent and industry. As penalty and disgrace bridle the will and
check it from pursuing evil, so honor and praise quicken the sense
wonderfully to attain the dignity and glory of virtue.”[876]
All opponents of the Jesuits try to make a capital point of
“emulation” as recommended by the Ratio.[877] This “fostering of
ambition” was styled “the characteristic of the corrupt Jesuitical
morality.” We may first ask: are the Jesuits the only educators
that used this means? Professor Paulsen answers our question most
appositely: “The Jesuits know better, perhaps, than others how to
use declamations, contests, premiums, etc., effectively. Protestant
educators are wont to express their indignation, and to inveigh against
the Jesuits, for having made emulation the moving power in learning.
The practice of Protestant schools never shared the disgust of these
theorizers at the use of emulation, and I do not know whether this
practice should be censured. It is true that the good emulation is
closely related to the bad, but without the former there has never been
a good school.”[878]
That these exercises were by no means intended to develop the bad
emulation, or false self-love in the young, is evident; this would
have been little to the purpose with religious teachers. “Let them
root out from themselves, in every possible way, self-love and the
craving for vain glory,” says the oldest code of school rules in the
Society, probably from the pen of Father Peter Canisius.[879] What
is appealed to, is the spirit of good and noble emulation,--_honesta
aemulatio_, as the Ratio says,--and that by a world of industry which
spurs young students on to excellence in whatever they undertake, and
rewards the development of natural energies with the natural luxury of
confessedly doing well. This makes the boys feel happy in having done
well, however little they enjoyed the labor before, and will rouse
them to new exertions. Gradually they may then be led to have higher
motives in their endeavors. Does not the Divine teacher of mankind act
similarly? He demands great sacrifices and arduous exertions of man:
purity, humility, meekness, patience, self-denial, but he always points
also to the reward, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” “your reward
in heaven is exceedingly great.” God promises also earthly blessings
to those that observe his commandments: “Honor thy father and thy
mother, that thou mayest be long lived upon the land which the Lord
thy God will give thee.” Why, then, should it be unlawful and immoral
to employ rewards in the education of the young, who are not yet able
to grasp the highest motives of well-doing? Or is it probable that
young pupils will readily be diligent, when told that _they ought to
do_ their work? Kant’s teaching of the autonomy of human reason is not
only deficient, but positively erroneous[880]; but least of all will
the rule, _you ought because reason tells you so_, have any effect on
the young. On this point also Professor Kemp, in his otherwise fair
treatment of Jesuit education, has been led into an error, when he
states that “emulation was carried to such extremes that, apparently,
it must have obscured the true ends of study and cultivated improper
feeling among the students.”[881] Such _a priori_ conclusions are
very dangerous; and the “must have” is frequently only “apparent.”
Kant, indeed, said: “The child must be taught to act from a pure sense
of duty, not from inclination.” Still, in another place he declares
that “it is lost labor to speak to a child of duty.” Children must be
treated, as St. Paul says: “as little ones in Christ, to whom I gave
milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet.”[882] This milk,
in education, is some sort of reward, a means not at all immoral. For
the desire of honor is inborn in man and lawful as long as it does
not become inordinate.[883] Honest emulation is therefore lawful; it
is also productive of great deeds. “In all the pursuits of active and
speculative life, the emulation of states and individuals is the most
powerful spring of the efforts and improvements of mankind.” (Gibbon.)
In speaking of reward we do not mean necessarily prizes or premiums.
These are indeed more open to objections. The jealousy of pupils is
more easily aroused and sometimes even the dissatisfaction of parents.
However, this can not justify the general condemnation of prizes.
There is hardly an appointment made to any position of honor in a city
or state, but a few disappointed individuals will feel and express
their disapproval, no matter how just and fair the promotion has been.
Should the appointment for such adverse criticism be omitted? Further,
premiums for excellence in learning, in military valor, in political
ability are as old as history. The Greeks rewarded the conqueror in
their national games with a wreath; the Romans had various crowns for
citizens who in different ways had deserved well of their country. And
now-a-days no one objects if a victorious general or admiral is offered
a token of public recognition, in the form of a precious sword, or
even a more useful object. The soldiers of our generation are justly
proud if their bravery is rewarded by a badge, and even the scholars
of modern Europe, perhaps such as strongly denounce the corrupting
influence of premiums in Jesuit schools, do not hesitate to accept a
decoration, or the title of nobility in recognition of their labors for
the advance of science. Why, then, should this principle of rewarding
success be so rigorously excluded from the schools? No, it is at least
exceedingly difficult to prove that prizes have generally evil results,
provided all injustice and even all suspicion of unfairness in the
distribution is avoided. However, when speaking of reward we mean in
general some public recognition, be it a word of praise or something
else.[884]
Emulation may be fostered in various ways. The Ratio gives one in the
contests. Each pupil may have his _aemulus_ or rival. The professor
questions A, while B, the aemulus of A., is on the alert to correct his
rival. Or the boys question each other mutually, while the professor
merely presides to see that all goes on fairly. The whole class may
be divided into two sides, which are frequently called camps or
armies, as boys naturally delight in anything military. Boys of the
one camp, let us say the “Carthaginians,” question some of the rival
camps of the “Romans,” and _vice versa_. The leaders of the two sides
keep the record of the points gained, of the corrections made by
their respective side. The leaders ought to be pupils distinguished
by talent, industry and good character. Different classes may also
challenge each other for an extraordinary and more solemn contest, to
which other classes may be invited as witnesses.
It is not easy to make such contests successful, and it may require
great skill and experience on the part of the teacher; and if he lacks
this skill--he may be a very good teacher in other respects--it is
better to find some other means of encouraging fair and successful
emulation. It should not be forgotten that this emulation, in the words
of Fathers Hughes and Duhr, is only one of the “subordinate elements
in the Jesuit method,”[885] or “only a trifling detail,” as Father
de Scoraille says, not the predominant element as its adversaries
represent it. In general, these contests work better in the lower
classes; especially in Northern countries, they will not be found
as suitable for higher classes. Much of the pomp and the ceremonies
which are mentioned in the Ratio and by Jouvancy, do not suit modern
taste and have long ago been discarded in Jesuit colleges. But these
were accidental details; the fundamental principle is sound. Father
Duhr well observes: “The literary contests of the pupils brought life
and action into the schools of olden times. We have become colder
in such things, whether to the benefit of lively youths is another
question.”[886]
We quoted above the statement of Professor Paulsen to the effect that
the practice of Protestant schools in regard to emulation is by no
means what should be expected from their severe censures of this point
in the Jesuit system. In fact Mr. Quick, writing about competitions and
“class matches,” says: “With young classes I have tried the Jesuits’
plan of class matches and have found it answer exceedingly well.”[887]
In the revised edition of 1890 the same author declares, in general,
that there are many forms of emulation which he did not set his face
against.[888] And not long ago, in 1901, Dr. Beecher of Dresden
recommended for the lower classes of the gymnasium contests among the
pupils, which resemble very much the _concertationes_ of the Ratio. He
calls them “dainties of a harmless character which make the boys relish
better the dry forms of Latin grammar.”[889] Still more remarkable is
the fact that in the Berlin Conference, June 1900, one of the most
distinguished members of that assembly, Professor Münch, pleaded for
introducing a system which is not much different from the Jesuit system
of the _aemuli_. He says: “It must come to it in our schools that not
only the teacher asks the pupils but also that the pupils question one
another.”[890]
Other exercises intended to rouse the activity of the pupils are
_oratorical contests_ and other public exhibitions.[891] The rules for
the teachers prescribe that the original productions of the pupils must
be carefully corrected and polished by the teacher, but the latter
should not write them in their entirety.[892] A skilful teacher can do
much in stimulating interest in such entertainments, if he proposes an
interesting subject and knows how to use the literary and historical
material treated in the class. The best entertainments will be those
that treat one subject under various aspects.
In the philosophical course the contests consist in the _disputations_.
The disputations of the students of philosophy in most Jesuit colleges
are conducted in the same fashion as those described in a previous
chapter.[893]
In the last place we must mention an exercise which has been styled
a “better kind of rivalry,”[894] namely the so-called _academies_.
These are voluntary associations of the students, literary societies
in the middle classes, and scientific societies in Philosophy. In
Philosophy, according to the rules for the academy, essays are read by
the students on some scientific topic, preferably on subjects which are
in some way connected with the matter studied in class, but which could
not be treated there at length. At times these subjects may be given
in the form of free lectures. After the essay has been read all the
members of the academy are free to enter on a discussion and attack the
assertion of the essayist.[895] It is clear that academies conducted
in this manner afford the greatest advantages. In the essayist, the
spirit of research is stimulated, and in all those who take part in
the discussion, in fact, in all those present, scientific criticism is
developed.
The subjects treated in the academy of the pupils of Rhetoric and
Humanities are, naturally, of a literary character: criticism of
rhetorical and poetical topics not treated fully in class,[896] which
may be illustrated from various authors; a literary and critical
appreciation of a striking passage from an author; the reading of an
essay or poem composed by the pupil himself; a discussion of a disputed
question of literature, and other interesting and useful subjects,
which are recommended by the rules of this academy.[897] An academy is
to be held every week in Philosophy, and every week or every fortnight
in Rhetoric and Humanities. Even the Grammar classes are to have their
academies, in which similar discussions are carried on, of course less
scientific than in the higher classes. At any rate, these academies are
excellently fitted to stimulate the activity of the pupils.
In one Jesuit college in the United States the essays prepared in the
middle classes, sometimes treated of archaeological subjects which had
been alluded to in the course of the reading of the classics. This
seems quite in accord with the spirit of the rules for the academy. The
pupils took a great interest in such subjects and undoubtedly derived
great profit from them.
When the pupil read his essay, not unfrequently drawings on the
blackboard, maps and pictures served to illustrate the lecture. Then
followed a short discussion of the subject and further queries of the
boys, which were answered by the teacher. The following subjects were
treated in this manner: The Roman Coliseum, Roman military roads, Roman
aqueducts, a Roman triumph, the Romans’ daily life, the Roman family,
Roman agriculture, the number and rank of early Christians, character
of Greeks and Romans compared, Greek sculpture, pagan and Christian
art,--this last essay was read in connection with the study of Cicero’s
fourth oration against Verres, “On the Statues,” in which many Greek
masterpieces of art are described or mentioned.--Similar subjects
are: The Roman (or Greek) house, Roman (or Greek) temples, feasts,
costumes, weapons, magistrates, games, theatres, slavery, education,
navy, travels etc. It may be easily understood that much is requisite
to conduct such “Academies” successfully, above all on the part of the
teacher. For he must discuss the subject with the young writer, suggest
reliable sources from which to draw material, direct the writer in his
work, and lastly revise and correct the essay. But the work will be
amply compensated by the result, especially by the increased interest
with which the pupils study the classics.
Such, then, are the exercises of the Ratio. They are distinguished for
variety: a short recitation of the memory lesson is followed by the
thorough repetition of the prelection of the previous day, or of the
precepts of rhetoric, poetry, and grammar. Then comes the principal
work of the day, the prelection of the new passage of the author,
followed by a brief repetition. Some time is devoted every day to the
writing of a little theme; and lastly the contests rouse the pupils
to new attention, in case the other exercises should have caused some
drowsiness. Certainly this change and variety of the exercises is
calculated to break the monotony which, especially with younger pupils,
is apt to give rise to weariness and disgust. At the same time, the
exercises are of such a character that they call into play all the
faculties of the mind: memory, imagination, reasoning. Thus they are
excellent means for attaining the end of education, namely the thorough
and harmonious training of the mind.
FOOTNOTES:
[797] On this subject see the able article: _The Teaching of Science_,
by Father De Laak, S. J., Professor of Physics in the St. Louis
University, in the _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1901,
vol. I, pp. 904-916.
[798] _Rules for the Professor of Physics_ 33, 34.
[799] For many observations contained in this chapter I am indebted
to the _Woodstock Letters_, especially the valuable papers in volumes
XXIII-XXV, 1894-96.
[800] Its equivalent is used in German, _Vorlesung_, for the lectures
in the universities.
[801] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 232.
[802] See Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 439.
[803] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. II, art. 3, 2.--The same is inculcated
in other documents, v. g. in _Mon. Paed._, page 297: “_Germanam
pronunciationem iam tum ab ipso literarii aedificii vestibulo a
discipulis suis praeceptorum quisque exigat_.”
[804] President Eliot says: “A second interesting result of effective
leadership in a few American colleges and schools is to be seen in
the adoption of the so-called Roman pronunciation of Latin, which
being recommended by two or three Professors of Latin in leading
institutions, spread rapidly over the whole United States, and is now
the accepted pronunciation in most schools and colleges.” _Educational
Reform_, p. 298.--But Professor Bennett of Cornell university calls
it a “fundamental blunder and its retention a serious mistake.”
_The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary School_, p. 66.--See _Latin
Pronunciation_, _a Brief Outline of the Roman_, _Continental and
English Methods_, by D. E. King (Boston, Ginn and Company, 1889).--_The
Roman Pronunciation of Latin_, by Francis Lord (Boston, Ginn, 1895).
[805] “In our times, besides the Latin interpretation, there is to
be added the interpretation in the vernacular, also in the class of
Rhetoric.” Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 435.
[806] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. I, art. 3.
[807] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 239.
[808] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 165.
[809] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 506.
[810] _Rat. Doc._, c. II, art. III, § 1.
[811] _Rat. Doc._, c. II, art. IV.
[812] _Didaktik_, vol. II, p. 387.
[813] English speaking students have at first great difficulties in
grasping the rule of the object, because neither the article nor the
noun shows any case ending. However, it can be explained easily with
pronouns. Thus say: “_Who_ is there? Who is subject. _Whom_ did you
see? Whom is object.--_He_ is there. I saw _him_. It would be bad
English to say: Who did you see, or I saw he. So it is bad Latin to
say: _Vulpes viderat persona._” These examples of _whom_ and _him_ are
especially fitted, as they show an ending similar to the Latin.
[814] American edition, pp. 147-149.
[815] _On Teaching English_, ch. 3, p. 27. (N. Y., Appleton, 1887.)
[816] In _The Forum_, September, 1901. Article: “The Ideal School as
based on Child Study.”
[817] These remarks are based on the writer’s own experience. Of all
his professors _none_ ever called attention to a difficult passage, but
the students had to do all by themselves at home. This was before the
reform of 1890-1892. To judge from educational publications things have
changed of late.
[818] Schiller, _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik für höhere
Lehranstalten_, Leipzig, Reisland (3rd edition 1894), pp. 456 and 476.
[819] _Ibid._, pp. 42 and 152; see also Willmann, _Didaktik_ vol. II,
p. 391.
[820] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, pp. 24, 25, 32, 34.
[821] _Reg. Scholasticorum_ 4.
[822] On this question we take some suggestions from an article in the
_Woodstock Letters_, 1898, p. 185 sq.
[823] _Woodstock Letters_, 1898, p. 186.
[824] _Un collège de Jésuites aux XVII et XVIII siècles. Le collège
Henri Quatre de la Flèche, par le Père Camille de Rochemonteix._ See
vol. IV, pp. 165 and 388-403.
[825] _Woodstock Letters_, _l. c._, p. 190.
[826] See _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1898, vol. II, p. 82.
[827] Professor Plüss, in _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VII, page 74.
[828] Lutheran preacher, died at Naumburg, Germany, 1626, author of
_Antiquitates Romanae_.
[829] Jesuit, died at Pont-à-Mousson, 1655.
[830] Jesuit, died at Paris 1684, wrote _De Republica Romana ad
explicandos Scriptores antiquos_.
[831] Chossat, _l. c._, pp. 337-339.
[832] Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 144.
[833] _Educ. Ref._, p. 50.
[834] See the second rule of all the classes.
[835] _Reg._ 5.
[836] _Reg._ 5.
[837] _Ratio Studiorum: Reg. com._ 28, § 2.
[838] _On Teaching English_, ch. V, p. 48 foll.
[839] _Ibid._, ch. VI, page 85 foll.
[840] See Fitch, _Lectures on Teaching_.
[841] “The Jesuits maintain the abuse of memory.” Compayré, _l. c._, p.
140.
[842] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 50.
[843] See _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 325 sq.
[844] _Alte und neue Schulen_, p. 57, note.
[845] _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. XVIII, p. 242.
[846] The excellent _Greek Exercise Book_ by Professor Kaegi (English
edition by James Kleist, S. J.--Herder, St. Louis, 1902) contains a
great number of such gnomes.
[847] _Paraenesis_, art. 8, sect. 3.
[848] _Paraenesis_, _ib._, sect. 2.
[849] In a recent article in the _Fortnightly Review_, November 1902
(“Are the Classics to Go?”), Professor Postgate, a distinguished
English scholar, writes: “If the ‘dead’ languages and literatures are
not to retire into the background, they must be taught as if they were
alive” (p. 878).--“Translations from English into Latin or Greek is a
most valuable training and necessary part of classical training; but it
ought not to have superseded original composition.... From the first,
speaking and writing Latin should go hand in hand with reading” (pp.
879-880). Professor Postgate calls these “improved methods”; improved,
surely, if he speaks of nearly all systems in vogue during the last
century, not however in regard to the system of the Society of Jesus,
which always practised this system, as will appear from the next pages.
[850] _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 329.
[851] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, pp. 23, 25, 29, etc.
[852] _Education in the United States_, (1900), vol. I, p. 185.
[853] _Reg. Prof. Rhet._ 1.--_Reg. Prof. Hum._ 6.
[854] _Reg. Prof. Rhet._ 9.--_Prof. Hum._ 6.--_Prof. Supr. Gram._ 6.
[855] From _The Forum_, Sept. 1901; “_The Ideal School_.”
[856] _Reg. com._ 30.
[857] How this can be done may be seen from a little book recently
published by a Jesuit: _Imitation and Analysis; English Exercises based
on Irving’s Sketch Book_, by F. Donnelly, S. J. (Boston, 1902, Allyn
and Bacon.)
[858] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. 1, art. 2, 4.--Cf. Quintilian, _Inst. Or._
X, 2.
[859] See Zielinski, _Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte_.
[860] Compare the excellent observations on the value of the
“Reproduction of the Thought of Others,” in Genung’s _Practical
Rhetoric_, pp. 301-325.
[861] Bristol, _The Teaching of Greek_, p. 301. See on pp. 298-307 some
excellent remarks on Greek compositions.
[862] Bennett, _The Teaching of Latin_, p. 172.
[863] _Reden und Vorträge_, Berlin, 1901.
[864] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VII, p. 71.
[865] _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 39.
[866] _Didaktik des Lat. Unt._, page 110.--See also Rollin, _Traité des
études_, livre II, ch. III, art. 3.
[867] _Reg. mag. schol. inf._ 18.--See _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p.
322 foll.
[868] _Jesuiten-Gymnasien in Oesterreich._
[869] See _Verhandlungen_, 1901, pp. 282 foll.
[870] _Ibid._, p. 286: “Vielfache Uebungen hin und her, die ein stetes
Umdenken der Vorlagen erfordern, sollen sein (the pupil’s) Wissen
geläufig, sein Können gewandt machen und ihn allmählich zu einem
sicheren Sprachgefühl verhelfen.”
[871] _Verhandlungen_, 1901, p. 288.
[872] _Verhandlungen_, pp. 21, 129, 139.
[873] By Director Kübler and Prof. Harnack, _ibid._, pp. 140 and 294.
The latter declares Latin compositions to be absolutely necessary for a
satisfactory instruction in this language.
[874] _Ib._, p. 139.
[875] _Ib._, p. 129.
[876] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 90.
[877] See v. g. Compayré, p. 146.--Seeley, p. 186.--Painter, p.
171-172, where the Jesuit system is stigmatized as “stimulating baser
feelings,” “appealing to low motives,” etc.--In France the Jesuits were
attacked on this point also by M. Michel Bréal, in his _Quelques mots
sur l’instruction publique_.
[878] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 286. (First edition;
the passage has been somewhat changed in the second edition, I, p. 430.)
[879] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 90.
[880] See Rickaby, S. J., _Moral Philosophy_, pp. 115-118.
[881] _History of Education_, p. 191.
[882] 1 _Cor._ 3, 1-2.
[883] See Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiae_, 2, 2, _qu._ 131 and 132:
“On Ambition and Vain Glory.”
[884] The rewarding of prizes is ably vindicated by Father R. de
Scoraille, S. J., in the _Études religieuses_, Paris, August and
September 1879. “Les distributions de prix dans les collèges.”
[885] Hughes, p. 89.--Duhr, p. 61.
[886] _Studienordnung_, p. 125.
[887] _Educational Reformers_ (London edition of 1868), p. 297.
[888] On pp. 529-532. There he also states that the New England
_Journal of Education_ gives an account of some interclass matches
at Milwaukee, and the New York _School Journal_ of contests in the
McDonough School No. 12, New Orleans.
[889] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VIII, p. 98.
[890] _Verhandlungen_, p. 135.
[891] See especially Father Kropf, _Ratio et Via_, chapter V, art. II.
(German edition p. 426 f.).
[892] _Reg. com._ 32.
[893] See above pp. 422-425.
[894] Quick, _Educ. Ref._, p. 42.
[895] _Reg. Acad. Theolog. et Philos._, 3.
[896] _Aliquid de praeceptis magis reconditis rhetoricae vel poesis_;
as the 2d rule has it.
[897] _Reg. Acad. Rhet. et Hum._ 2.
CHAPTER XVII.
The Moral Scope.
The object of education is the harmonious development of the _whole_
man. So far we have spoken of the development of the intellect. Yet
the _will_ needs training even more than the intellect, and the higher
schools ought not to neglect this most important part of the work of
education. It cannot be gainsaid that the emphasis laid upon moral
training forms the most marked distinction between the true educator
and the mere instructor, of whatever creed he may be. At the same time
it is one of the most disquieting features of our age that so many
teachers in the higher schools have lost sight of this fundamental
principle of education. “I hold,” writes Dr. McCosh, “that in every
college the faculty should look after, not only the intellectual
improvement, but also the morals of those committed to their care by
parents and guardians. I am afraid that both in Europe and America all
idea of looking after the character of the students has been given up
by many of our younger professors.”[898]
The inevitable consequence of this method must be a decline of
morality among the rising generation, or to put it more mildly, and
to use the expression of some writers, a lamentable disproportion
between the intellectual and moral progress. The existence of this
disproportion is attested to by men who have hitherto been rather
optimistic about the educational conditions of this country. Thus
President Eliot has quite recently expressed himself very frankly
on the “failure of our popular education.” In spite of the greatest
efforts of various agencies towards checking vice in every shape, he
sees small results. His practical conclusion is that “we ought to
spend more money on schools, because the present expenditures do not
produce all the good results which were expected and may be reasonably
aimed at.”[899] Still, it is more than doubtful whether an increased
expenditure is the needed remedy; it is not lack of money, but lack
of the true method of education, which is at the root of the failure
of education. This has been correctly observed in several comments
on President Eliot’s indictment. The defects of our people, says the
Chicago _Chronicle_, lie “in morals rather than in intelligence.”
And the Columbia _State_ remarks: “It will at least be difficult to
point at any fatal exaggeration in this arraignment. But is it fair to
charge all of it up to education? Would it not be better for Harvard’s
President to revise his views as to the power of education? Learning
of itself, the mere accumulation of knowledge, can not make morally
better an individual or a society. It is unfair to expect so much.
Education of the mind may be a help, since it does fit the individual
to understand, to distinguish right from wrong and to apprehend the
consequences of evil. But education ought never to have been regarded
as an insurance against immorality, a preventive of crime, a cure
for cupidity, or a guaranty that the Golden Rule will be observed.
The education that brings this about must be more than a mere mental
training; it must be moral and spiritual.”
These comments touch the sore spot in modern education. The capital
error of most school reformers lies in this that they expect too much
from intellectual accomplishments for the moral and social improvement
of mankind. Every second word of theirs is: culture, knowledge,
science, information; and yet, what is far more needed is a reform
of character by training the will.[900] The plausible assertion:
“Instruction is moral improvement,” a principle which is repeated in
many variations, is false. The neglect of the religious and moral
training is the result of a false philosophy; for, there exists the
closest connection between philosophy and pedagogy, so much so that
a false philosophy necessarily leads to a false pedagogy, and that
a false pedagogy is always the outcome of a false philosophy.[901]
Pedagogy, according to the very derivation of the word, means “the
guiding of children;” in order to guide them properly it is necessary
to know clearly the end and goal which is to be reached. The end of man
can be known only from his true nature, and this knowledge is supplied
by philosophy. Philosophy, then, which is to be the foundation of
sound pedagogy must correctly answer the important questions: _Whence_
and _Whither_? If as the foundation of education a philosophy is
chosen which gives a wrong answer to these momentous questions, the
children will be led in a wrong direction. Now, that philosophy which
considers man merely a highly developed animal, which sees in the
human mind nothing but another “aspect” or “phase” of the body (Bain,
Spencer, and others), and consequently denies the spirituality and
immortality of the soul--such a philosophy (if it deserves this name)
cannot assign any other end and object of man’s life than some form of
hedonism or utilitarianism. Unfortunately this philosophy has exerted
a disastrous influence on many modern educational theories. It has led
to the separation, more or less complete, of education from religion,
and as we shall show hereafter, a solid moral training is impossible
without religion. There is only one system of philosophy which can form
the sound basis of true pedagogy, and that is Christian philosophy,
that philosophy which is in harmony with the revealed truths of
Christianity. This philosophy alone gives the correct answer to the
all-important _Whence_ and _Whither?_ It tells us that the soul of
the child is a spirit, created by a personal God to His own image and
likeness, and destined for an eternal happiness in heaven; it tells us
that this life is not the final stage of man, but a journey to another,
higher life; that “we have not here a lasting city, but seek one
that is to come.”[902] A system of education based on this Christian
philosophy will widely differ from those systems which are built up
on “modern” philosophy, be it German pantheism, French positivism, or
English and American agnosticism. The most essential difference will be
this that in a Christian system the intellectual training is considered
secondary and subordinate to the moral and religious training, whereas
all other systems aim at a purely secular education, and in this again
lay special stress on the intellectual, to the neglect of the moral
training.
It has frequently been observed that the spirit of our age manifests
many pagan tendencies. The utilitarian trend of modern education is
undoubtedly a sort of neo-paganism. To the artistic mind of the Greek
the “Beautiful” (καλόν) and the “Good” (ἀγαθόν) were terms almost
synonymous. Greek education, accordingly, aimed at the harmonious
development of body and intellect for this life. In the eyes of the
Roman, the Eternal City was destined to conquer and rule the whole
world. To make useful and devoted members of that mighty political
fabric was the sole aim of the education imparted to Roman youths. But
the aim of Christian education must be far different. Christ’s life
and teaching cannot be ignored and disregarded. His “seek ye first
the Kingdom of God and His justice,”[903] must be the foundation of
all educational principles, “for what doth it profit a man if he gain
the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?”[904] Therefore,
if “the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom,”[905] the moral
and religious training of the young must claim the special attention
and care of the teacher. Whereas Greek education affected only the
intellect (νοῦς, _mens_), Christian education affects the soul,
(πνεῦμα, _spiritus_) as contrasted with the body, the “flesh” (σάρξ,
_caro_). Pagan education aimed at mere _formation_ (_Ausbildung_), at
the evolution and development of the natural man; Christian education
aims at _transformation_ (_Umbildung_), at change, at elevation.[906]
Every one, free or slave, rich or poor, white or black, is a child of
God and destined to be an heir of heaven. Therefore, he is to seek
first heavenly things: “_Quae sursum sunt quaerite, quae sursum sunt
sapite, non quae super terram._”[907] He must “put off the old man
who is corrupted, and put on the new man who, according to God, is
created in justice and holiness of truth.”[908] He must listen to
Christ’s commendation of humility, meekness and purity, and follow
His stern command: “_Abnega temetipsum, tolle crucem et sequere
me_: Deny thyself, take up thy cross and follow me.”[909] But this
is not in accord with the natural inclinations of man; therefore,
_transformation_ is needed. The work of transformation must begin
from the awakening of reason and must be the principal object in all
education. For, as the _Following of Christ_ has it, “when Christ our
Master, comes for the final examination, he will not ask how well we
spoke and disputed, but how well we lived, _non quid legimus, sed quid
fecimus, non quam bene diximus, sed quam religiose viximus_.”[910]
In the “school of the heart” at Manresa, Ignatius had thoroughly
grasped these sublime lessons. He had carried them out in his own
life and made them the guiding principles of his Society. In his
_Spiritual Exercises_, Ignatius has laid down a brief, but most
comprehensive epitome of Christian philosophy. There he has expressed
the whole purpose of man’s life in these few lines: “Man is created to
praise, reverence and serve God, and thus to save his own soul. All
other things are created for the sake of man, and to aid him in the
attainment of his end; therefore he should use them only with this
object, and withdraw himself from them, when they would lead him from
it.” Apply this principle to learning, to knowledge, and you must admit
that these are not man’s ultimate end, they are only means to that
end. Throughout the educational system of the Society, we find the
application of these truths. Thus the Fourth Part of the Constitutions
says: “Since the object at which the Society directly aims, is to aid
its members and their fellow-men to attain the ultimate end for which
they were created, learning, a knowledge of the methods of instruction,
and living example are necessary.” In the Ratio Studiorum the first
rule of the Provincial reads: “It is one of the most important
duties of the Society to teach all the sciences, which according to
our Institute may be taught, in such a manner as to lead men to the
knowledge and love of our Creator and Redeemer Jesus Christ.” Of like
import are the first rules of the Rector, the Prefect of Studies and
the professors of the various grades. This great care which the Society
has always bestowed on the moral and religious training of its pupils,
is probably the reason that accounts for the popularity of its schools.
Christian parents felt assured that the spiritual welfare of their
sons would be most diligently attended to, and so sent them with the
greatest confidence to Jesuit colleges. More than once have parents
give expression to their sentiments on this point. The testimony of one
American father, the distinguished convert from Protestantism, Orestes
Brownson, may be given as an instance among many. “We ourselves have
four sons in the colleges of the Jesuits, and in placing them there we
feel that we are discharging our duty as a father to them, and as a
citizen to this country. We rest easy, for we feel they are where they
will be trained up in the way they should go; where their faith and
morals will be cared for, which with us is a great thing. It is more
especially for the moral and religious training which our children will
receive from the good fathers that we esteem these colleges. Science,
literature, the most varied and profound scholastic attainments,
are worse than useless, where coupled with heresy, infidelity or
impurity.”[911]
However, the Society has been blamed by some for insisting too
strongly upon moral and religious training, and for subordinating to
it everything else. But how can any one who believes in the existence
of God and an eternal life, find fault with this principle? If there
is a God, if man has an immortal soul, if there is an eternity of
happiness awaiting the good, and an eternity of punishment the wicked,
then the “one thing necessary” on earth, and to be aimed at above
everything else, is the salvation of the soul. Hence it is that men,
who in their religious tenets widely differ from the Jesuits, could not
help praising the latter for the attention they paid to the moral and
religious education of their pupils. From numerous testimonies we may
be allowed to quote a few. “As might be expected,” writes Quick, “the
Jesuits were to be very careful of the moral and religious training of
their pupils.... Sacchini writes in a very high tone on this subject.
Perhaps he had read of Trotzendorf’s address to a school.”[912] In
1879 an anti-clerical paper wrote about the Belgian higher schools:
“Could not our teachers do a little more for discipline? Could
they not watch more diligently over the manners and morals of the
students? How often do we hear people say: ‘What, I send my son to the
_Athenées_?[913] God forbid! Fine manners he would learn there!’ Now
there is no reason why the young should acquire worse manners in the
_Athenées_ than in the Jesuit schools--on the contrary. However, in
point of fact, only the Jesuits look after _education_, whereas our
_Athenées_ busy themselves only about _instruction_. I know full well
that the education imparted by the clergy is bad, even dangerous. Our
lay teachers should pay more attention to _education_, as it is exactly
this training, however detestable, which brings to the men in the
soutane the patronage of so many parents.” M. Cottu, a bitter enemy of
the Jesuits, had to acknowledge the same.[914] Professor Kern of the
University of Göttingen, a Protestant, wrote years ago: “The Jesuits
attack the evil at its root: they educate boys in the fear of God and
in obedience. Has it ever been heard that from Jesuit schools doctrines
come forth similar to those of our modern schools? History has proved
that irreligious and anarchistic doctrines spread rapidly after the
suppression of the Society. Faith and science were no longer united.
Reason with all its errors,--and what error is so absurd that has not
had its defenders--was given the preference, faith was abandoned,
ridiculed, and spoken of only under the name of superstition.”[915]
By what means do the Jesuits endeavor to effect the moral training
of their pupils? We may classify the means they employ under four
heads: the example of a virtuous life, reasonable supervision, ethical
instruction, and certain means provided by the Church, especially the
sacraments. As to the first we all know that example is much more
powerful than words, particularly so with the young. There is a great
truth in the old Latin adage: _Verba movent, exempla trahunt._ Every
teacher, therefore, should lead such a life as to be able to say with
the great teacher of the Gentiles: “Be ye followers of me as I also
am of Christ.”[916] Above all ought this to be the case with teachers
who make a profession of religion. The life of a religious is one of
continual self-denial. St. Ignatius seems to have thought that daily
contact with men of this stamp would be good for boys. He seems to
have thought that in course of time they would assimilate some of that
spirit of conscientious devotion to duty, of generous readiness to go
far beyond the limits of mere duty, of the manful and noble spirit of
self-control and self-sacrifice, of that spirit which seeks not self
but the good of its neighbor, that spirit which the pupils cannot help
seeing exemplified in their masters, if those masters are such men
as St. Ignatius intended them to be.[917] Now, St. Ignatius was very
explicit on the necessity of setting a good example, and the Ratio
inculcates the same in exhorting the teacher to edify the pupils by the
example of a virtuous life.[918] Have the sons of Ignatius come up to
the expectation of their father? Even the enemies of the Order could
not help expressing their admiration for the moral purity of the lives
of the Jesuits.[919] Nor can we wonder at this. The solid training in
religious life, which we described in a previous chapter, and the daily
practice of mental and vocal prayer, must give the religious teacher
a self-control that preserves him from the more serious outbreaks of
passion, which may prove detrimental to his authority and ruin all
salutary influence over his pupils.[920] Professor Paulsen observes
in regard to the Jesuit teacher: “According to an old saying, he is
strongest who overcomes himself. This may mean not only that the
greatest effort is needed to rule one’s self, but that he who is able
to do so possesses the greatest strength. Now it is my conviction that
there was never a body of men who succeeded better in controlling
natural inclinations, and in checking individual desires, than the
Jesuits. True, such qualities do not make one amiable; no one is
amiable who is without human weaknesses. Perfect absence of passion in
a man makes him awe-inspiring and causes others to feel uncomfortable
in his presence.” Then he adds: “That the Jesuits up to this day are
masters in the great art of checking anger, and thus masters in the
great art of ruling over men’s souls, the reader may learn from a
book written by a pupil of the Jesuit college of Freiburg and of the
_Collegium Germanicum_ in Rome, who afterwards became a Protestant
minister, and who vividly and truthfully describes the impression made
upon him in these Jesuit institutions.”[921]
In addition to these testimonies, it will not be superfluous to cite
the testimony of prominent men who as pupils in Jesuit colleges had
an opportunity of watching the Jesuits closely. The first witness is
Voltaire: “During the seven years,” he writes, “that I lived in the
house of the Jesuits, what did I see among them? The most laborious,
frugal, and regular life, all their hours divided between the care they
spent on us and the exercises of their austere profession. I attest the
same as thousands of others brought up by them, like myself; not one
will be found to contradict me. Hence I never cease wondering how any
one can accuse them of teaching corrupt morality.”[922]--From Germany
three men may be quoted who are considered, by friend and enemy, as
equally distinguished for gifts, for noble character, and for genuine
patriotism: von Ketteler, von Mallinckrodt, and Count Ballestrem. It
was in the early days of the _Kulturkampf_, when the laws for expelling
the Jesuits from Germany were being discussed, that among others, these
three stood up to defend the persecuted Order. Freiherr von Ketteler,
the celebrated Bishop of Mentz, testifies: “As a youth I was sent by
my parents to an educational institution of the Jesuits, where I spent
four years. From home I brought with me such independence of character
and such purity of morals, that had I noticed a shadow of what the
world styles Jesuitical principles, I would have turned away from
them with loathing and disgust. My parents, who enjoyed an entirely
independent position in life, and who were filled with the purest and
strongest love for their children and their true welfare, would not
for a moment have left me in that institution, had they apprehended
anything of the kind. There I witnessed nothing that ever shocked my
youthful spirit trained in the purest principles of Christianity. I
took leave of all my teachers with deepest reverence and with the
firmest conviction that they were men who daily made on themselves the
demands of severest morality.”--Similar testimonies were rendered by
Herr von Mallinckrodt, that chivalrous spirit who, with perhaps the
exception of Windthorst, was the greatest man in that grand Catholic
organization, the German Centre Party. And Count Ballestrem, now for
several years President of the German _Reichstag_, commenced one of his
speeches before that assembly with the following words: “The last time
I had the honor to address you here, I defended an institution which
has become dear to me, and in which I have spent a great part of my
life, the Prussian Army. To-day I come to defend an institution which I
have known from the days of my childhood, and with whose excellences I
am acquainted in every detail. I come to bear witness for my venerable
teachers, for my highly esteemed friends: for the religious of the
Society of Jesus.”[923]
Undoubtedly the testimony of these men, who with the keen eyes of boys
that so readily find fault with their teachers watched the Jesuits
and scrutinized their every word and action, outweighs a thousand
calumnies of prejudiced pamphleteers, who, in many cases, have never
seen a Jesuit or any other religious. Moreover, these witnesses
refute the oft-repeated charge of “the corrupt moral teaching of the
Jesuits.” Fair-minded Protestants have long since branded this charge
as a slander. Thus the German Protestant Körner says in his “_History
of Pedagogy_”[924]: “It is the fashion to represent the Jesuits as
heartless beings, malicious, cunning, and deceitful, although it
must be known perfectly well that the crimes imputed to them are
historically groundless, and the suppression of the Order in the last
century was due entirely to the tyrannical violence of Ministers of
State. _It is only our duty to justice to silence the folly of such
as declare the Jesuit system of education to be nothing but fanatical
malice and a corruption of the young._ The Jesuits were the first
educators of their time. Protestants must with envy acknowledge the
fruitfulness of their labors; they made the study of the ancient
classics a practical study, and training was with them as important as
education. They were the first schoolmasters to apply psychological
principles to education; they did not teach according to abstract
principles, but they trained the individual, developed his mental
resources for the affairs of practical life, and so imparted to the
educational system an important influence in social and political life.
From that period and from that system, scientific education takes its
rise. _The Jesuits succeeded in effecting a moral purity among their
pupils which was unknown in other schools during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries._”
Indeed, the Society has ever been most anxious to preserve her pupils
from the taint of impurity, the vice to which youth most easily falls
a prey. She takes most effective means to preserve what Chaucer calls
the “sweet holiness of youth.” She will inexorably expel a boy whose
presence is dangerous to others, especially in the matter of purity.
“There are some faults,” says Shea,[925] “for which the Jesuit system
of discipline has no mercy, and in the first place is found the vice
of impurity. For this crime the only punishment is expulsion, since
contamination is looked upon as the greatest evil that can be spread
among the young. Hence the virtue of purity is fostered with all
possible care and solicitude, and even Protestants have borne witness
to the high moral purity of Jesuit students.” (See, v. g., Mr. Körner’s
words quoted above.) So also another writer, the German Protestant
Ruhkopf: “In Jesuit colleges a moral purity prevailed which we look for
in vain in Protestant schools and universities. Such as were totally
corrupt, the Jesuits did not tolerate among their pupils, but sent them
away. In their colleges, impurity and demoralization could not easily
arise, as with the utmost care they kept away everything that could
taint the imagination of the youth committed to their charge.”[926]
Boarding schools, in particular, may easily, and, if precautions are
not taken, will almost invariably become hot-beds of immorality.[927]
Hence the anxiety of the Jesuits in guarding their pupils. Yet they
have been attacked more than once for these very precautions. Great
educators, however, have been one with the Jesuits on this important
question. Thus we read in the life of President McCosh: “The notion
that a professor’s duty began and ended with the instruction and
order in the class room, was abhorrent to him. He thought it the most
serious problem of the higher education to secure the oversight and
unremitting care of students, without espionage or any ‘injudicious
interference with the liberty of the young man.’ With the fine language
about treating students as capable of self-government, and responsible
for their own conduct, Dr. McCosh never felt the slightest sympathy,
believing that the formation of good habits was more than the half of
education, and that the morals of the young, like their intellect and
judgment, required constant attention from the instructors.”[928]
Now let us listen to what the head of an important department in one
of the large institutions in this country thinks on this subject: “One
way to deal with these strange, excited, inexperienced, and intensely
human things called Freshmen is to let them flounder till they drown
or swim; and this way has been advocated by men who have no boys of
their own. It is delightfully simple, if we can only shut eye and ear
and heart and conscience; and it has a kind of plausibility in the
examples of men who through rough usage have achieved strong character.
‘The objection,’ as the master of a great school said the other day,
‘is the waste;’ and he added, ‘it is such an awful thing to waste human
life!’ This method is a cruel method, ignoring all the sensibilities
of that delicate, high-strung instrument which we call the soul. If
none but the fittest survived, the cruelty might be defended; but
some, who unhappily cannot drown, become cramped swimmers for all
their days. Busy and worn as a college teacher usually is, thirsty for
the advancement of learning as he is assumed always to be, he cannot
let hundreds of young men pass before him, unheeded and unfriended.
At Harvard College, the Faculty, through its system of advisers for
Freshmen, has made a beginning; and though there are hardly enough
advisers to go round, the system has proved its usefulness. At Harvard
College, also, a large committee of Seniors and Juniors has assumed
some responsibility for all the Freshmen. Each undertakes to see
at the beginning of the year the Freshmen assigned to him, and to
give every one of them, besides kindly greeting and good advice, the
feeling that an experienced undergraduate may be counted on as a friend
in need.”--This is excellent, but all the more surprised will the
reader be to find that this author continues in the following strain:
“Whether colleges should guard their students more closely than they
do--whether, for example, they should with gates and bars protect their
dormitories against the inroads of bad women--is an open question. For
the deliberately vicious such safeguards would amount to nothing; but
for the weak they might lessen the danger of sudden temptation.”[929]
As to the “open question” we hold rather that it is a shocking
principle. Must not fathers and mothers, who have sons in such schools,
shudder at the thought that their children will scarcely be protected
against the worst and most disgraceful of moral dangers, since the
school authorities think it an “open question” whether such protection
is advisable? In too many cases are youths “left to flounder till they
drown or swim.” And the majority will drown, or become cramped swimmers
for all their days; that is, become moral, and perhaps physical wrecks.
This is the end of all that specious but senseless talk about “the
sanctity of the individual,” “advantage of rough usage,” “dangers
of guarding sternly or tenderly,” “free spirit of our country,” and
the like. The Divine Teacher of mankind, the friend of children, has
clearly and sternly expressed His “views” upon these points: “He that
shall scandalize”--and we may add, he that allows others to scandalize,
or does not prevent from being scandalized--“one of these little ones
that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of
the sea.” Neglect of watchfulness in this regard is nothing less than
treason; treason towards the souls of the pupils who should be guarded
against their worst foes, their own corrupt inclinations; treason
against parents who demand that their children be not exposed to such
experiments.
The Jesuits do not let their pupils “flounder till they drown or
swim.” They consider it their most sacred obligation to prevent, as
far as possible, their charges from coming into contact with moral
contamination. “But,” it is objected, “what good comes from all your
protection? It usually happens that your pupil on leaving the place
where he was protected against all dangers, falls the more quickly and
the more shamefully. And why? For the very reason that he was shielded
on all sides and never struggled with dangers and temptations. He
is not prepared, he is caught unawares, and yields unconditionally
and hopelessly, whereas had he been trained by daily encounter with
temptation his character would have been hardened.”[930] If the case
were frequent, if the deeper fall inevitably followed the purer
boyhood, then we may as well despair of all education and all virtue.
Happily, we have here one of those sweeping generalizations and
exaggerations, so common with certain writers. We answer: _First_, not
all fall away after leaving the sheltering precincts of the college.
Many remain good among the greatest dangers and temptations. And this
perseverance they owe to the precautions taken in the college and to
the virtuous habits acquired through the daily practice of observing
the regulations of these institutions. The continued moral efforts
required for doing this are as effective for producing strength of
character as the “rough usage” and, at the same time, less dangerous.
_Secondly_, many of those who afterwards disgrace themselves, would
have done so even had they never been inside college walls, in many
cases much earlier, and perhaps more irreparably. It was college
discipline that prevented them from earlier ruin. St. Ignatius used
to say: “To have prevented one sin is worth all the troubles and
labors of this life.” _Thirdly_, many come to Catholic academies and
colleges from public and private schools, where they have acquired such
a knowledge of life and of the “ways of the world,” that educators
are sometimes horrified at discovering what boys of fourteen and
sixteen years have heard and experienced. For such boys the quiet and
seclusion of a Catholic college and its strict discipline are of the
greatest benefit, and the spirit of piety and modesty pervading the
whole atmosphere acts upon those poor boys as the healthy, pure air of
Colorado and New Mexico upon consumptives. If the spiritual consumption
has not progressed too far, two or three years spent in thoroughly
Christian surroundings, often restore such youths to complete health
of soul and body. There is scarcely a Jesuit teacher who could not
recount many instances of boys whose reformation was so thorough, that
they became most excellent men. Without this salutary influence their
souls would have sunk into the abyss of vice and crime, and their
bodies very likely into an early grave. _Fourthly_, boys who were thus
protected in college, and afterwards go astray will in most cases
return. Their hearts will not be happy in their pleasures and excesses;
for the religious and moral principles implanted in them can never be
totally destroyed. After a brief experience they become disgusted with
their lives and begin to loath their vices. A young man without any
previous religious training sees no way out of the quagmire of vice; he
easily abandons himself the more to his evil passions. But it is very
different with the young man who grew up under religious influences. In
moments of disgust and remorse, at a sudden calamity that befalls him
or those near him, he remembers not only the happiness of his childhood
but also the salutary advice of his teacher, to whom he used to look up
as a fatherly friend. Such recollections have saved more than one young
man who had gone astray. _Finally_, are those young men who from early
years and during college life were left to their “own experience and
rough usage” of temptations, later on, in the battles of life, better
and of purer morals, then those “sheltered” against dangers? An honest
inquiry will assuredly be met with a decided answer in the negative.
The idea of supervision and restriction seems to be especially
repugnant to people in England and America. Undoubtedly, the character
of the American and English youth differs in several points from that
of the youth of other countries. For this reason we may admit, with a
writer in the _Dublin Review_,[931] that in dealing with English--and
we add: with American--youths, it will be found beneficial to exercise
a somewhat less minute supervision than that practised in some other
countries. This seems to be demanded by the peculiar character and
the spirit of the public and private life of the English and American
people. On the other hand, these differences have frequently been
exaggerated, and conclusions have been drawn from these discrepancies
of character which are altogether unjustified. Opinions have been
uttered which seem to imply an intrinsic superiority of the American
youth over those of the rest of the world, a superiority which renders
laws that are necessary for good education everywhere else, superfluous
in this country. Some seem to think that restrictions are little
compatible with republican institutions. Professor Edward J. Goodwin,
of New York, said recently: “German children are taught to submit to
authority, but our boys must be taught to govern themselves.”[932]
We readily admit that the principle of submitting to authority can
be carried to extremes, in education as well as in political life.
But we think that boys will learn to govern themselves only by
submitting first to authority, as in early years they possess neither
the sufficient knowledge nor the necessary strength of will to govern
themselves reasonably. We fasten the young tender tree to a pole,
lest it grow crooked or be bent and broken by the storm; the same is
necessary, and to a much higher degree, in the case of the frail human
sapling in which so many perverse inclinations are hidden which tend to
foster a growth in the wrong direction. Above all, educators should not
forget that there is one authority to which the youths of every country
must submit unconditionally, and that is the authority of the Divine
Lawgiver as expressed in the precepts of morality--and obedience is one
of these precepts. The same Divine authority imposes the sacred duty on
educators to watch over their charges, and to remove, as far as lies in
their power, all that endangers their morality. The Christian educator
fears lest any neglect in this matter may draw upon him the dreadful
words addressed to the “watchman to the house of Israel”: “If thou
declare it not to him [the wicked man], nor speak to him, that he may
be converted from his wicked way and live: the same wicked man shall
die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.”[933]
Indeed, it is the fatherly love and care for the welfare of their
pupils which leads the Christian educator to exercise supervision over
his pupils. He has received from the parents that treasure which is to
them more precious than anything on earth; their own dearly beloved
children, for whom they toil and labor, over whom they anxiously watch
and pray lest they should suffer shipwreck in regard to their faith
and virtue, especially the virtue of purity which is so beautiful, so
priceless, and yet so difficult of securing in youth. The teacher would
be guilty of the basest breach of confidence, did he not strain every
nerve to avert a calamity from those so sacredly entrusted to him.
We can well understand that at times this or that particular method
may justly be censured, as, in reality, not being conducive to the
end which is sought; but that the whole system, the very principle,
should be ridiculed and condemned, spoken of in terms of invective and
indignation, and stigmatized by such opprobrious names as “espionage”
and the like--this, we say, is startling.[934] It can be explained only
from the false philosophical notions of such critics; particularly from
their wrong conception and very low valuation of the human soul.
Many, especially such as have never stepped inside the doors of a
Jesuit college, are filled with an absurd dread of the supervision
exercised, as they fancy, by the Jesuits. From time to time, however,
when some appalling scandals are discovered within the walls of a
college where the students enjoy pretty nearly full liberty, or when
scores, if not hundreds of students, exhibit most disgraceful scenes
of disorder on the public streets, then the eyes of many are opened
and they see that, after all, some supervision, and a pretty strict
one, is necessary in a place where hundreds of hot-blooded youths
live together. In 1891, an English non-Catholic paper, speaking about
scandalous disclosures on board the school-ship _Britannia_, said
there were two kinds of public schools, Jesuit and Gaol-bird school.
“The Jesuit idea of school life is that a boy at school should, as
far as possible, be in the same position as he will afterwards be in
as a man in the world, that is to say, the position not of a wild
beast in an African jungle, free to do what he pleases, but of a human
being in a civilized country, living under the eye of the law. The
Jesuits in fact police their schools, that is, what it comes to. This
policing is called by people who don’t like it (i. e. don’t like the
trouble of enforcing it) espionage and other ugly names. As a matter of
fact, it amounts to no more than that ordinary care which a commonly
decent and commonly sensible father exercises in his own house: It
means simply reasonable supervision, aided of course by rationally
constructed school buildings--massing of boys for school as well as
for play--living in the light of day, in fact. Now, neither a boy nor
a man does much harm or has much harm done to him, so long as he lives
in the light of day, and the consequence is that although, of course,
many boys who leave Jesuit schools become bad men afterwards, yet they
get no harm while they stay at school. They leave as good as they
come and, moreover, if they do not come pretty reasonably good, they
do not stay long. The father gets a letter to say ‘the boy is doing
no good at school and had better be removed.’ The Goal-bird system is
simplicity itself. The head master draws his salary, attends to the
teaching of Greek and Latin and shuts his eyes firmly, deliberately,
conscientiously, like an English gentleman, as he would say himself,
to everything else going on around him.”[935] This is very severe
language. May it not partly apply to a number of “educators” in this
country, who denounce so strongly any “paternalism” exercised over the
pupils?
As regards the charges against the precautions taken in Jesuit
colleges, they are usually founded upon wrong suppositions. It is
believed that the Jesuit pupil is watched every moment. This is not
so; he has liberty enough within a certain reasonable limit. Of
course, it is a most delicate and difficult question how this limit
is to be determined. It is not possible to lay down any particulars
on this subject, because, in this as in other matters, there exists
considerable variety in different Jesuit colleges, and Superiors assign
that measure of liberty which, considering the difference of places and
circumstances, especially the age and character of the pupils, seems
not to expose them to great dangers.--It is also falsely supposed that
no word of necessary explanation is given concerning the dangers that
await the pupil outside the college walls; that educators imperatively
forbid any inquiry about matters which the students may be anxious to
ask; that they never give advice and instruction on matters which at a
certain age a young man may, and considering the circumstances, should
know, in order not to be caught unawares by dangers and temptations,
which are sure to come.[936] Necessary instruction and advice,
according to age and other circumstances, will be given, above all,
by the confessor; the teacher also, with moderation and discretion,
will do the same. Many occasions will offer in the explanation of the
catechism, of the authors, and in private conversations.
A few words must be said about the private talks with boys so much
recommended in the Jesuit system. Father Jouvancy says the teacher
should speak in private more frequently with those who seem to be
exposed to worse and more dangerous faults.[937] Father Sacchini
remarks that he should study the character and disposition of each
pupil, to discover the bad outcroppings on the tender plant and nip
them in the bud.[938] Father Kropf advises the teacher to go carefully
over the names of his pupils every Sunday and to recommend them in
prayer to our Lord and His Blessed Mother. While doing this he should
reflect especially whether it is advisable to see this boy or that in
private, to correct him, to warn him against a danger, or whether it is
well to communicate with his parents.[939] What should be treated of in
these private conversations is plain from Jouvancy and Sacchini. And
the 47th rule of the teachers says briefly, they should treat only of
serious matters.[940] Speaking of conversation with the students, the
Father General Vitelleschi, in 1639, gave characteristic directions:
“It will be very useful if from time to time the professors treat with
their auditors, and converse with them, not about vain rumors and other
affairs that are not to the purpose, but about those that appertain to
their well-being and education; going into the particulars that seem
most to meet their wants; and showing them how they ought to conduct
themselves in studies and piety. Let the professors be persuaded that a
single talk in private, animated with true zeal and prudence on their
part, will penetrate the heart deeper and work more powerfully, than
many lectures and sermons given to all in common.”[941] This keeping in
touch with the individual pupil has always been considered as one of
the sources of the success of the Jesuits in their educational labor.
Protestant educators have not failed to recognize this and to speak
of it with approval. Thus Sir Joshua Fitch writes of Arnold: “Much of
the influence he gained over his scholars--influence which enabled
him to dispense in an increasing degree with corporal punishment--was
attributed to his knowledge of the individual characteristics of
boys.... This is a kind of knowledge which has long been known to be
characteristic of the disciplinary system of the Jesuits, but has not
been common among the head masters of English public schools.”[942] It
is almost altogether absent in most modern systems, consistently with
their principle of separating training from teaching, education from
instruction, a principle which, as M. Brunetière said, “our forefathers
would not have been able to understand.”[943]
Supervision and exhortation are powerful means for preserving the good
morals of youths, but much more powerful are the divinely appointed
means, Confession and Communion. Although they are practised in all
Catholic colleges, the Jesuits, following the example and advice
of their founder, worked most zealously for the spread of frequent
confession and communion. By doing so they incurred the special hatred
of the Jansenists, whose rigorous views they vigorously opposed. We
need not here refute the Protestant views of auricular confession.
Every Catholic knows that it is not a “torture chamber of conscience,”
not an “unwarrantable invasion of the privacy of the individual,”
not an “intrusion into the sacred domain of domestic life,” not a
“source of weakness to the will,” not a “dangerous and demoralizing
practice.” To men who use such language and hold such opinions may be
applied the words of the Epistle of St. Jude the Apostle: “_Blasphemant
quod ignorant_, they blaspheme things which they know not.” Apart
from the divine institution, the Catholic knows that confession, the
“ministry of reconciliation,” the “sacrament of peace,” is a source of
unspeakable blessings, of consolation in distress, of encouragement
in despair, of advice in perplexities. With reference to our object,
the English Jesuit Father Clarke (Oxford), in an article entitled “The
Practice of Confession in the Catholic Church,”[944] points out the
special advantages of confession for the moral training of the young.
The passage is so beautiful and so much to our purpose that it is well
to quote it in its entirety.
“It has probably occurred to the mind of most Catholics, as it has
often occurred to my own, that if there were no other proof of the
paramount claims of the Catholic Church, we should find a sufficient
one in the elaborate care with which she watches over the innocence
of the young. To guard from evil and corruption the lambs of the
fold is one of her chief duties and privileges. This loving care
she inherits from her Divine Founder, Who was the friend and lover
of little children. Now, I do not think that it is possible for any
unprejudiced and well-informed person, who compares the practical
working of the Catholic system with that of any other religious system
in the world, to deny her unrivalled and unapproachable superiority
in this respect. She shields her little ones in their early childhood
with all the jealous care of the most tender mother, and when the time
comes for the safe seclusion of the parental roof to be exchanged for
a freer intercourse with their fellows, she provides safeguards for
their purity that are unknown, or almost unknown, outside her fold. For
the due education of boys, large schools, and for those of the upper
class, large boarding schools are a practical necessity. Then comes
the dangerous time, and how great the dangers of that time are is well
known to every one who has had an experience of the inner working of
English public schools. To keep boys safe from a most perilous, if not
fatal, contact with vice and sin, is a problem which has exercised
the mind and troubled the conscience of every one who has taken part
in the management of any of our large schools and colleges; and those
among Protestant educators who have studied the subject most deeply,
and who have had long experience to guide them, have had to admit, with
sorrow and grief, that the task was a hopeless one.[945] They have had
to submit to what they considered an inevitable evil, and their best
hope has been by personal influence to mitigate to some extent that
which they knew they were powerless to prevent. But is the evil one
for which no remedy can be provided? God forbid! The Catholic Church
provides an effective remedy for this as for every other evil incident
to human life. Here I can speak from a large experience, and with a
full knowledge of the subject. Again and again I have been assured
by boys who have passed through Catholic colleges, from the lowest
to the highest form, that during the whole of their time there they
never heard one immodest word, or came into contact with any sort of
temptation to evil from those with whom they associated. I have known
some who at the end of their school course were as innocent of moral
evil as on the day they entered, and were utterly shocked and disgusted
when they were thrown into the vortex of the world outside, and had to
listen to the kind of talk that too often forms the common staple of
conversation among those who have had a Protestant education.... I do
not say that the Church is always successful in her endeavors. It is
quite possible that, even in a Catholic school, evil may for a time
run riot. One sinner may destroy much good. But the evil never lasts
long, and the Catholic system brings about a speedy recovery. What I
do assert is that the moral perils, to which a boy is exposed in a
Catholic school, are infinitesimal as compared with those which will
surround him in any of the Protestant public schools and colleges.
“In all this the chief engine for the good work is the confessional.
There are, of course, many others. There is the personal influence and
the keen sense of responsibility of those who are in authority; there
is the close and intimate friendship existing between the teacher and
the taught, which is something utterly different from the comparatively
cold relations and official reserve which make the Protestant master
far more of a stranger to his boys. But it is the weekly or fortnightly
confession that is the real safeguard. It is in the confessor that he
has his trusted friend, to whom he freely talks of all his dangers and
temptations; it is confession that keeps the moral atmosphere healthy
and pure; it is confession that maintains the high standard of life and
conversation prevailing, through God’s mercy, in our Catholic schools
and colleges; it is confession that enables the Catholic parent to
entrust his boy to the good priests, whether secular or regular, who
devote themselves to the work of education, without any of those qualms
or fears, that anxiety and foreboding about the future, that fill the
heart of the Protestant parent when he bids farewell to his innocent
child on his first plunge into the vortex of a Protestant public school.
“But there is one charge, one false and cruel charge, which some
Protestant writers bring against confession. They say that it
introduces the young and innocent to a knowledge of subjects which are
_sacro digna silentio_, and even suggests to them evil of which they
would otherwise be ignorant. I can only assure my readers (in answer to
this gratuitous calumny), on the word of an honest man, that during the
twenty years and more that I have been constantly hearing confessions
of men and women, boys and girls, of every class and in various
countries, I have never known of a single instance of any knowledge of
evil having been imparted in the confessional. I am sure that I may
speak for all my fellow priests all over the world, when I say that I
would, with God’s help, far rather be torn in a thousand pieces than
say one word in the confessional that could endanger the purity of the
young, or impart a knowledge of evil to one previously ignorant of it.
“But if there should be any of my readers who are not willing to
accept my own personal assurance, there is another consideration which
ought to convince them. If there were in this accusation the smallest
element of truth, every good mother would, in her tender care for her
children’s innocence, have the greatest horror of seeing her little
ones kneeling before the priest, and every careful father would forbid
his boys and girls from incurring the risk of such contamination. Is
this the case? Do we find good Catholic parents dreading the influence
of the confessional for their children? On the contrary, there is
nothing that gives them more hearty satisfaction than to know that
their sons and daughters are, from their earliest years, regular in
making their confession month by month, or week by week. They regard
it as the best possible safeguard for their innocence and virtue. They
are alarmed and anxious if, when boyhood emerges into youth, their sons
grow irregular in frequenting the tribunal of penance. They fear there
must be something wrong. They urge and entreat them not to fall away
from the practice of confession. Joy fills the mother’s heart when she
sees her son once more returning, it may be after long absence, to that
fount of mercy and of grace, where she knows that he will obtain pardon
for the past, and strength and help for the struggles of the future.”
It would be presumption on our part to make further comment on these
beautiful words. Every Catholic will testify to the truth of Father
Clarke’s description of the salutary influence confession exercises
over the young during the most dangerous period of life. Now let us
contrast with this description a picture drawn from the life of a
Protestant. Newman, in the introduction of _Loss and Gain_, describes
a clergyman of the Church of England, who has just decided to send his
son Charles to one of the large public schools. “Seclusion”, he says
to himself, “is no security for virtue. There is no telling what is in
a boy’s heart; he may look as open and happy as usual, and be as kind
and as attentive, when there is a great deal wrong going on within. The
heart is a secret with its Maker. No one on earth can hope to get at
it, or to touch it. I have a cure of souls; what do I really know of my
parishioners? Nothing; their hearts are sealed books to me. And this
dear boy, he comes close to me; he throws his arms around me, but his
soul is as much out of my sight as if he were at the antipodes. I am
not accusing him of reserve, dear fellow; his very love and reverence
for me keep him in a sort of charmed solitude. I cannot expect to get
at the bottom of him.
“‘Each in his hidden sphere of bliss or woe,
Our hermit spirits dwell.’
“It is our lot here below. No one on earth can know Charles’s secret
thoughts. Did I guard him here at home ever so well, yet, in due
time, it might be found that a serpent had crept into the Eden of his
innocence. Boys do not fully know what is good and what is evil; they
do wrong things at first almost innocently. Novelty hides vice from
them; there is no one to warn them or give them rules; and they become
slaves of sin while they are learning what sin is.”
Is not this a most pathetic confession of a great shortcoming of the
Protestant system which renounces all inward government and direction
of the soul? It leaves all to the private judgment of the individual.
And yet, what a blessing for young people to have one to whom they can
securely disclose “their secret thoughts.” Then this friend of their
souls can “warn them and give them rules.” The evil will be discovered
and counteracted before the young are slaves of sin. The Catholic
youth has all this advantage in the confession. What could an Arnold,
a Thring, a McCosh do here? Indeed, does not this reserve of the
Protestant system frustrate in many educators talent, zeal, kindliness,
and keen-eyed affection, of their best fruits?
On the educational influence of the reception of the Holy Eucharist, a
beautiful passage is found in the diary of the first American Cardinal,
Archbishop McCloskey of New York, written when sojourning in Rome as
a young priest. “_Feast of St. Aloysius, Rome_, June 21, 1835. This
is the peculiar festivity of the students of Rome. It is observed
with the greatest solemnity at the Church of the Roman College, S.
Ignazio [under the care of the Jesuits]. Nearly all the students of
the college, amounting to the number of 1500, receive Holy Communion
together on this day. Being anxious to witness so interesting and
edifying a spectacle, I took care to be at the Church of S. Ignazio at
a seasonable hour. When I arrived, the students had just entered and
had taken their places in ranks forming an aisle in the middle, and
extending from the altar along the nave of the church to the very door.
The Community Mass, a low one, was celebrated by a Cardinal, and the
choir was composed of some of the choice singers among the pupils. It
may have been owing to the numberless youthful associations that were
connected with the scene before me, but I must confess it was to me
the most edifying and most affecting ceremony I have yet witnessed in
Rome. It was one which I shall never forget. To behold that spacious
and beautiful edifice almost exclusively occupied by such a number of
students of every rank and almost every age, arranged in such beautiful
order, their countenances bespeaking a deep sense of the act they were
about to perform in receiving into their bosoms their Divine Lord and
Saviour, and to hear, at the same time, the solemn strains of music
which filled the place with pious harmony, was certainly enough to
fill a far less sensitive breast with holy enthusiasm. The moment of
Communion arrived. It was a moment in which I felt the holiness and
sublimity of my religion with a peculiar force. Fifteen hundred young
men and boys approached the table of their Divine Master with a modesty
and a fervor most marked and sincere, and, it is to be supposed, with
a corresponding purity of mind and heart, all of them in the heyday
of life, and most of that age, and in those exterior circumstances,
which lead the youth, particularly of Protestant colleges, to the most
dangerous vices. This, assuredly, I thought was a triumphant evidence
of the superior moral influence of the Catholic religion. Call it
Jesuitism, call it priestcraft, call it what you please, no candid mind
contemplating such a spectacle can deny that as edifying a one has
never been, and never will be, presented by the same number, nor one
tenth of the number, of Protestant youth in any part of the world.”[946]
Besides these two principal means employed for the religious and
moral training of youth, there are others which are used with the
most salutary results. Among them are certain _devotions_ recommended
to, and encouraged among, the students. Non-Catholics do not view
the Catholic devotions very favorably, but their antipathy springs,
for the most part, from a misunderstanding of the true nature of
these devotions. Protestants think that Catholics consider these
practices as the essence of religion; further, they have the opinion
that these devotions are merely mechanical recitations of certain set
prayers. In this they are seriously mistaken.[947] To the Catholic
the religious devotions are not the essence of religion, but they are
practical manifestations of religion and, at the same time, valuable
helps to obtain and strengthen what is essential in religion, namely,
the perfect subjection of the intellect and will to the will of God.
Nor are they merely mechanical recitations of prayers; they are, if
performed according to the mind of the Church, powerful means of
lifting up the understanding, the imagination, the feelings and the
will to the contemplation and active love of God. They all contain most
potent motives for the moral elevation and betterment of man. Let us
take that devotion which Jesuit educators recommend so much to their
pupils: the devotion to St. Aloysius, the “Lily of Gonzaga.” In this
devotion the picture of the highest Christian perfection attainable
in youth is placed before the eyes of the students. They see in this
Saint a noble youth who, in the midst of wealth and luxury and the
allurements of a courtly life, preserved unsullied the white robe of
innocence; a youth who from early childhood measured all things, as
he himself expressed it, _secundum rationes aeternas, non secundum
rationes temporales_, i. e. according to the value which they possess
for his final destination; a youth who always followed the dictates
of conscience with a chivalrous energy and steadfastness, and who
heroically spurned the pleasures that prove so fatal to many young men;
a youth who renounced the inheritance of a principality in order to
follow the evangelical counsels, and to devote himself to the glory of
God and the service of his fellow-men. Surely, a devotion which places
before the admiring gaze of students such a type of youthful holiness
for imitation, is a practical devotion, one that cannot fail to elevate
the character of the students and make their lives purer and holier.
Here we may also mention another most salutary exercise, namely, the
annual retreat in which, following the directions of St. Ignatius,
the end of man, the means of attaining this end, and the motives for
striving after Christian sanctity are set before the mind of the pupil.
What untold blessings result from these exercises, only he is able to
realize who has made them.
Then there exist in every Jesuit college the _Sodalities of the
Blessed Mother of God_, pious associations originated by the Jesuit
Scholastic Leon, and solemnly recognized and highly eulogized by many
Popes, beginning from Gregory XIII. (1584) down to Leo XIII. It is
worth while to read the high commendation bestowed on them by the
learned Pope Benedict XIV., who, as a former Jesuit pupil and member of
the sodality, could well form a competent judgment upon their value.
The influence of these sodalities on the moral life of the pupils
cannot be valued too highly. Their members are usually the leaders
in setting good example to others. The decline of sodalities was
frequently followed by a decline of morality in Catholic colleges. In
1871 the sodalities in the thirty higher schools in Rhenish Prussia
were hampered by government interference; it was said that the good
they might do to individuals, should be accomplished by the schools
without them. A year after, in 1872, Dr. Falk, Minister of Instruction
in Prussia, ordered the dissolution of the sodalities in all higher
schools in the kingdom. Not eight years had elapsed when Dr. Falk’s
successor, von Puttkamer, on the 20th day of May 1880, had to warn
the heads of the same institutions against associations formed by the
students with the avowed purpose of practising drink, dishonesty and
immorality.[948]
These sodalities, instituted to advance the students in true and solid
piety as well as learning, effected inestimable good. The members were
exhorted to cherish above all that virtue which is the most beautiful
ornament of youth, purity. They created a lofty moral tone in the
colleges and sustained a healthy, manly public opinion. Thus these
pious associations exerted a most powerful formative influence on
the character of the students.[949] Their piety, too, was active in
works of charity. The socialists of early colleges united in bands to
purchase articles of food and clothing for distribution among the poor;
they visited prisoners, and consoled and instructed them; they went to
the hospitals and to the squalid quarters of the city to look after the
sick.[950] What the students thus began to practise in college, was by
many continued throughout their lives.
Nor have the sodalities ceased to achieve the same excellent results
in our days. As a modern model sodality we mention that of Barcelona,
consisting of seven hundred members, mostly students of the University,
or members of the professions. Its _Academia_ encourages excellent
literary and scientific work.[951]
Another point concerning the moral training that deserves particular
mention is the care of the Society with regard to reading. The press
is a mighty instrument for good and evil. With it heaven and hell are
contesting for a priceless treasure--the soul of man. St. Ignatius
and the framers of the Ratio Studiorum knew this full well. They tell
the teacher to encourage good and wholesome reading, but even more
earnestly to warn the students against dangerous books, which St.
Augustine calls “the hellish stream into which the children of men are
daily cast.”[952] Ignatius feared lest the reading of classic authors
should introduce into young minds pagan tastes and morals. Nor was his
fear groundless in view of the disastrous results that had followed the
one-sided study and admiration of the classics during the latter period
of the Renaissance, when people not only imitated the beautiful style
of the writers of antiquity but also their shocking principles.[953]
About the year 1550 Ignatius, who had thought long and deeply upon
this subject, wrote to a prelate: “Seeing that young people are so
disposed to receive and retain first impressions, whether good or bad
... and considering that books, especially classics as they are taught
to boys, as Terence, Virgil, and others, contain amongst many things
to be learnt, and not useless but profitable rather for life, some
other things very profane and injurious even if only heard ... and so
much the more, if these are placed before them in books in which they
study habitually, having them in their hands--this considered, it has
seemed to me, as it does still seem, that it would be very expedient
if we were to remove from these classic works all the parts that are
unedifying or noxious, and replace them by others of a better sort, or,
without adding anything leave only what is profitable. And this appears
to me up to these last years most desirable for the good Christian life
and good training of our youth.”[954]
The principles of St. Ignatius found a practical expression in the
Constitutions of the Society,[955] and later in various parts of the
Ratio Studiorum.[956] There it is laid down that in the authors given
into the hands of the pupils all dangerous passages should be omitted,
or if certain authors, as Terence, could hardly be expurgated they
ought rather not to be read at all. Many modern educators or writers
on education consider this anxiety of the Jesuits mere prudery. Others
who have studied the question more thoroughly and conscientiously,
admit that many reasons can be given for the practice of the Jesuits.
Others again declare themselves unable to speak decisively on this
“perplexing” question. Thus a writer in the _St. James’s Gazette_,
after having mentioned the “castrated editions of the classics” used
in the Jesuit college at Stonyhurst, England, says: “Our public
schools go upon another principle; the argument being that the shock
of introduction on entering the world, to what has been so zealously
excluded would only lead to a sudden and fatal downfall. For my part I
find the question a perplexing one.”[957]
To those who see in the caution of the Society nothing but prudery,
we may reply that even pagan writers, and those of the very highest
standing, as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian, denounced
emphatically the reading of certain authors of their own language
and race. Quintilian well said: “As regards reading, great care is
to be taken, above all things, that tender minds, which will imbibe
deeply whatever has entered them when they are ignorant of everything
and, as it were, resemble empty vessels, may learn not only what is
well written, but, still more, what is morally good. The reading of
tragedies is beneficial, the lyric poets nourish the mind, provided
that you select from them, not merely authors, but portions of their
works; for the Greeks are licentious in many of their writings, and
I should be loath to interpret Horace in certain passages.”[958] And
even Ovid, that licentious writer, warns his readers if they want to be
free from the consequences of disorderly passion, not to read, nay, not
to touch frivolous poetry: _Teneros ne tange poetas_, and he includes
in this class some of his own works. The language of the Fathers of
the Church is unmistakable on this subject. In fact, the terms of
condemnation used by some Fathers against pagan writings, are actually
directed against the idolatry and immorality contained therein. It
would be useless to multiply quotations.
There are modern educators, also Protestants, who on this point are
at one with the Society. Thus writes Quick: “It is much to the credit
of the Jesuit Fathers that, though Plautus and Terence were considered
very valuable for giving a knowledge of colloquial Latin and were
studied and learned by heart in the Protestant schools, the Jesuits
rejected them on account of their impurity.”[959] Later on expurgated
editions of Plautus, Terence, Horace, Juvenal, Persius and others
were published by Jesuits, especially by Father Jouvancy. The words
of Professor Paul Barth of Leipsic, written a year ago, are also well
worth being summarized here.[960] “One of the truest sayings of Goethe
is: ‘Let no one imagine that the first impressions of youth can be
effaced.’ There are striking examples recorded in history how perverse
reading in early years caused the greatest harm. Of course there will
be wise people, even educators, who say: ‘It is true, there are some
offensive passages in this work, but their effect is counteracted by
other instruction. Don’t let us be pedantic. Don’t let us make so much
noise about such trifles.’ These gentlemen must be answered that in
education there are no trifles; that nothing is so little that it may
be overlooked. For every trifle has an influence on many, very many
souls of children, and in every one of these souls it can work its
effect for a long time, perhaps for a whole life. Others, advocates of
a ‘sound realism,’ as they style themselves, will say: ‘Evil is after
all a component part of this world, and so it is beneficial to free
the young of the illusion that there is no evil in the world.’ To this
we reply: Belief in the moral order in this world is an energizing
factor in the life of the young, and the man who robs the child of this
belief, weakens its moral energy, consequently does an immoral act.
Others again, granting all this, will say: ‘Although there is some
danger in such reading, still it gives an insight into the life and
the history of the nations.’ Such historians we answer: The history
of civilization can be learned in other ways; at any rate, it is too
dearly bought if it ruins the character of children.”
That no prudishness is advocated by our remarks on reading the
classics, is sufficiently proved from what has been said on Homer.[961]
Nor do we deny that some editors of school-texts, as well as teachers,
may not have gone too far in expurgating. Here, as in other matters,
the golden rule is: _Medio tutissimus ibis._ It will always remain a
delicate and difficult question to decide what is to be omitted or
what may be read without danger. The tact of the teacher and skill
in handling such passages will often give the proper solution. But
about the correctness of the general principle laid down in the Ratio
Studiorum there can be no doubt.
The same principle holds good not only of the classical authors
of Greece and Rome, but of the moderns as well, if not in a higher
degree.[962] The ancients are direct, outspoken and straightforward,
even in their obscenity; the moderns are more indirect and insinuating.
The latter method is not the more harmless as might appear to the
superficial, but is by far the more dangerous, since it stimulates
curiosity, sets the mind thinking and leaves the reader to reflect
and dwell on an unsavory and prurient subject. The Jesuit teachers
are exhorted not only “not to read in class any obscene author or
any book which contains matter dangerous to good morals, but also to
deter most energetically their pupils from reading such books outside
of class.”[963] This advice about deterring pupils from bad reading,
is far more necessary now-a-days than at the time when the Ratio was
drawn up. How many popular books and magazines, openly, or secretly
under the name of “modern science,” are advocating principles which
in reality are agnostic and irreligious? How many of the novels that
flood the literary market, are filled with ill-disguised nastiness?
How many books are borrowed by the young people from libraries, which
should never be permitted to fall into their hands? God alone knows all
the harm done to faith and purity by these books. For many a talented
youth, the pride and joy of a happy home, the indulging in filthy
novels has been the beginning of a career of sin and crime.
As a rule it is not advisable to say _this_ or _that_ book is bad or
indecent; for some boys, either through viciousness or curiosity, will
for that very reason read the book. But should an evil publication
circulate among the boys, then it should be denounced in the strongest
terms.
Boys should be likewise cautioned against over-indulgence in the
reading of newspapers, especially of the sensational kind. There is
no worse school for the mind than such papers. They not unfrequently
swarm with infamous advertisements; scandalous happenings, whose very
possibility ought to be unknown to young people, are there discussed
in a frivolous manner and with the omission of not a single disgusting
detail. If these newspapers form the daily mental food of a boy, they
will dull and blunt all sense of delicacy and modesty, and disable
his mind for serious application to hard study. In his “Book of the
Spiritual Exercises,” St. Ignatius pictures the inveterate enemy of
mankind seated on a throne on the plains of Babylon, despatching
innumerable demons all over the world, to every city and every person
in order to ensnare and deceive men. This wily fiend has undergone a
marvellous metamorphosis. He makes use of the doctrine of evolution,
adapting himself to new circumstances. He is no longer the horned and
hoofed monster of olden legends, but a polished, well-read gentleman,
who manages thousands of printing establishments. And every mail
carries countless demons, in the shape of bad novels, magazines and
papers, to every city, every town, every village, every dwelling,
no matter how secluded or remote. Shall we expect these envoys of
Satan, “transformed into angels of light,” to overlook our schools and
colleges? Alas, how often do they sneak in, unnoticed by porter or
janitor, to work their deeds of darkness among the young. Naught but
the utmost vigilance on the part of school authorities will be able to
counteract these evils. Certainly the principle of St. Ignatius and the
Ratio Studiorum need not be further vindicated.[964]
We must make some remarks about _sports_, which take so important
a part in our modern schools. We do this in connection with moral
education for various reasons. First, because a moderate use of
athletics helps to develop certain moral qualities. Secondly, because
some moderns see in it a remedy for nearly all vicious habits
of youth. They rejoice that “muscular Christianity,” “a sound,
practical, sensible, worldly basis of life has taken the place of the
morbid asceticism and unreal superstitions and transcendentalism of
former generations, which considered the flesh a burden, a clog, a
snare.”[965]--Thirdly, because excess in athletics leads to serious
damage, moral as well as intellectual.
The physical culture of the pupils forms a most important feature in
a good system of education: _sit mens sana in corpore sano_. Athletics,
out-door sports and gymnastics do much for the physical health of the
students. Besides, they demand, and consequently help to develop,
quickness of apprehension, steadiness and coolness, self-reliance,
self-control, readiness to subordinate individual impulses to a
command. This is all valuable for education. Still, “in the reaction
from the asceticism of our early college life there is little doubt
our athletics have gone too far; so far as to direct in a noticeable
degree the student’s attention from his studies.”[966] Indeed, it has
come to pass that among students base-ball, foot-ball, boat-races
and other sports form almost the exclusive topic of conversation.
The favorite reading is the sporting sheet of the newspaper. Some
college periodicals give almost more space to athletics than to
literature. “Pray,” said an Oxford Don to President McCosh, after
reading several numbers of the Princetonian, “are you the president
of a gymnastic institution?”[967] The dangers arise not so much
from athletic exercises themselves, as from their publicity and the
universal admiration in which they are held. There is in our days a
morbid craving for notoriety; people wish to be interviewed, to be
talked about, to be kept before the eyes of the public. Many a young
man thinks he cannot realize this ambition better than by athletic
triumphs. Thus by competitive games much time and talent is wasted,
much enthusiasm for higher aspirations is stifled. Unfortunately, some
colleges, instead of checking this spirit have catered to it. No wonder
that boys have changed their views of the ideal student. Their ideals
are on the campus, no longer in the domain of literature and science.
The hero to whom they look up with admiration is not the leading boy
in the class, not the one who at the end of the year carries off the
honors, but the one “who breaks the world’s record” in some athletic
contest. Many prefer the approving shout of thousands of spectators
on the football field to the earning of class honor. Indeed brain is
no longer the highest human gift in the eyes of a great number of
students, but muscles and muscular achievements. And a writer in a
periodical for September 1901, boasted that “we are fast becoming a
nation of athletes.” The best educators are unanimous in condemning
this excessive spirit of athleticism. They foresee the serious dangers
that spring from it, to intellectual and moral culture.[968]
The Jesuits have never neglected the care of the health of their
pupils.[969] Long ago they had introduced various games into their
colleges and did much to interest all the pupils in them. This is
mentioned as a laudable feature of their educational system even
by men who wrote in a hostile spirit against the Society.[970] The
Jesuits recognized the importance of games at a period when they
were little esteemed by others. “The schools of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries are in general noted for their gloomy neglect of
this cheerful element in the education of youth. The schools of the
Jesuits were, in this respect, conducted on more reasonable principles
than most of the rest.”[971] It is a well-known fact that in Germany
sport in the higher schools, is, or was, until recently, neglected
more than is expedient for the general development of the pupils.
And yet, wherever German Jesuits opened a college, be it in Freiburg
(Switzerland), Feldkirch (Vorarlberg), or Sao Leopoldo (Brazil),
everywhere they introduced and encouraged plenty of healthful games, an
evident sign that it is the spirit of the Society to give the pupils
sufficient recreation. Of the French Jesuits, the _Figaro_ wrote years
ago (June 2, 1879): “Games and amusements occupy an important place in
the schools of the Jesuits. They are as much interested about the place
of recreation as about the study hall. The prefects induce the pupils
to join in the games with the same ardor they display in stimulating
them to work at their books. Two prefects, Fathers de Nodaillac and
Rousseau, have written the history of games.... Fencing is honored
and encouraged in the Jesuit schools. In the three institutions at
Paris (_rue de Madrid_, _de Vaugirard_ and _des Postes_) more than
four hundred pupils take lessons in fencing under the direction of the
best instructors.”[972] It is not necessary to prove that in English
speaking countries the Jesuit colleges do not neglect this part of
training.
FOOTNOTES:
[898] _Life of James McCosh_, p. 224.
[899] _The Literary Digest_, November 22, 1902, p. 669.
[900] See the splendid lecture of Bishop Keppler: “Reform, True and
False,” (translated by the Rev. B. Guldner, S. J., in _The Catholic
Mind_, No. 1, January 1903, pp. 13-14).
[901] On the “Relation of Philosophy to Pedagogy” see five articles
by Father Christian Pesch, S. J., in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_,
volumes XIV and XV.
[902] _Hebr._ 13, 14.
[903] _Matthew_ 6, 33.
[904] _Matth._ 16, 26.
[905] _Ecclesiasticus_ 1, 16.
[906] Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. I, ch. V.
[907] _Col._ 3, I, 2.
[908] _Ephes._ 4, 22, 24.
[909] _Matth._ 16, 24.
[910] Book I, ch. III, 5.
[911] _Brownson’s Review_, Jan. 1846, p. 87.
[912] _Educational Reformers_ (1890), page 47.--It is worth noting
that Sacchini is supposed to have learned from Trotzendorf to esteem
highly moral and religious training--by the way, Quick’s edition of
1868 ascribes that address to Melanchthon!--Everything good in the
Jesuit system must be traced to Protestant sources! As though Sacchini,
in the teaching of the Bible and the most explicit principles of the
Constitutions of his Order, had not better sources than in a school
address of Melanchthon or Trotzendorf, of which he probably knew
nothing!
[913] The public higher schools of Belgium.
[914] _Journal de Gand and La Chronique_, quoted by De Badts de Cugnac,
_Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, p. 54.
[915] Quoted by Ebner, _Jesuiten-Gymnasien_.
[916] 1. Cor. 11, 1.
[917] See Father Lucas, S. J., in _The Spiritual Exercises and the
Education of Youth_ (London, 1902).
[918] _Reg. com. mag. cl. inf._ 10.
[919] Thus the Protestant Sir Henry Howorth, who attacked the Jesuits
so bitterly in recent years, must confess: “The Jesuits have been a
very powerful agency in framing history. They have some things to be
proud of. So far as I know, the austerity and purity of their lives was
one of the greatest, probably the greatest of all, reforming agencies
in the purifying of the clergy of the sixteenth century, and they
strenuously leavened religious life with the stricter rules of life,
which the Council of Trent tried hard to introduce into the religious
world.” (The London _Tablet_, Nov. 23, 1901, p. 817.)
[920] On this whole subject it is worth while to read De Badts de
Cugnac, _La morale des Jésuites_ (Lille, 1879).
[921] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, pp. 282-283 (I,
408-409). The work referred to is: _Erinnerungen eines ehemaligen
Jesuitenzöglings_ (_Recollections of a former Jesuit pupil_). Leipzig,
1862.
[922] _Lettre_, 7 février 1746.--Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 105.
[923] Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_, ch. 5 (2nd ed.), pp. 102-103.
[924] _Geschichte der Pädagogik_ (Leipzig, 1857), page 12.--Quoted by
Shea; _History of Georgetown College_, page 86. Italics are ours.--See
also the splendid testimony rendered to the Jesuits by M. Albert Duruy
in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, January 1, 1880.
[925] _History of Georgetown_, p. 85.
[926] Janssen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_, vol. VII, page 82.
[927] See, for instance, what Arnold said on this subject, in Fitch,
_Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, page 77; further, the _Dublin Review_,
October 1878, p. 294 foll., in the highly instructive article:
“Catholic Colleges and Protestant Schools.” Also “Tom Brown’s School
Days at Rugby,” especially the Preface to the Sixth Edition, will
furnish interesting material.
[928] _Life of James McCosh_, pp. 33 and 35.
[929] _Atlantic Monthly_, March 1900.--A somewhat similar principle
is stated in an article on Eton, in the _Edinburgh Review_, April
1861: “It was the fashion in Sydney Smith’s days--it is so still--to
maintain that the neglect to which boys are necessarily exposed at
our public schools, in consequence of the insufficient number of
assistant masters, renders them self-reliant and manly; and that the
premature initiation into vice, which too often results from that
cause, imparts to them an early knowledge of what are apologetically
called ‘the ways of the world'; and prevents their running riot when
subsequently exposed at the universities to still greater temptations
than those offered them in their boyhood by the public-houses and
slums of Eton and Windsor.” Quoted in the _Dublin Review_, October
1878, p. 308.--This “premature initiation into vice” was, accordingly,
a frequent result of the system of the great English public schools;
moreover, it was considered a positive benefit. A sad prerogative of
these schools, indeed!
[930] Such objections have sometimes been made even by short-sighted
Catholics who, dazzled by the outward brilliant successes of the great
Protestant schools, wished some of their features to be introduced
into Catholic colleges. These views have been ably refuted in various
articles of the _Dublin Review_. See e. g. July and October 1878.--On
the other hand, not long ago President Jones of Hobart plainly
advocated _greatly increased supervision_ in student life. He does
not think that more stringent regulations would keep the students
“milksops.” _The Forum_, Jan. 1901, 592-593.
[931] _Dublin Review_, October 1878, p. 285, note.
[932] _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1901, vol. I, p. 249.
[933] _Ezech._ 3, 18.
[934] _Dublin Review_, April 1878, p. 330.
[935] _Truth_, November 1891; quoted in the _Tablet_, November 14, 1891.
[936] On this important point see Père Rochemonteix, vol. II, p. 66
foll.
[937] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 1, art. 2.
[938] _Paraenesis_, art. 18.
[939] _Ratio et Via_, ch. IV, art. 1, § 6.
[940] See also _Woodstock Letters_, 1896, p. 251.
[941] _Monumenta Germaniae Paedag._, Pachtler, vol. III, p.
59.--Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 108.
[942] _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 102.
[943] _Revue des Deux-Mondes_, 15 février 1895.
[944] _North American Review_, December 1899.
[945] Compare with this the passage quoted by Arnold: “Public schools
are the very seats and nurseries of vice. It may be unavoidable, or
it may not, but the fact is indisputable. None can pass through a
large school without being pretty intimately acquainted with vice,
and few, alas! very few, without tasting too largely of that poisoned
bowl.”--Fitch, _l. c._, p. 77.
[946] _Historical Records and Studies_, vol. II, part I: “Cardinal
McCloskey,” by Archbishop Farley.
[947] Far worse misrepresentations of Catholic devotions are due to
gross ignorance of Catholic teaching. Thus we find in so learned a
work as Schmid’s _Geschichte der Erziehung_ (vol. III, part I, page
91) the assertion that “the Society of Jesus, according to the idea
of its founder, sees the end and object of all religious exercises in
the adoration of Mary.” Every Catholic child of seven years could have
told the Leipsic Professor who wrote this calumny, that Catholics do
not _adore_, but _venerate_ Mary and the Saints; nor do Catholics see
in the veneration of Mary and the Saints the end and object of all
religious exercises.
[948] _Centralblatt für die Unterrichtsverwaltung_, 1880, p. 572.
[949] See Coleman, “Old Stonyhurst” in _Messenger_, New York, 1894, p.
797 foll.
[950] Details may be read in the _History of the Sodalities_, Boston,
Noonan & Co., 1885.--See also Rochemonteix, vol. II, p. 121 foll.,
where the charitable work of the Sodalities at La Flèche is related.
[951] See _The Pilgrim of our Lady of Martyrs_, New York, Sept. 1893
and Jan. 1894.
[952] _Confess._ I, c. 16.
[953] See above chapter II, § 2: pp. 50-52 and ch. V on the
theatrical performances, pp. 165-167.--Vittorino da Feltre and other
representatives of the Christian Renaissance differed radically on this
point from the Pagan Humanists. Thus Vittorino read certain authors to
his pupils only with many excisions. Woodward, _Vittorino da Feltre_,
pp. 47 and 57.
[954] In Stewart Rose, _St. Ignatius Loyola_, p. 515.--Obscene passages
are meant. But _substitutions_ cannot be recommended.
[955] _Constit._ P. IV, c. 5. _Decl._ E.
[956] _Reg. Prov._ 34.--_Reg. com._ 8.
[957] Littell’s _Living Age_, vol. CLXX (1886), p. 248.
[958] _Inst._ I, c. 8.
[959] _Educational Reformers_, p. 507.--See also von Raumer’s
statements above p. 166.
[960] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VIII, pp. 57-59.--See also
Schiller, _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik_, 1894, p. 172, where it
is said that some satires of Horace and some passages in Homer should
be left out in the school editions. The same author’s opinion about the
use of unabridged Bibles in schools will be quoted in the next chapter.
[961] See above pp. 399-400.
[962] The Rules of the Provincial 34, § 2, say: “Still greater caution
is needed in regard to the vernacular authors.”
[963] _Reg. com._ 8.
[964] On reading see also Sacchini: _On Dangerous Reading_ (In Latin);
a new translation in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_,
vol. X, pp. 186-205.--Jungmann, S. J.: _Gefahren der belletristischen
Lektüre_.
[965] See General Walker’s address in _Report of Commissioner of
Education_, 1896-97, I, p. 705 foll.
[966] Prof. West of Princeton University, in _Education in the United
States_, vol. I, p. 222.
[967] _Life of James McCosh_, p. 208. See also p. 223 foll.
[968] On this keenly discussed question see: Findlay, _Arnold of
Rugby_, with an _Introduction_ by the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of
Hereford. (1897), pp. 23 and 24.--Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_,
pp. 103-108. There it is stated that exaltation of physical powers to
the same level as intellectual distinction has in late years seriously
debased the ideal and hindered the usefulness of the great public
schools in England. “For the moment the type of school-boy and of
manhood most in favor with the British public is Spartan rather than
Athenian.” Mr. Fitch states also that the famous romance of Thomas
Hughes, _Tom Brown’s School-days_, gives only one side and that not the
best side of Rugby school life.--Some excellent remarks on athletics in
college are made by Mr. Canfield in his book _The College Student and
his Problems_, pp. 103-105. A very severe criticism of the excessive
admiration of sport among the English public is contained in the
_Contemporary Review_, Jan. 1902.--See also _Nineteenth Century_, Jan.
1903, p. 46.
[969] A document in Spanish, drawn up in the first years of the
Society, contains a most interesting chapter entitled “The Preservation
of Bodily Health and Strength.” In seventeen paragraphs it lays down
rules about moderation in studies, about food, clothing, sleep, proper
bodily exercises, and sufficient recreation. Although this document
was primarily written for the younger members of the Order, its
principles were applied, as appears from other passages, to the pupils
of the colleges, of course with necessary changes. See _Monumenta
Paedagogica_, p. 68 sq. “_Para Conservar la Salud y Fuerzas del
Cuerpo_.”
[970] For instance in the _Recollections of a Jesuit Pupil_ (written
by an apostate priest who had studied in Jesuit colleges), p. 104
foll. Bode: _Aus dem Kloster_, vol. II, p. 174 foll. quoted by Huber,
_Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 370 foll.
[971] Kiddle and Schem, _The Cyclopaedia of Education_, article
“Games,” p. 330.
[972] De Badts de Cugnac, _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_, pp. 25-31.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Religious Instruction.
The preceding chapter has shown how painstaking the Jesuits are as
regards the moral training of their pupils. Other educators also
insist on the necessity of this training, but the Jesuits, in fact
all Catholics, differ from a great number of other educators in a
most essential point, namely in that they base the moral training
entirely on the religious education. They consider a moral training
without the religious as defective and incomplete. Incomplete, because
it disregards one of the most important obligations of man. Man’s
first and most sacred duty is to acknowledge his dependence on God,
his Creator and Lord, and to give expression to this recognition by
interior and exterior acts of worship. This is religion. Religion
is a postulate of man’s rational nature. This thought stood clearly
before the mind of the founder of the Society of Jesus, when in his
_Spiritual Exercises_ he wrote down this brief summary of religion:
“Man is created to praise God, to reverence and serve Him, and, by
doing so, to save his soul.” No system of education can be considered
as harmonious which leaves this first duty of man out of consideration,
and fails to implant religion into the hearts of the pupils. If it is
man’s duty to worship God, it is his duty likewise to know God; he can
know Him from the manifestation of His works (_Romans_ 1, 19), and the
revelation of His word. Religion does not consist in mere sentiment
and pious emotions, but in the recognition of certain truths and the
subjection of the will to these truths. Hence no religion is possible
without the knowledge of these truths, or let us plainly call them what
they are: _dogmas_, although this word is so hateful to the ear of the
rationalist and agnostic educator of the day. Dogmas must be taught and
believed as the foundation of all true religion, as the Great Teacher
of mankind has said: “This is life everlasting that they may know thee,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”[973] It is,
indeed, the highest wisdom “to know Christ and him crucified,” “in
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”[974] Christ,
therefore, must be the centre of all true education.
The knowledge of religious truths is necessary in education for
another reason, because it is the only sure foundation of morality,
and without it no true moral education is possible. This is the
firm conviction of Christian thinkers. I know the champions of the
“unsectarian” schools cry out against such an assertion, and they
ask indignantly: “Can we not teach ethics without dogmas, moral
principles without religion?” Reason, history, daily experience, and
our innermost conscience give a stern and emphatic answer to this
question: “You cannot teach it effectively and with any satisfactory
result.” All motives of self-respect, honor, sense of duty, welfare
of the community, etc., may deter a man from certain more revolting
crimes, but they will not hold in times of fierce temptation, when
neither disgrace nor civil punishment is to be feared. How well has the
“Father of this Country” expressed this, when he left to his people
as a sacred legacy these weighty words: “Let us with caution indulge
the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on
minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.” Another great military and political leader has spoken even
more strongly on this subject. Lord Mahon writes of a conversation
which he had with the great Duke of Wellington: “I shall never forget
the earnestness and energy of manner with which he [the Duke of
Wellington] deprecated mere secular education, adding, _I doubt if the
devil himself could advise a worse scheme of social destruction._”...
“Take care what you are about,” he exclaimed on December 23, 1840,
when speaking of the new Education Act; “for unless you base all
this education on religion, you are only bringing up so many clever
devils.”[975] The educational legislation of the year 1902 proves that
England, after many decades of experimenting, has at length realized
the truth of the warning of her distinguished leader.
Alas, that the most important words of Washington have been
practically forgotten in this country, and that the exclusion
of religious teaching from the schools has been made one of the
fundamental principles of the national system of schools, in such a
degree that the Catholic Church, which all along has insisted that it
was its duty to educate the children of Catholic parents in the truths
of their religion, was denounced as an enemy of the country. At present
the more thoughtful Protestants begin to acknowledge that this idea is
the only true one. The spread of immorality and infidelity has opened
the eyes of many.[976]
We may be allowed to quote one or other recent utterance of
non-Catholics on this subject. Professor Gates, of the Chicago
Theological Seminary, writes in the _Biblical World_, September 1902:
“The great problem of life is education. The mind of the race is
growing all the while, and it is for the educator to see that these
mental powers are developed in the right direction. But no man’s
education is complete if religious instruction be omitted. One may know
all mysteries of science and literature; he may sweep the heavens with
the telescope, or peer into the secrets of nature with the microscope;
but if in all this he see not God, he is but poorly educated after
all. Now where do we find ourselves, as we confront this phase of the
national problem? We have a system of public education to be proud
of. Never have the various questions that meet the teacher been so
well understood as to-day. But what is this great system doing for the
religious instruction of our children? Practically nothing.”
It has been said time and again that religion should be taught by
the Sunday school and in the family. Yet every thoughtful man must
see that such instruction cannot be but insufficient. The _Biblical
World_, in an editorial, October 1902, asks whether the religious and
moral education is adequately achieved through the Sunday school and
the home, and it gives this answer: “It has been so assumed, but each
passing year shows more clearly that this is not the case.... The home
feels no longer the necessary responsibility, and the Sunday school has
neither the time nor the instrumentalities for adequate instruction.
And, in addition, the divorcement of religious from secular education
destroys the vital relation between the two. Therefore, it seems
certain that the ideal of education, as well as the only adequate
method of education, is to establish religious and moral instruction
in the common schools. And we shall then find ourselves once more in
accord with the status of instruction in England and Germany.”
A few years ago, Mr. Amasa Thornton spoke similarly in the _North
American Review_. There he said: “The questions which we have to solve
then are these: How can the present decline in religious teaching
and influence be checked; and how can such teaching and influence be
increased to such a point as will preserve the great cities of the
next century from depravity, degradation, and destruction? What can
be expected of the family?” Mr. Thornton rightly adds: “If the adults
of the present age are not as religious as the needs of the hour and
of the future require, will the children receive the proper religious
training if they receive none except in the home circle?” In fact,
thousands of children do not even learn a short prayer at home. The
writer then declares that one of the greatest blunders that have been
made in this country is the failure of teaching religion in the public
schools. He then pays a striking tribute to the Catholic Church.
“The Catholic Church has insisted that it is its duty to educate the
children of parents of the Catholic faith in such a way as to fix
religious truths in the youthful mind. For this it has been assailed
by the non-Catholic population, and Catholics have been charged with
being enemies of the liberties of the people and the flag. Any careful
observer in the city of New York can see that the only people, as a
class, who are teaching the children in the way that will secure the
future for the best civilization, are the Catholics; and although
a Protestant of the firmest kind, I believe the time has come to
recognize this fact, and for us all to lay aside religious prejudices
and patriotically meet this question.”[977]
Professor Coe of Northwestern University quite recently said in a
lecture delivered in Chicago: “The position of Roman Catholics in
regard to religion and education, and their policy in the establishment
of parochial schools, are absolutely correct. For corroboration of
this opinion I refer you to the work _Philosophy of Education_, by Dr.
Arnold Tompkins, principal of the Chicago Normal School, in which he
says religious character is the proper end of all education.”[978]
The Catholics object to purely secular education, because they consider
it subversive of religion and true morality, subversive of “the pillars
of human happiness and national security.” It is not so much what is
taught in the non-sectarian schools that renders them objectionable to
Catholics, as what _is not_ taught and cannot be taught. An education
which omits Christ as its central and informing principle is an
unchristian education. Such an education may not directly teach wrong
principles, nor directly undermine the faith of the pupils, yet it does
nothing to protect and strengthen it. The inevitable consequence of
this neglect must be the weakening of faith, especially in an age in
which literature and the whole domestic and social life are infected by
agnosticism and a new paganism. As the non-sectarian school does not
and cannot counteract these baneful tendencies, it is clear that the
education which it imparts is a defective, nay, a false one.
Not unfrequently, however, Catholics must also object to what _is_
taught in non-sectarian schools and colleges. It is impossible to
avoid in text-books and oral instruction, in the teaching of history,
literature, and natural sciences, all allusions to questions most
closely connected with religion. How does the Catholic Church fare in
such references? One need only examine the text-books used in many
schools, to become convinced that a Catholic parent must protest
against the statements contained therein about the Church, its history,
its worship, the Papacy, monastic orders, etc. But if Catholic children
grow weak in their love of the Church, her institutions and practices,
they will gradually neglect their religious duties, and fall a prey
to religious indifferentism and moral ruin. How well has this been
expressed in the latest “School Order for the Higher Schools” of
Prussia: “Catholic religious instruction has the specific task of
grounding Catholic youth in the conviction of the truth and the divine
origin of Christianity and the Church, and to teach them to preserve,
foster, and steadfastly profess this conviction by living in and with
Christ and His Church. Only on the solid foundation of a definite
religious knowledge, of deep-rooted conviction and loyalty to the
Church, can religious instruction try and expect to fulfil that other,
by no means last or least important, part of its task, _viz._, to
accomplish fully and permanently the religious and the moral elevation
of the pupil. According to Catholic teaching, the truly moral life
rests on obedience to the Church, as the divinely attested guardian and
exponent of God’s ordinances, and herein is found a special protection
against the false and perverse aspirations of the modern age, which
endanger the moral order.”[979]
For this reason, what an English Catholic said about the schools of
England has also an application to our country. Dr. Windle (F. R.
S.), speaking of the “Present Needs of Catholic Secondary Education,”
said among other things: “By the fact that we are Catholics, we are
circumscribed in our choice of schools to those of our own faith....
I should like to add one word on this subject from my own experience.
Born and brought up a Protestant I was educated at a great public
school, for which I still retain considerable respect, and even
affection; but I wish to say with a due sense of responsibility, that
the Catholic parent who sends his son to a non-Catholic public school
deliberately and without a shadow of justification exposes him to
the almost certain loss of his faith, and to the grave danger of the
corruption of his morals.”[980]
The attitude of Catholics towards the question of religious
instruction in school is, therefore, very clear. Of those Protestants
that now advocate religious instruction, not a few commit a serious
mistake. They recommend a sort of religious teaching which will suit
all and offend none, an “unsectarian, undenominational religion,” as
they style it. Such a religion does not exist, and what is taught as
such does not deserve the name of religion. This has been emphatically
stated by many distinguished Protestants of widely differing religious
opinions. Of American educators we mention President McCosh who made
some very noteworthy statements on this subject.[981] Even men of most
advanced liberal views condemn the teaching of an “undenominational”
religion. Professor Ziegler of the University of Strassburg, who is not
in the least “clerically biased,” wrote two years ago in his _General
Pedagogy_: “A knowledge of the religion in which one is born forms part
of general culture, and the state would have to look after this part of
education, as after all the rest (_sic!_). But here enters the Church
as competitor, demanding that the instruction in religion be imparted
to her children according to her views; an undenominational instruction
in religion, which is advocated by some, is nonsense; for every
religion is denominational.”[982] It would fill a large volume were we
to collect the unsparing criticism passed within the last thirty years
on “unsectarian” religious teaching by the most enlightened men in
England, among them statesmen like Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.[983] An
English agnostic, a member of the London School Board, thus described
the system adopted by this Board: “The result of unsectarian teaching
is to establish a new form of religion which has nothing in common with
Historical Christianity or any other form of Christian teaching. By
taking away everything to which any one objects, they leave something
which is really worthless. They say they will have no Creed and no
Catechism, and the result is that every teacher is his own Creed and
his own Catechism. The result of unsectarian teaching is a colorless
residuum, which I should think would be as objectionable to the earnest
Christian as it is contemptible to the earnest unbeliever.”[984] Other
English writers were even more severe in their condemnations of this
system, which they called “a misshapen beast,” “a moral monster,”
“lifeless, boiled down, mechanical, unreal teaching of religion.”[985]
Needless to say, Catholics will always object to such a maimed teaching
of religion.
Protestant advocates of religious instruction frequently consider
the reading of the _Bible_ as sufficient, and as the only admissible
means of teaching religion in the schools. However, in this principle
there are several serious errors. We must first mention recent
utterances calling for the restoration of the Bible to the schools as
_literature_, as a means of literary culture. The National Educational
Association that met in Minneapolis in the summer of 1902, adopted the
following resolution: “It is apparent that familiarity with the English
Bible as a masterpiece of literature is rapidly decreasing among the
pupils in our schools. This is the direct result of a conception which
regards the Bible as a theological book merely, and thereby leads to
its exclusion from the schools of some states as a subject of reading
and study. We hope and ask for such a change of public sentiment
in this regard as will permit and encourage the English Bible, now
honored by name in many school laws and state constitutions, to be
read and studied as a literary work of the highest and purest type,
side by side with the poetry and prose which it has inspired and in
large part formed.”[986] Such a study is, of course, practically
useless from the religious point of view; moreover, and this is a
more serious objection against the scheme advocated by the National
Educational Association, it is wrong in principle and mischievous in
its consequences. It is a deplorable degradation of the sacred volume
to put it on a par with profane writings, be they of the highest type,
as the dramas of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson. This scheme
would tend to destroy entirely the reverence due to the Bible. Besides,
no literary study is possible without explanation of the _contents_
of the works studied; but it is absurd to attempt an explanation of
the contents of the Bible without trespassing on religious ground.
Rightly has the _Biblical World_ observed that culture is not the
chief end of man, nor the primary function of the Bible. The biblical
books are indeed masterpieces of literature, but they have a much
more important service to render to the world. The Bible is first of
all for religious and moral instruction, a guidebook to religion and
morality.[987] We perfectly agree with the _Biblical World_ so far, but
not as to the manner of reading the Bible which this review advocates.
In an editorial, October 1902, we read: “The fact that the Bible is
generally excluded from the public schools of the United States,
where formerly it was used as a book of devotion and instruction,
is not to be attributed to a growing disregard of religion.... This
situation has been created by the friends of the Bible rather than by
its enemies; for if the friends of the Bible could have agreed among
themselves as to how the Bible should be taught in the schools, their
influence would have secured the continuance of such instruction. But
it came to pass that the Bible was used in the schools, not only for
general and ethical religious instruction, but also for the inculcation
of sectarian and theological ideas. Protestant teachers taught the
Bible in a way which antagonized the Roman Catholics; and teachers
of the several Protestant denominations interpreted the Bible to the
children from their own point of view. But the public money which is
raised by general taxation for the support of the common schools comes
from men of widely differing ecclesiastical creeds and connections,
and cannot therefore be used for the dissemination of sectarian
tenets.” The writer then asks: “Can we now teach religion and morals
by means of the Bible without at the same time teaching sectarian
ideas? The Bible is not sectarian; Roman Catholics and all Protestant
denominations equally claim it. The formal creeds and the systems
of government and worship which have grown up in the centuries of
Christian history are post-biblical; they are a superstructure, built
upon the fundamentals of Christianity as recorded in the Bible. Can we
get beneath ecclesiastical formulations, regulations, and liturgies
to a fundamental religious belief and moral practice upon which all
Christians can agree, and which they can unite to promote?... We
believe that sectarianism is fast disappearing, that an era of unity
in essentials is near at hand.... In order to restore the Bible to
the schools it must be taught in the right way--the way which accords
with the best modern knowledge of the Bible, the best modern science
of religion and ethical teaching, and the best Christian spirit which
recognizes true Christianity wherever it exists, and is able to
distinguish between essentials and non-essentials.”[988]
We do not want to comment on all the latitudinarian statements
contained in this quotation, but confine ourselves to the following
remarks. First, that religion consisting of merely the “fundamentals
of Christianity without formal creeds,” is no true religion. It is
a distillation or a dilution of Christianity which deserves all the
castigation inflicted by English writers on the “moral monster of
undenominational religion.” Secondly, it is said that “the Bible is not
sectarian, and that Roman Catholics and all Protestant denominations
claim it.” But how do they claim it? Surely not merely as a source of
“general and ethical religious instruction,” but as the document which
is supposed to prove their particular religious tenets. It is as true
now as centuries ago what the Reformed theologian Werenfels expressed
in his famous distich:
_Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque;_
_Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua._
Within one book each seeks to read
The tenets of his private creed.
And, strange to tell, each reads so well
The selfsame words all doctrines spell.
Hence it is unreasonable to expect that the Bible will ever be taught
without “sectarian” bias, or that in future it will be taught by
Protestants without “antagonizing the Roman Catholics.”
The objections of Catholics to the reading of the Bible in
undenominational schools which are frequented by Catholic children,
may briefly be summed up as follows: _First_, the Catholics must ask
which translation of the Bible is to be used. Is it to be the Catholic
Rheims and Douay version? To this the Protestants would undoubtedly
object. Then the Protestant Bible? Against this the Catholics must
protest. For the Bible of King James contains numerous errors of
translation--this was candidly admitted by the authors of the Revised
Version[989]--errors by no means insignificant, errors which, to a
great extent, consist in rendering the Bible so as to justify certain
Protestant tenets and to antagonize Catholic doctrines. The Revised
Version has done away with some of these objectionable translations,
but not with all that justly offend Catholics. Hence the very version
used in the public schools is “sectarian.” Besides, the Catholic
acknowledges books as canonical which are rejected in the Protestant
Bibles as apocryphal, and this is another reason why the Catholic
cannot approve the reading of the Protestant Bible.--_Secondly_, the
Catholic Church is opposed to giving the complete and unabridged
Bible into the hands of children. The reason for this attitude is one
that testifies to the great pedagogical wisdom of the Church. She
cannot bear the thought that the most sacred of books should become a
stumbling-block to the innocent, or a means of gratifying the unholy
curiosity of vicious youths. There are earnest Protestants who in this
matter side with the Catholic practice. It may suffice to quote one
testimony, that of a Protestant educator of the first rank, namely
of Professor Schiller, Director of one of the best training schools
for teachers in Europe. Speaking of the causes of impurity among
students, he finds one in the reading of the unabridged Bible. He
affirms that a large experience has proved that most deplorable vicious
habits among pupils, boys and girls, sprang up in the first place
from the reading of certain passages of the Bible, the selection and
knowledge of which were handed down as a tradition among the pupils.
This danger, he adds, can be so easily avoided by preparing special
school Bibles that the opposite practice seems unpardonable. We think
it well to quote the instructive passage in the original in a note,
adding here that the Catholic Church all along taught the Bible in such
school editions.[990]--There is a _third_ consideration which prompts
Catholics to oppose the reading of the Bible as advocated by most
Protestant educators. It is the following question: Is the Bible to be
read with or without comment? If with comment, is this Protestant or
Catholic? Evidently either Catholic or Protestant would be offended.
Therefore, without comment and explanation! Now this reading is almost
useless, as the young will understand very little of the meaning of the
passage. Disraeli, the English statesman, has justly ridiculed this
practice. “I cannot imagine,” he says, “anything more absurd than that
a teacher should read ‘without note and comment,’ as it is called, a
passage from the Bible, and that children should be expected to profit
by it. The ‘without note and comment’ people in their anxiety to ward
off proselytism, seem to have forgotten that, if there is any book in
the world which demands more explanation than another, it is the Bible.
And so, if nothing else is possible than such a feeble and useless
compromise as this, I would, in the interest of the Bible itself, not
have it read at all.” And then he adds: “I am a great believer in the
old-fashioned Church-Catechism. I wonder whether those that sneer at
it, have always read it. I fancy not. It is, rightly interpreted, a
most practical document, but without interpretation, not worth teaching
or learning.”[991]
As is to be expected, religious instruction in the widest and fullest
sense received a prominent place in the educational system of the
Society of Jesus. The first rule of the Ratio calls it one of the most
important obligations of the Society “to teach all branches of learning
in such a manner that men should be led to the knowledge and love of
their Creator and Redeemer;”[992] and in the rules of the Rector, the
Prefect of Studies, and the teachers, the same duty is inculcated. As
regards the reading of the Bible, the old prejudice that the Church
ever set her face against it is unfortunately still alive among vast
numbers of non-Catholics. For our purpose it suffices to remind the
reader of what was said in a former chapter, namely, that in Jesuit
colleges the Gospels were read, in the higher classes the Gospels and
the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek.[993]
But above all, the Jesuits were always “great believers in the
catechism.” Catechetical instruction was prescribed in all classes once
a week. This may seem rather little; however, it should be remembered
that there were religious instructions in the weekly meetings of
the Sodalities, and, which is still more important, that the whole
teaching was permeated by a religious spirit. Besides, it may be added
that in many modern Jesuit colleges two full hours are devoted to
religious instruction every week. In the lower classes the catechism is
explained, in the higher classes a fuller explanation of the Catholic
dogmas and a course of apologetics is given. Such an apologetical
course was recommended by the German province of the Society of Jesus
as early as 1821.[994] That in our age an apologetical treatment of the
Christian religion is absolutely necessary need not be demonstrated.
The words of the Apostle St. Peter: “Be ready always to satisfy every
one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you,”[995] had,
perhaps, never before a more important bearing than in this age of
omnivorous reading. At a time when the literature of the day is largely
infected by naturalism and agnosticism, and when the principles of
Christianity are attacked in so many subtle forms, it is certainly
necessary to be well instructed lest one’s own faith be tainted by the
prevalent scepticism, and to be ready to defend this faith against the
attacks made in the name of progress, modern philosophy, and science.
This readiness can be obtained only by a solid catechetical and
apologetical training.
Catechetical instruction was, from the very beginning of the Society,
a special ministry and a labor of love to the Jesuits. In the papal
approbation of 1540 it is said that the Society was instituted for
“the propagation of faith, and especially for the instruction of
children and ignorant people in Christian doctrine.” Father Sacchini
has a beautiful chapter on the “Teaching of the Catechism,”[996] in
which he says the Jesuit should teach languages and grammar with great
diligence, but with far greater devotion and alacrity catechism, “which
is the grammar of Jesus Christ.”
An American prelate wrote recently on this subject: “Among religious
orders established with a special view toward the religious education
of youth, the first place must undoubtedly be assigned to the Society
of Jesus.... St. Ignatius himself set the example. The first forty days
after the papal approbation he devoted himself to the instruction of
children in Rome. When told that no one would come to his class, he
answered: ‘If only one child comes to my catechism, it is enough of an
audience for me.’ The Society followed the example of its founder with
a hitherto unheard of zeal and enthusiasm.... The Jesuits, moreover,
developed a most meritorious activity in writing catechetical works,
not less than one hundred and fifty having been published during the
first century of their existence. The catechisms composed by Bellarmine
and Canisius soon displaced all others.”[997] Indeed, the writing of
catechisms has been one of the glories of the Society from the first
decades of its existence. Dr. Knecht, Coadjutor Bishop of Freiburg,
an eminent writer on catechetics, affirms that “the Jesuit Order has
undoubtedly produced the greatest catechists.”[998] The catechism
of the celebrated Bellarmine[999] was used in many countries for
centuries, even at present among Romanic nations. Of great fame were
also the French, Latin and Greek catechisms of Father Edmund Auger. But
all were surpassed by that of Peter Canisius, the first German Jesuit;
this catechism was used extensively all over Europe. The works of this
eminent writer and founder of many colleges deserve to be treated at
some length.
Catechetical instruction had been given from the beginning of the
Church, and there existed works which guided the clergy in this sublime
office. The idea of placing a summary of Christian doctrine in the
hands of the people and children, appears to have been first expressed
in a letter of the great Gerson, chancellor of the University of
Paris (1363-1429). The first known summary of this kind was the one
published at the order of the synod of Tortosa in Spain (1429). The
first German catechism, so far known, was that of Dederich Coelde,
a Minorite Friar of Münster in Westphalia, printed about 1470, then
published in many editions.[1000] There existed, besides this, other
catechisms before the Reformation. Of the Protestant works of this
kind Luther’s “Great and Small Catechisms” were undoubtedly those
that spread most widely and had the greatest influence. Several
Catholic catechisms came out shortly after, but they were, in point
of language and arrangement, inferior to that of Luther. They were
also either too lengthy or too difficult. The need of a new and better
work, adapted to the circumstances of the times, was felt especially
in Germany. Then it was, in 1554, that Canisius began to publish his
three catechisms.[1001] The first was the large catechism in Latin for
the use of students in colleges. After this appeared a shorter one,
and finally his small catechism. This last established his fame as a
writer. There are about three hundred different editions extant which
appeared before the death of the author in 1597. By that time the work
had been translated into English, French, Greek, Italian, Bohemian,
Spanish, Polish, Swedish, and many other languages. Before 1623 there
existed Aethiopian, Indian, and Japanese translations. In Southern
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, up to the nineteenth century the
name “Canisi” was synonymous with catechism.[1002]
The merits of this work can best be judged from the innumerable
recommendations which it received from Popes and bishops, and not less
from the violent attacks made upon it by Protestants. The Italian
historian Cesare Cantù styles it, “the most famous Catholic catechism
written since the time of Luther.” Even the Protestant historian Ranke
cannot help praising and admiring it. And a distinguished Protestant
controversialist in Germany, Professor Kawerau, says: “The catechism of
Canisius is without doubt of the same importance to the Catholic Church
as Luther’s was to the Church of the Reformation. It is distinguished
by its clear and lucid treatment of the subject and particularly by
the mild and conciliatory tone in which it is written.”[1003] This
“mild and conciliatory tone” was recommended to all Jesuit teachers.
Thus Father Nadal laid it down as a rule for all teachers that “both
in the subject for written exercises and in the explanation of the
catechism they should proceed with the greatest moderation. Especially
in Germany, France, etc., they should not use any contumelious
epithets against their opponents; nay they should not even style them
heretics--although in truth they may be such--, but they should call
those who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, Protestants, others
Anabaptists etc.[1004] How, then, is Mr. Painter justified in asserting
that the Jesuit system fostered religious pride and intolerance?”[1005]
Father Canisius gave also beautiful instructions as to the motives
and methods of teaching catechism. “We who are of the Society of
Jesus,” he writes, “wish to provide the little ones of Christ with
the salutary milk of his doctrine. It is their welfare that we love
and seek to promote. To this end has our Society been instituted, to
instruct youth in piety as well as in learning, as far as with the
grace of Christ we can accomplish.”[1006] One of the most essential
qualities of a good catechist is kindness of heart and manners.
This quality was a marked feature of Canisius’ character, one which
attracted the children to his instructions. The summary of the
catechetical lectures which he gave in Augsburg has been preserved.
Canisius began with the words of the Psalmist: “Come children hearken
to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Psalm 33, 12). Then
he continued: “Christ, our Lord loved the children and showed his
affection for them in various ways. He blessed and embraced them and
defended them against the Pharisees (Matth. 21, 15-16) and against his
own disciples (Matth. 18, 1-10). He said: ‘Suffer little children to
come unto me’; yea come to me, to be instructed, and to be taught the
science of salvation. And to all those who are not well instructed I
speak with St. Paul: ‘You have need to be taught again what are the
first elements of the words of God: And you are become such as have
need of milk and not of strong meat.’ (Hebr. 5, 11-12) Following the
examples of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, I shall
teach you not as wise and learned ones, but as children and little
ones. Come, then, with a willing and cheerful heart; be convinced
that it is a matter of the greatest importance for you to be justly
called and truly to be sons of God. On your part, you must imitate the
Child Jesus, who, in a manner, has given you an example how to learn
the doctrine of salvation, when he set aside all else, left even his
parents, and remained in the temple. Watch him there, see how he sits
there quietly, listens to the teachers, and asks them questions. His
questions are not about silly and useless matters, but about the great
things of salvation. You must imitate him in this, now and ever in the
future.” This simple and hearty manner of teaching found great favor
with the people, and we are not surprised to hear that after a few of
his catechetical instructions Canisius could write: “I am delighted at
seeing the good will of the people. Even men, among them persons of
distinction, set aside all other business and come to listen to the
instruction for children.”[1007]
Throughout his life Canisius found a special delight in giving
catechetical instructions. The son of a distinguished family, the
celebrated Doctor of theology, and author of many learned works,
the founder of the famous colleges of Prague, Ingolstadt, Munich,
Dillingen, Innsbruck, and Freiburg, the man whose advice was sought
by the Emperors of Germany, by the Dukes of Bavaria, by Popes and
Cardinals, by Church Councils and Imperial Diets--this man devoted
every spare minute to the humble work of instructing children, and that
not only in the cities where he resided, but on his many journeys,
from one end of Germany to the other, he performed the same work of
Christian charity among the simple country people. In his old age, when
worn out by incessant toils, this was his favorite occupation. A year
before his death, in his seventy-eighth year, he writes that his time
is spent in “instructing children and old people.”[1008] A touching
testimony to this work of the saintly Jesuit is still extant at the
present day. In a little village near Innsbruck (Tyrol) is to be seen,
on the gable of an old house, a picture which represents Canisius
sitting among children whom he is instructing in their catechism. It
was before this house that, on his journeys to Innsbruck, he used to
perform the work which the picture has immortalized. We have dwelt
longer on the labors of this great man, because they represent so
beautifully what thousands of other Jesuits have done all the world
over, in their endeavors to spread the knowledge and love of Christ.
Many other Jesuits wrote catechisms after Canisius. But it will suffice
to mention a more recent one, that of the German Jesuit Deharbe.
The merits of Deharbe’s catechism were soon recognized, and it was
introduced into nearly all dioceses of Germany, and was translated into
many languages. It obtained a large circulation, especially in this
country.[1009]
In order to give a solid and efficient religious instruction, it is
not enough to teach catechism once or twice a week. The General of the
Society, Father Beckx, in a letter addressed to the Austrian Minister
of Instruction, July 15, 1854, maintains the following: “Religion
should not only hold the first place among the various branches, but
permeate and rule all, and, according to our Ratio Studiorum, the
teacher should treat all subjects in such manner that the truths of the
catechism are found in all branches. Now it is some wise adage, then an
inspiring thought, again a remarkable incident, or a beautiful trait of
character, which gives the teacher occasion to instruct, to warn, and
to elevate to Christian sentiments; such hints given incidentally and,
as it were, accidentally, often make an impression all the more vivid,
the less they were expected. In this manner religion is not a dry and
disagreeable branch, but vivifies all the rest of instruction, gives it
a higher, sacred character, and makes the pupil not only more learned
but also better and more virtuous.”[1010]
The Fathers Jouvancy and Sacchini say that the explanations of all
authors, also of pagan writers, should be conducted so that they
become, as it were, heralds of Christ. This is very important in our
times, when pagan ideas, principles, and tendencies are praised as the
spirit of the progressing human mind, as the precious fruit of modern
research and civilization. From the study of the ancients, particularly
the Greeks, the young may learn that mankind is on the point of going
again through a circle of errors, which in a retrogressive movement
shall lead our race through all the aberrations which Christianity has
long ago overcome. Against the enticing sirens of “modern progress,”
“freedom of thought,” and “independence of morality,” a most salutary
lesson may be learned from the ancients, who in spite of their
accomplishments in art, literature, and politics, could not find in
them the remedy for social evils, nor contentment of mind and heart.
Such suggestions, however, must be made discreetly, with great tact and
moderation, when an occasion naturally offers. Here, too, the old _ne
quid nimis_ is of the greatest import; if the teacher too often, in
season and out of season, indulges in pious exhortations, the pupils
may easily conceive disgust at them and a loathing for all kinds of
spiritual and religious instruction. Therefore, the teacher should not
only not molest the pupils by too frequent admonitions, but should also
observe prudence in those he thinks fit to give.[1011]
The principles laid down by the Jesuits, as to the religious tone of
all instruction, have recently been emphasized by Pope Leo XIII., in
the Encyclical written in 1897, on occasion of the centenary of Peter
Canisius. There we read: “All schools, from the elementary to the
university, should be thoroughly Catholic, and one of the main duties
of the pastors of the Church is to safeguard the rights of parents and
the Church in this matter. It is of the very greatest importance that
Catholics should have everywhere for their children not mixed schools,
but their own schools, and these provided with good and well trained
masters. Let no one delude himself that a sound moral training can be
separated from dogmatic religious training. To separate the training
in knowledge from all religious influence, is to form citizens to be
the bane and pest of society instead of being the bulwark of their
country. _Moreover, it is not enough for youths to be taught religion
at fixed hours, but all their training must be permeated by religious
principles._”
Some Protestant educators of the highest standing have advocated a
system which is practically that defended by Catholics. Thus Professor
Schiller strongly insists on “concentration and unity in education.”
As regards religious instruction he wishes it to be given by one “who
has in his hands the most important branches of instruction, those
which are best suited to influence education,” above all literature
and history.[1012] The same view is also taken in the Prussian
“School Order” of 1892 and 1901, where it is said that it is of the
utmost importance that religious instruction is not rent from the
other branches, but intimately connected with other, particularly the
_ethical_ branches.[1013] From this principle we may draw another
argument for the advantages which can be derived, if education is in
the hands of the clergy,[1014] especially in the higher classes, where
a thorough knowledge of theology is required in order to give that
religious training needed in this stage of education. It is evident
that such a course can be followed only in denominational schools. For
this reason Professor Schiller deplores the fact that, in consequence
of religious differences, it is almost impossible to apply this most
important principle.[1015]
English and American educators are not wanting who advocate the same
principle on which the Jesuits have insisted for centuries. Arnold’s
opinion on this subject was quite explicit. Sir Joshua Fitch tells us
that he dreaded any theory which would tend to view the life of the
scholar as a thing apart from the life of a Christian. He protested
earnestly against any attempt to divorce religious from secular
instruction, or to treat them as distinct parts of an educational
scheme. “The device sometimes advocated in later times for solving
the religious difficulty in our common and municipal schools by
confining the functions of the school teacher to secular instruction,
and calling in the aid of the clergy or other specialists to give
lessons on religion at separate hours, would have seemed to him wholly
indefensible, and, indeed, fatal to any true conception of the relation
of religious knowledge to other knowledge.” In one of his sermons he
said: “It is clear that neither is the Bible alone sufficient to give
a complete religious education, nor is it possible to teach history,
and moral and political philosophy, with no reference to the Bible,
without giving an education that shall be anti-religious. For, in the
one case, the rule is given without the application, and in the other
the application derived from a wrong rule.”[1016]
But a few months ago the same view was forcibly expressed by a writer
in the Chicago _Biblical World_,[1017] in a leading article which is
said to be inspired by the editor of this review, President Harper of
the University of Chicago.[1018] In this article we find the following
most appropriate statements: “It is a serious phase of the present
situation that the religious and moral instruction of the young is
isolated from their instruction in other departments of knowledge.
The correlation of the different elements of education is incomplete,
because the religious and moral instruction is received in entire
separation from the general instruction of the public schools. The
facts and truths of religion are the foundation and the imperative of
morality. Present civilization rests upon the religious and ethical
ideas of the past, and the civilization of the future depends upon
a due recognition of religion and morality as essential factors in
the growing welfare of humanity. The knowledge and experience of
religious and moral truth must underlie and penetrate all knowledge and
experience. The events and the ideas of the past, as of the present,
must be viewed in the light of a divine hand as the creator of the
universe, a divine power sustaining it, a divine wisdom guiding it,
and a divine purpose accomplished in it. The physical world about us,
our fellow-men, and our own selves must all be interpreted by religion
truly conceived and morality properly understood. It is, therefore,
impossible to accomplish the ideal education of the individual when
the religious and moral element is isolated from the other elements;
still worse when it is not received at all by the majority of the
children. All the elements of education must be woven together into an
organic unity to produce a perfect result.” The writer then proposes
an organization which “may seek to show how to correlate religious
and moral instruction with the instruction in history, science, and
literature obtained in the public schools.”--A comparison with the
words of Father Beckx quoted on a previous page (p. 599) will show
the great similarity of the views of the President of the University
of Chicago and the former General of the Society of Jesus. But we
think there is one essential difference: the Jesuit draws the logical
consequences of his principles, namely, that education should be
imparted in denominational schools; for only in such schools can the
moral and religious training be harmoniously united with the other
elements of instruction. The President of the University of Chicago
has not drawn this conclusion. Yet we fail to see how, except in
denominational schools, the proposed correlation of religious education
and instruction in the other branches is possible. However, for our
present purpose it suffices to have shown that this distinguished
American scholar and educator agrees with the fundamental principle
of the Jesuits, namely, that religious instruction should be closely
connected with the general education.
We heard that Pope Leo said all schools, from the elementary to the
university, should be under the influence of religion, not only the
lower schools. The student in the college and the university needs
the saving and elevating influence of Christianity as well as, and
perhaps even more than, the boy in the elementary course. The man who
receives a higher education is to become the leader and adviser of his
fellow-men. This _rôle_ he will not assume to the benefit of society
unless he possesses a thorough knowledge of religion. Otherwise he
will be “a blind leader of the blind, and both shall fall into the
pit.” What dangers are to be apprehended if the religious instruction
does not keep pace with the growth of secular knowledge, especially
in natural sciences, has been well stated by a Catholic writer:
“Catholics have the faith and a creed, but it is not an easy thing for
men to bear up against the superciliousness with which high-sounding
philosophy treats the doctrine of truth as puerile, effete, and
obsolete. The young man leaves school or college with certain religious
principles, and with certain ideas of the Being and attributes of God;
he is intended for a profession to which physiological science is
preparatory. His theological knowledge is stationary; his scientific is
progressive. Life and motion he learns to trace to secondary causes, of
which before he had heard nothing. He had been taught that life is a
gift of God, and that it rests with Him to destroy or to save; but now
he finds that life expresses but an aggregate of properties, attached
to organization, and dependent for their exercise on the perfection of
the organism and the presence of certain stimuli, as heat and light
and electricity. His scientific knowledge grows into maturity; his
religion is still that of his boyhood or youth! He has found other
causes of the facts he sees, besides those that he knew before, and the
conceit of knowledge and superiority hides from him the fact that these
causes are themselves effects: and then he ascribes a real power to his
generalizations, personifies abstractions, and deifies nature.”[1019]
For this reason the Irish Jesuit Father Delaney, Rector of University
College, Dublin, believes that laymen should have a scientific training
in theology. “I should like,” he said in his evidence before the Royal
Commission on University Education in Ireland, “that educated laymen
should be given an opportunity of getting a scientific knowledge
of their religion. At present boys leaving school find newspapers
and pamphlets and reviews dealing with subjects vitally affecting
Catholicity and Christianity itself, with the existence of a soul, and
the existence of God, and where are these men to get the training and
knowledge to enable them to meet difficulties which are suggested to
them in this way?”[1020]
Indeed, it would be not only incongruous, but even scandalous, if
a Christian place of higher education imparted all sorts of secular
knowledge and neglected that which is the most important, the knowledge
of the Christian religion. A Catholic youth, when leaving college,
should be well prepared to defend his faith against the numberless
misrepresentations which are prevailing among Protestants about things
Catholic. Half the controversies which go on in the world arise from
ignorance and misinformation; and educated laymen that are able to
remove such prejudices by a correct statement of facts of history
and doctrines--and numerous questions of this kind occur in social
intercourse--not only vindicate the calumniated Church, but also
further peace and good feeling among men of different creeds.
FOOTNOTES:
[973] _John_ 17, 3.
[974] 1 _Cor._ 2, 2; and _Col._ 2, 3.
[975] Lord Stanhope’s _Conversations with the Duke of Wellington_,
London, 1888, p. 180.
[976] On this subject see the following recent publications: Father
Poland, S. J., “True Pedagogics and False Ethics,” in _Am. Cath. Quart.
Review_, April 1899; also as separate pamphlet.--Father Campbell, S.
J., “The Only True American School System,” _Messenger_, November 1901,
and the same author’s article: “Moral Teaching in French Schools,”
_ib._, May 1902.--Further, Father Conway, S. J., _The Respective Rights
and Duties of Family, State and Church in regard to Education_. New
York, Pustet, 1890, pp. 34-60.--Father Cathrein, S. J., _Religion und
Moral, oder Gibt es eine Moral ohne Gott?_ Freiburg and St. Louis,
Herder, 1900.
[977] _North American Review_, January 1898, pp. 126-128.--See also the
_Biblical World_, November 1902, p. 323.
[978] New York _Freeman’s Journal_, January 24, 1903.
[979] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, pp. 15-16.
[980] The London _Tablet_, September 14, 1901.
[981] See his remarks on “Boston Theology,” in the sixth chapter of
_Christianity and Positivism_.
[982] _Allgemeine Pädagogik_ (Leipzig, 1901), p. 107.
[983] _Fortnightly Review_, May 1896, p. 808 foll.
[984] _Ib._, p. 814.
[985] _Ib._, p. 815.
[986] _The Literary Digest_, August 2, 1902.--See also the Rev. Thomas
B. Gregory, in the _New York American and Journal_, January 11, 1903.
[987] _The Biblical World_, October 1902, p. 243 foll.
[988] _Ibid._, pp. 243 and 246-247.
[989] On this subject see the beautiful little book _Chapters of Bible
Study_, by the Reverend H. J. Heuser (New York, 1895), especially
chapter XX.
[990] “Es darf doch hier auf Grund einer reichen Erfahrung nicht
unerwähnt bleiben, dass namentlich die Bibel in ihrer ursprünglichen
Gestalt eine grosse Gefahr für die Sittenreinheit der Jugend ist.
Es ist mehrfach konstatiert worden, dass die Onanie (self-abuse)
in männlichen und weiblichen Schulen durchaus zunächst sich an die
Lesung von Bibelstellen angelehnt hat, deren Auswahl und Kenntnis sich
traditionell unter der Jugend fortpflanzten. Man kann dieser Gefahr
insofern leicht entgegentreten, als die Herstellung von Schulbibeln
schon so erfolgreich geschehen ist, dass man nicht begreift, wie man
noch immer die ungekürzte Bibel den Schülern in die Hände geben kann.”
Schiller, _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik_ (Leipzig, 1894, 3. ed.),
pp. 171-172.
[991] _Reminiscences_, quoted in the _Fortnightly Review_, May 1896, p.
814.
[992] _Reg. Prov._ 1.
[993] See above pp. 121-124.
[994] “_Instructio catechistica, praecipue in Humanitate et Rhetorica,
sit ad praeservandam contra modernos errores juventutem accommodata._”
Pachtler, IV, p. 360.
[995] 1 _Peter_ 3, 15.
[996] _Paraenesis_, art. 13.
[997] _Spirago’s Method of Christian Doctrine._ Edited by the Rt. Rev.
S. G. Messmer, Bishop of Green Bay, Wis. (Benziger, N. Y., 1901.)
[998] _Kirchenlexikon_, vol. VII, p. 310 (2nd ed.).
[999] Pope Leo XIII., when still Cardinal Archbishop of Perugia,
published a revised and enlarged edition of Bellarmine’s Catechism.
At the Vatican Council (1869-70), it was the wish of Pius IX. that a
catechism, which should be essentially that of Bellarmine, should be
adopted as the uniform and official catechism for the whole Catholic
world. Messmer, _l. c._, p. 536.
[1000] Janssen, _History of the German People_, vol. I. (17th ed., p.
48 foll.--English ed., vol. I, p. 45.)
[1001] See _Kirchenlexikon_, vol. VII, p. 302.--Braunsberger, S.
J., _Die Catechismen des Petrus Canisius_. Herder, St. Louis, Mo.,
1893.--_Spirago’s Method_, pp. 532-534.--Janssen, _Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes_, vol. IV (15th ed.), pp. 436 foll.--It is to be
regretted that there exists no English biography of this great Catholic
reformer and educator. A sketch of his labors was published recently in
the _Dublin Review_, January 1903, pp. 137-158.
[1002] Janssen, vol. IV, p. 445.
[1003] Also Chemnitz, one of the leading Reformers and a violent
antagonist of Canisius, acknowledges that “the catechisms of this
Jesuit are written with the greatest mildness and moderation.” See his
words in Braunsberger, _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, (Herder
1901) p. 811.--In many places of his numerous writings Canisius lays
down his principles about controversies with the Protestants. “The
Protestants heap the most frightful calumnies upon me. Would that we
loved them the better, the more they persecute us. They deserve to be
loved, although they hate us, because most of them err from ignorance.
I would gladly shed my blood for them if I could thereby save their
souls.” He exhorts his brethren and Catholics in general to avoid
all bitterness in controversies; they should argue with gravity and
modesty and suffer all attacks with holy patience for the love of
Christ. (See Janssen, _l. c._, vol. IV, pp. 408-411.)--This moderation
is all the more remarkable if contrasted with the shocking insults
and contumelious appellations with which Canisius was loaded by his
Protestant adversaries. Melanchthon calls him a “cynic.” Others styled
his catechism “devil’s dirt,” the “cursed sacrilegious book of the dog
Canisius,” a “heathenish work, and a product of hell.” The Jesuits
are styled by Chemnitz and others “scoundrels, perjurers, beasts,
hell-frogs spit up by the infernal dragon, a brood of vipers born of
the Babylonian ...,” epithets which do not bear translation here. See
Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 411-413, 441-445.
[1004] _Mon. Paed._, p. 113. Pachtler III, 470 (no. 12), 474 (no. 6).
Several other documents inculcate the same moderation and spirit of
Christian charity. See Janssen, _l. c._, p. 411, note 1.
[1005] _History of Education_, p. 172; see above p. 252.
[1006] _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, p. 777.
[1007] _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, pp. 623-627.
[1008] Janssen, vol. IV, p. 437.
[1009] See _Spirago’s Method_, page 530 foll., where also the
shortcomings of this catechism are pointed out.
[1010] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 104.
[1011] _Ratio Docendi_, chapt. I, art. 2.
[1012] _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik_, pp. 237-238.
[1013] _Lehrpläne_, etc., p. 11.
[1014] See the words of Professor Paulsen above, p. 100.
[1015] _L. c._, p. 238.
[1016] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, pp. 95-96.
[1017] _The Biblical World_, November 1902, p. 324.
[1018] _The Literary Digest_, December 27, 1902.
[1019] _Dublin Review_, Jan. 1847, p. 383.--In this connection we would
beg the reader to see the beautiful exposition of the same principle
in Cardinal Newman’s _Idea of a University_ (pp. 372-380): “General
Religious Knowledge.”
[1020] Quoted in _The Review_, June 19, 1902, p. 384.
CHAPTER XIX.
School-Management.
Holy Job says: “Man’s life upon earth is a warfare.” The life of a
teacher is eminently such. The moment he enters his class-room where
thirty pupils await him, he has to face thirty enemies. Not that the
pupils cherish hostile or even unfriendly feelings towards their
master. God forbid! but there is in every one of them some one more
or less prominent defect or fault, which, in whole or in part, will
frustrate the teacher’s work in the class-room, and it is with these
defects and faults, as with so many deadly foes, that the teacher must
do combat. One pupil is lazy; this one is fickle; that one stubborn;
and in all there is a considerable amount of ignorance. Nor does the
teacher’s struggle cease with the four or five hours of class work.
There are other trials awaiting him on return home. The daily careful
preparation of the matter to be taught is a real drudgery, while the
correction of themes and compositions is very fatiguing. Over and above
this there is the monotony of repeating the same matter year after
year. At times, too, there may come regulations from superiors which
do not suit the taste of the teacher, which, however, must be complied
with; for in order to ensure unity and harmony in any educational
establishment some kind of executive superintendence over persons and
things is indispensable.
This presupposes, on the part of the teachers, submission and
obedience. The Jesuit teachers are told by their rules to obey the
Prefect of Studies in all things pertaining to studies and school
discipline. It is well known that St. Ignatius insisted on nothing so
much as on _obedience_.[1021] The obedience demanded by the Society
has frequently been censured by men who do not as much as know what
this obedience really means. In an army, or in any department of
government, a similar obedience is exacted as being wholly necessary
for the maintenance of right order; why not much more so in a religious
community whose members profess obedience to their superiors in whom
they see the representatives of God? M. De Ladevèze said recently:
“Military obedience has had none but vigorous apologists, obedience in
religious Orders, other than the Society of Jesus, has had but rare and
indulgent critics, whilst the obedience of the Jesuits has ever been
the butt for attacks as numerous as--my readers would not allow me to
say impartial.”[1022] Does not St. Paul say: “Let every one be subject
to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that
are are ordained by God. Therefore, he that resisteth, resisteth the
power of God.” It must not be forgotten that passion, especially pride,
impetuosity, and stubbornness frequently blind and deceive a man to
take his own conceits for absolute infallible wisdom. Therefore, St.
Ignatius addresses his sons in the words of Scripture: “Lean not upon
thy own prudence.” Indeed, many mistakes will be avoided by the teacher
who conscientiously follows the regulations of the school and the
orders of the superiors. On the other hand, the teacher who is lacking
in submission will sooner or later blunder most seriously.
Further, how can a teacher honestly demand obedience from his pupils
unless he practises it himself? Surely, there is much truth in the
old monastic maxim: “No man securely commands but he who has learned
well to obey.”[1023] Personal obedience of the teacher, therefore, is
a means to secure him the most necessary qualification for effective
school-management, namely, _authority_.
§ 1. Authority.
Authority is power or influence over others derived from character,
example, mental and moral superiority. How can the teacher obtain
this influence? Father Jouvancy and Father Kropf have two instructive
chapters on this subject, from which we draw most of the following
observations. According to Jouvancy,[1024] three things especially
conduce to the acquirement of authority by the religious teachers:
esteem, love, and fear.
1. The teacher must possess the _esteem_ of his pupils. They must
respect him for his learning and his character. He must thoroughly
master the subject which he has to teach. Besides, a careful
preparation of the day’s lesson should be made invariably before. It
is most ruinous for the teacher’s authority, if the pupils detect any
deficiency in his knowledge--and they will discover it very soon if
there is any. The pupils cannot and will not listen to such a teacher
with the respect and willingness which are necessary not only for a
fruitful study, but also for school discipline. Remarks will be passed
about the teacher’s mistakes, or his inability to handle the subject;
perhaps bolder pupils call the teacher’s attention to his mistakes. In
such cases the man who is master of his subject can, and mostly will,
calmly admit that a slip has been made, whereas the teacher who is not
sure of his subject, and who blunders frequently, is inclined to keep
down any objections by frowns, scoldings or even punishment. The result
will be dissatisfaction among the students, which may lead to serious
breaches of discipline.
As to his character, anything like passionate or irritable behavior,
abusive language, haughtiness, levity, whims, fickleness, inconsiderate
or idle talk, mannerisms, peculiarities of gesture and expression which
will strike the pupils as ridiculous, and any other defect of mind or
character will at once be detected by the keen eyes of the students
and will more or less weaken his authority. In a teacher who is a
religious, the virtues expected of a religious man should appear in all
words and actions, and his whole life should bespeak a mind thoroughly
imbued with the lofty principles of Christianity. Such a teacher should
remember the words of Christ: “So let your light shine before men
that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in
Heaven.”[1025] Indeed, it is absolutely necessary for him to endeavor
to gain the sincere esteem of the students, not in order to gratify
his vanity, nor for any other selfish purpose, but in order to manage
successfully a class of petulant and mischief-loving youths.
2. The teacher must strive to gain the _affection_ of his pupils.[1026]
This he will obtain if they see him eager for their advancement, if
he possesses the mastery over his own temper, if he never appears
suspicious or distrustful. While kind and obliging in private, he
must show himself earnest and grave before his class. Besides, being
always firm, he must moreover be friendly and kind towards all,
avoiding partiality, favoritism and excessive familiarity towards
individuals.[1027] If the teacher yield to the not uncommon weakness,
and by any sort of favoritism tries to gain the special affection of a
few, he should be convinced that he will estrange all the rest from him
and thus inevitably undermine his authority.--In punishments he must be
considerate, just, moderate, and show that he acts only from a sense of
duty and genuine love, not from passion or antipathy.[1028]
The affection of his pupils will be aroused by the interest the
teacher shows for their health, their difficulties, their joys and
troubles, and by his ceaseless efforts to help them by instruction and
advice. Jouvancy says the teacher should care particularly for the
more delicate, visit the sick, encourage the backward, advise those
that are in any embarrassment, in short, display the earnestness of a
father and the devotion of a mother, especially towards pupils recently
enrolled, and those in need. He should also notify the parents of
progress or remissness on the part of their children. However, in most
Jesuit colleges this is done by the Prefect of Studies or the Prefect
of Discipline.
The teacher will further gain the affection of his pupils if he
performs his duties conscientiously, but without gloomy severity. A
cheerful countenance should greet the students when they arrive for
the morning session. For the teacher loses much of his authority if
his pupils are forced to make a daily inspection of his face, as they
would of the bulletin of the weather forecast. The teacher’s lively
disposition and interesting way of speaking will act like a pleasant
sunny spring morning on all, and do away with sleepiness and dullness,
whereas sternness and gloom on his part will influence the class like a
heavy fog on a winter’s day. It is possible that a whole class appears
slow and spiritless, but the professor may be responsible for it,
either by his own lack of spirit and alacrity, by his tedious talk, or
also by his too excessive demands on the class. To be ever reaching
after the absolutely unattainable, is not particularly exhilarating,
yet the professor may put his pupils in such a plight by placing before
them too high a standard of excellence and never admitting that their
best efforts bring them nearer the ideal. Hence judicious praise is a
powerful factor in the management of a class; sometimes the effort may
be praised where the result cannot. “The office of a good teacher,” as
Quintilian prudently remarks, “is to seek and encourage the good ever
to be found in children, and to supply what is wanting, to correct and
change whatever needs it.”
3. _Fear_, is the third element which contributes to authority.[1029]
This fear must be as it is styled, _timor reverentialis_, not _timor
servilis_, i. e. the fear of a child, not of a slave. Gravity, firmness
and prudent consistency, in a word, manliness, on the part of the
teacher, will instil this salutary fear into the pupils; only few
and wise regulations should be made, but these must be firmly and
prudently enforced. If this is done, even the most recalcitrant will
after some time surrender. Another means of preserving this wholesome
fear consists in reporting to higher officials of the school, or to
the parents, breaches of conduct. However, this should not be done for
every trifle, but only in case of a more serious misdemeanor. This
leads us to the question of punishments.
§ 2. Punishments.[1030]
The saddest part of a schoolmaster’s task is the necessity of
punishing. Offences must be treated seriously, not lightly; but,
at the same time, as they are in most cases the effects of levity
and weakness, they must be treated with compassion and without any
harshness. The teacher should never be hasty in punishing; if he is,
it will appear that he is led by passion. Often, and particularly when
a pupil defies the teacher and refuses obedience, it will be best to
wait patiently and assign the punishment later. For, if the punishment
be inflicted immediately, it will, in all probability, be often unduly
severe.[1031] Anger and impetuosity are bad counselors, and in such
trying situations it is especially true that “silence is golden.”
If the teacher merely lets it be seen how much he is pained by such
conduct and defers the punishment, he will gain by his self-control in
the eyes of the whole class; and the offender himself, having got over
his excitement, will probably be in a better disposition to accept the
punishment.
The Ratio Studiorum says the teacher should not be too eager to
discover occasions for punishing his pupils.[1032] There are some
teachers who seem always on the watch to impose tasks. If they do
not find misdeeds on the surface, they make sure to ferret them out.
They were born to be detectives. This is not the fatherly spirit the
teacher should manifest. The Ratio is opposed to this method. “See
everything but never have the appearance of prying.” Know all that
regards your pupils, but do not always act on your knowledge. If you
can conceal your discoveries without doing harm, conceal them. In
general: the fewer punishments the teacher inflicts, the greater will
be his success, always supposing that he keeps order without punishing.
Any just reasons for pardoning, or lessening, the penance are to be
welcomed.
There seems to be abroad a sentiment about corporal punishments which
is evidently beyond the bounds of reason. Some contend that corporal
punishment is merely a “relic of the barbarism of former ages,” and
that it should no longer be employed, but that the young should be
governed solely by moral suasion, by an appeal to reason and the
pupil’s sense of right. The inspired writers thought differently. Thus
we read: “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth
him correcteth him betimes.”[1033] “Folly is bound up in the heart
of the child, but the rod of correction shall drive it away.”[1034]
There are some faults: flagrant violations of modesty and decency,
defiance of authority, impudent insults offered to elderly persons,
continued laziness, which in a younger boy are best punished by the
rod, especially after exhortations have proved unsuccessful. This was
the principle and practice of Jesuit educators, and the best educators
are again at one with the Jesuits.[1035]
The Ratio Studiorum allowed the infliction of punishment only under
rigid regulations; it forbids the teacher absolutely to strike a
boy.[1036] Corporal punishment, if, after calm deliberation, thought
necessary, is to be administered either by a trusty servant, as was the
custom in former times, or by the Prefect of Discipline.[1037] At any
rate, this system prevents many an indeliberate act of the teachers,
as there is always danger of excess in the immediate punishment of
an offence. Although the rod was applied in Jesuit schools, its use
was by no means as frequent as in nearly all other schools. Compared
to what was done in the great public schools of England and in the
gymnasia on the European continent, the practice of the Jesuit colleges
was exceedingly mild. There was never anything like the brutality
practised in Eton,[1038] or those debasing punishments, described in
_The Terrors of the Rod_ (published in 1815), or in Cooper’s _History
of the Rod_.[1039] In the higher schools of Saxony it was the custom,
even in the eighteenth century, for all the members of the faculty to
punish offenders before the whole school. When, in 1703, the teachers
remonstrated against this, they were told by the highest authorities
to continue doing their duty.[1040] Matters were different in Jesuit
colleges. The offender was punished in private and only few strokes
were administered. Father Nadal made a regulation in Mentz, in 1567,
to the effect that not more than six strokes should be given with the
rod. The boys were not to be struck in any other way.[1041] The above
cited Italian School Order adds that not only the poor boys should be
punished but the wealthy and noble as well. These should be made to
understand that virtue is more highly prized than nobility.[1042]
A word should be added about the famous “lines.” If lines are assigned
to be committed to memory they should not be such as are not fully
understood. There are so many useful things that have been read or
should be studied, why not give them? Catechism or Bible history should
never be assigned as penalty; it might make these sacred books an
object of aversion. It is advisable, however, to assign these books if
the pupil has neglected to study his catechism or his Bible history.
If lines are to be copied--a punishment of questionable worth--at
least the same lines should not be copied more than once; it is sheer
nonsense to make a student copy the same line twenty times, unless
it be an exercise in penmanship for continued careless writing. The
teacher should insist that all extra tasks are neatly and carefully
written. It is most detrimental to the teacher’s authority to assign
punishments and not to see that they are done; or to assign excessive
tasks and then be compelled to desist from demanding them. If, in
particular cases, an extraordinary punishment is thought necessary,
Jesuit educators wisely refer the matter to a Superior, either Prefect
or Rector. These officials should also decide on cases where punishment
has been refused, especially by older students.
§ 3. Impartiality.
Another point, important for effective school-management, is the
necessity of showing strict fairness and justice. A professor accused
of favoritism is sadly hindered in his work. His kindly words of good
advice fall on deaf ears and his exertions for his class are viewed
with coldness and distrust. The 47th rule exhorts the Jesuit teacher
not to be more familiar with one boy than with the rest. Although
mischievous tongues of jealous pupils will never cease to impute faults
which may have no objective reality, still a strict observance of this
rule will be a precious safeguard to the reputation of the teacher in
a matter which is of vital importance to the proper and successful
discharge of his duty. A uniform spirit of kindliness and charity
should be manifested towards all, poor or rich, slow or highly gifted,
uncouth or polite, uncomely or attractive. No dislike is to be shown
for any pupil, no matter how great the natural aversion is which one
may feel towards him. The all-embracing charity of our Lord should
ever be before the eyes of the teacher, and he should strive to be
“all things to all.” He must not forget that in every pupil there is
something good, a good side from which he may be approached. And it
happens not unfrequently that in the poor workingman’s son, diffident,
shy, and ungainly as the boy may be, there is a nobler soul, greater
talent, more prospect of great work in the future, than in the much
more refined, courteous and winning boy of wealthy parents. To neglect
the poor or ungainly lad would be not only unjust and cruel, but also
directly opposed to the spirit of the Society, which, in the 40th rule,
tells the teacher “to despise no one and to work as strenuously for the
advancement of the poor as of the rich.”
Another danger frequently connected with undue familiarity with
some pupils has to be mentioned. The teacher is easily inclined to
speak more confidentially to them about other pupils; he may be sure
that his remarks will be reported, most likely in a distorted form,
to those whom he has criticized. This will destroy the good spirit
among his pupils, cause bitterness, ill-feeling, factions, and little
conspiracies among them, and the teacher will perhaps never be able to
detect and remedy the evil.
Undue familiarity and partiality is also very harmful to the pupil
himself who is thus singled out from the rest.[1043] If special
affection is shown to one, if his failings are tolerated more than
those of the rest, if he is not reproved where he deserves it, if he
is praised where he hardly deserves it, then an opening is made for
jealousy; the _Benjamin_ of the class will receive all sorts of names,
as little flattering to him as to the teacher; and his position among
his companions may become very unpleasant. The teacher’s unreasonable
partiality has compromised him and has placed a barrier between him and
his classmates. A still more serious consequence is usually connected
with such partiality: the real education of the favorite is neglected.
What training of character can be expected if his whims are indulged
in, if his failings are not corrected, if he is flattered and coddled,
in short, if he is spoiled? Besides, such partiality invariably breeds
vanity, self-conceit and stubbornness. The teacher’s favorite is soon
aware of the preference shown to him. He feels that he can venture what
his companions dare not to do; that class regulations, class silence
and the like are less severe for him than the others. He will soon
think himself a privileged being, superior to the rest: he will assume
the air of authority over others and pride is nourished in his heart.
Yet this is not all. The next year the pupil may pass to a teacher who
is different, who does not tolerate his caprices any more than those
of others and who tries to eradicate the evils that were allowed to
root by his predecessor. But the spoiled child will resent any strict
treatment, will peevishly refuse to be corrected. All this may lead
to serious breaches of discipline and obedience, and to disagreeable
punishments.
From this it should not be inferred that a teacher is forbidden to
take a greater active interest in some than in others. On the contrary
he must do this especially in the case of those who need it most, for
instance, of those who are very bashful, and particularly of those who
are exposed to greater danger. Just as a mother watches more anxiously
over a delicate child, so must a good teacher look more particularly
after those whose spiritual condition is more delicate. “Not the
healthy ones need the physician but the sick.” On this subject it may
be well to quote once more the beautiful words of Father Jouvancy: “The
teacher should speak in private more frequently with those who seem to
be exposed to worse and more dangerous faults. If he captivates them
by a wise and holy kindness, he attaches them not only to himself, but
gains them for Christ.”[1044]
§ 4. Discipline in the Classroom.[1045]
The effectiveness of a teacher as teacher will depend largely on
his success as a disciplinarian. This holds especially of the lower
classes, where the pupils are livelier and act more from their animal
propensities. A few good regulations concerning order in class, as
well as to the manner of entering and leaving the class room, are
to be firmly insisted on. Determination is here the great factor. A
class-room yields, keeps silence, remains quiet, is attentive and
studious, if it learns that the professor means to insist on these
points. Of course, firmness can be overdone. Too great persistence
takes on the appearance of tyranny and challenges opposition. On the
other hand, mildness easily gives place to weakness. The teacher has
to strike the mean, which is golden here as in other things. However,
it is a maxim of Jesuit educators that it will be good to be more
reserved, and also stricter as to discipline, in the beginning, until
the teacher knows his class and has it under perfect control. It is
easy then to loosen the reins a little, whereas it is nearly impossible
to draw them tight after a spirit of levity, noisiness and general
disorder has started through the teacher’s easy-going manner.
The following words of a French Jesuit educator on this question
are most instructive. The master in charge of the boys, in his first
intercourse with them, has no greater snare in his way than taking his
power for granted and trusting in his strength and knowledge of the
world. That master who in the very first hour has already made himself
liked, almost popular with his pupils, who shows no more anxiety about
his work than he must show to keep his character for good sense, that
master is indeed to be pitied; he is most likely a lost man. He will
soon have to choose one of two things, either to shut his eyes and
put up with all irregularities or to break with a past that he would
wish forgotten, and engage in open conflict with the boys who are
inclined to set him at defiance. He wished to endear himself by acts of
kindness, he set about crowning the edifice without making sure of the
foundation. Accordingly, the first steps should be characterized by an
extreme reserve, without any affectation of severity or diplomacy.[1046]
Some good principles on class discipline have been laid down by Father
Jouvancy.[1047] The first is: _Principiis obsta_: Resist the evil from
the beginning. As soon as the pupils grow restless, no matter how
light the disturbance may be, it must be checked immediately. When
some few are especially giddy or mischievous, they must gradually be
wearied by various devices: frequent questions, repeated calling up for
recitations etc., so as to become gently accustomed to bear the yoke.
_Secondly_: The place of the pupils in class should not be a chance
affair or left to their choice and caprice.[1048] If they are allowed
to select their places, the light-minded and petulant will be found
together in some corner, or in the rear, where they anticipate full
scope for mischief. By prudent tactics many a teacher has gained the
battle as before-hand, by scattering the hostile forces, by separating
the talkers and mischief-makers. A petulant boy may be assigned his
seat near a quiet and reserved boy; one whose morals are justly
suspected near one of reliable virtue--taking care, however, lest the
good boy be corrupted by the one of doubtful character.
_Thirdly_: No noise or confusion is to be tolerated when the students
enter the class-room.[1049] They should be trained to consider this
room as a sacred place, “a temple of science,” which ought to be
entered in silence and modesty. If any come in boisterously the teacher
should at the outset reprimand or punish them. This will immediately
quiet their exuberant spirits.
_Fourthly_: The respect of the pupils for their teachers and for one
another will prompt them to listen to the instructions in absolute
silence.[1050]
Sometimes it may happen that either all the scholars, or only a few,
offend against good conduct and attention. If the former should happen,
the cause of evil must be investigated and the instigators must be
punished. The teacher should very rarely threaten the whole class,
still less should a whole class be subjected to punishment. Such an
action irritates the pupils and, feeling confidence in their number,
they will be inclined to conspire against the teacher. Extraordinary
tasks, like more weighty penalties, should be imposed on only a few.
“Frequent ailments, unusual remedies, and continual funerals disgrace
the physician,”[1051] as Jouvancy wisely observes.
_Fifthly_: The 44th rule gives wise directions for maintaining order
at the end of class. Here the danger is greater than at the beginning
of the session. The boys are not so eager to come to class as after
recitation hours to rush to the yard for a game of baseball, or to
hasten home for dinner. But it makes certainly a bad impression if the
boys run out of class like a pack of hounds turned loose. Therefore,
the teacher should be on hand and watch the boys at this critical
time. These are not the minutes for correcting stray themes, or for
conversation with another professor, or with one of the pupils. The
teacher should, as the rule says, take his station at his desk, or at
the door, and have his eye on the class room and the corridor. All are
to leave the room in silence and order. There is to be no hurry, no
running about, no jostling. If the teacher acts thus, all disorder will
be prevented far more effectively than by punishments.
§ 5. Politeness and Truthfulness.
Another point intimately connected with discipline consists in the
attention given to _politeness_ and _good manners_.[1052] There is
nothing more attractive than a class of boys who are lively and, at
the same time, truly polite. But the amusements of our boys, baseball
and football especially, easily lead to a certain roughness, which is
certainly the very opposite of refinement. Further, however attractive
frankness and freedom of behavior may be, they frequently degenerate
into want of respect. Teachers, elderly persons, and others who must
claim the young man’s respect, are sometimes approached without due
reverence. The greeting consists in a gracious or confidential nod, or
a motion of the hand in the direction of the head, without reaching to
its end; then the “youngster” starts his conversation, hat on, hands in
his pockets, if possible sitting or leaning on a railing, or lolling
against a wall. Our boys hear so much of liberty that they easily
mistake it for freedom from the obligations due to age and position,
which are everywhere recognized and rightly insisted on, and which are
justly considered the distinctive marks of true culture and refinement.
Anything servile, cringing, or affected is, of course, to be avoided.
The teacher has many opportunities of inculcating the rules of
politeness. But a most important factor is the teacher’s example.
Being before the eyes of his pupils four or five hours a day, his
personality will naturally leave traces on their manners. He should
impress his pupils not only as a scholar and a pious religious, but
also as a perfect gentleman. Nor will the Jesuit teacher ever fail in
this respect, if he carefully observes the “Rules on Modesty,” which
are laid down in the Institute, and were considered of the greatest
importance by St. Ignatius and all true Jesuits. We shall quote a
few of these rules: “In general, it may be said that in all outward
actions there should appear modesty and humility, joined with religious
gravity. There should appear outwardly a serenity, which may be the
token of that which is interior. The whole countenance should show
cheerfulness rather than sadness or any other less moderate affection.
The apparel is to be clean, and arranged with religious decency. In
fine, every gesture and motion should be such as to give edification
to all men. When they have to speak they must be mindful of modesty
and edification, as well in their words, as in the style and manner of
speaking.”
The Jesuits have always been most sedulous in cultivating in their
pupils politeness, not a mere external polish, but a politeness which
is the choice fruit and exterior manifestation of solid interior
virtue, of sincerity of heart, humility, obedience, and charity.
Protestant writers have paid homage to these endeavors of the Jesuits.
Ranke writes: “The Jesuits educated well-bred gentlemen.” And another
Protestant, Victor Cherbuliez, is almost extravagant in his praise
when he says: “However much one may detest the Jesuits, when religion
is allied to intellectual charms, when it is gentle-mannered, wears a
smiling face, and does all gracefully, one is always tempted to believe
that the Jesuits have had a hand in the affair.”[1053]
Another point which deserves special care on the part of the teacher is
the cultivation of _truthfulness_ in the pupils. No one teaches even
for a short time without recognizing the necessity of fighting the evil
habit of mendacity. A boy is reprimanded for unmistakable talking,
whistling, throwing paper, etc., and how often is the quick and bold
answer heard: “It wasn’t me,” bad English being added to the moral
defect. A boy fails to hand in a task. How many excuses are made which
not unfrequently are more or less palpable falsehoods. Now all this
is more serious than it may appear at first. How is this evil to be
combated?
First by prudence. Many lies could be prevented if the teacher acted
more discreetly. If a boy has been noisy, and the teacher, especially
one who has the reputation of inflicting severe punishments, angrily
charges him with the offence, the boy will deny the deed in sheer
excitement. And one lie leads to many more; the boy assures and
protests, in order not to expose his first prevarication. Therefore
the master, as a rule, should not insist on arguing the case, but
await a better chance, when the boy is calm. A teacher who is patient,
judicious in inquiries, just and reasonable in punishments, will seldom
be told a lie. If noise is going on in class, such a teacher may safely
ask: Who made that noise? And in nearly all cases, as the experience of
many teachers has proved, the offender will candidly acknowledge it.
Sometimes this confession, with an earnest but calm word of admonition,
will dispense with any further punishment. Of course, if the pardon
invariably follows the confession, there will be no good effects
whatever.
There are boys who, from a long practice, have acquired a most
pernicious habit of lying. Such cases are hard to deal with, and it is
difficult to lay down general rules. A few suggestions, however, may
not be out of place. Very rarely, and only on extreme occasions, should
there be shown any doubt of a pupil’s word on a matter of fact. All
should know that implicit confidence is placed in their assertions, and
that it is considered as a matter of course that they speak the truth
on facts within their knowledge. If ever a lie is found out and proved,
the punishment should be severe. Dr. Arnold says, in such a case the
punishment should be the loss of the teacher’s confidence. But even
then the teacher should try to save the offender from discouragement
by holding out to him the possibility of correcting even the habit of
lying. It has happened that boys given to lying, when once thoroughly
convinced of the disgracefulness of their habit, conceived such a
horror of it, that they became disgusted with everything dishonest, and
turned out men distinguished for uprightness and truthfulness. In this
as in other defects, it will be good if the teacher follows the example
of the Divine Master, of whom it was said: “The bruised reed he shall
not break, and smoking flax he shall not extinguish.”[1054]
Here again the teacher’s example will exercise a powerful influence.
He must be open, truthful, straightforward, strictly honest in his
dealings with the pupils, not sly, crooked, and political. If he is
asked a question which he cannot answer, he should say: “I do not know
it,” or “I am not sure about it, I will inquire and tell you next
time.” No one can reasonably expect the teacher to know everything,
and by such honest acknowledgements he will not lose a tittle of his
authority. If he has made a mistake in a statement, or in reprimanding
or punishing, he should frankly admit it and apologize. No school
master is infallible. The teacher need fear no detriment from such
a candid retractation. On the contrary, such a teacher will gain in
the esteem of his pupils, who will be more disposed to accept his
admonitions.
§ 6. Some Special Helps.
The trials of the teacher are many and vexing. A few general means to
endure them successfully may be suggested. One means is _patience_.
Dr. Arnold, referring to the years of boyhood, once said the teacher
should try to hasten out the growth of this immature and dangerous age.
But in this endeavor it will be good to remember the Latin saying:
_Festina lente_. Impatience, vehemence, and rashness are signs that a
teacher lacks knowledge of the frail human heart. He should learn from
the supreme model of teachers, who showed a Divine longanimity and
forbearance in the training of his Apostles and Disciples who were not
always very docile and quick of perception. From him he should learn
the virtues necessary to the teacher: “Learn from me, for I am meek
and humble of heart.”[1055] A distinguished Jesuit of our days used to
say: “No one likes to settle at the foot of a volcano. And a wrathful,
excitable teacher will do great harm. The outbursts of his anger will
destroy all around like the eruptions of a volcano, whereas a meek,
patient, and prudent man is acceptable to God, wins the hearts of men,
and will work successfully.” An old regulation of Jesuit schools[1056]
recommends especially patience: “The teachers of youths should ever
remember the one perfect teacher, Christ our Lord, that they may
imitate his benignity and kind forbearance toward the simple ones, that
they may be unwearied in teaching and adapt themselves to the capacity
of their auditors, admonish their pupils, practise them diligently
and zealously, and _gradually_ advance them, as well those of slower
perception as those of ready perception, as Paul the great Apostle
says: ‘We became little ones in the midst of you, as if a nurse should
cherish her children.’”[1057]
One should, therefore, never be surprised at mistakes or moral faults;
least of all should one be vexed at fickleness, unsteadiness, fits of
laziness. These are defects of age, or weakness of character, not signs
of bad will, consequently they are to be treated kindly. There are some
things which the teacher should take good-humoredly. Many teachers feel
irritated on discovering that the boys have given them a nickname. Why
not take it good-naturedly and heartily laugh about it? In general, a
cheerful disposition combined with a great amount of patience will make
many of the troubles of school life more endurable.
Another most powerful means for overcoming the trials of teaching, and
at the same time for laboring successfully, is _prayer_. The “modern”
systems have little to say about it, and many educators may be inclined
to sneer at such a pedagogical help. Still there is a sublime truth in
what Tennyson says in his beautiful lines:
“Pray for my soul.
More things are wrought by prayer
Than this world dreams of.”[1058]
One who believes in the fundamental truths of Christianity cannot
ignore our Savior’s words: “Without me you can do nothing,”[1059] and
the other: “Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I
do,”[1060] and the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians, who contended
about the superiority of their teachers in the faith: “I have planted,
Apollo watered, but God gave the increase;”[1061] further the words
of St. James: “If any one of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, and
it shall be given him.”[1062] As we have seen, the Jesuits consider
education from a supernatural point of view. They endeavor to lead the
children to the knowledge, love, and service of Christ, according to
Christ’s words: “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such
is the Kingdom of God.” This is an aim above man’s nature, and can be
obtained only by supernatural means. God alone can give the teacher’s
words the power to enter into the will, that impregnable citadel of
man’s nature. This power from on high is bestowed on him who humbly
asks for it in prayer.
We must expect that St. Ignatius did not think lightly of this means.
In the 16th rule of the _Summary of the Constitutions_, all Jesuits
are exhorted “to apply to the study of solid virtues and of spiritual
things; and to account these of greater moment than either learning
or other natural or human gifts: for they are the interior things
from which force must flow to the exterior, for the end proposed to
us.” This trust in God’s assistance in no way lessens the earnest
endeavors of the religious. As the old principle of the great order of
St. Benedict was: _Ora et labora_, so St. Ignatius says: “Let this be
the first rule of all your actions: trust in God, as if all success
depended on him, nothing on yourself; but work, as if you had to do all
and God nothing.” In the Ratio Studiorum the teachers are admonished
“frequently to pray for their pupils.”[1063] The Jesuit Sacchini has a
special chapter on the importance of the teacher’s prayer,[1064] and
exhorts him to recommend his disciples daily to Christ, and to invoke
for them the intercession of the Blessed Mother of God, of the Guardian
Angels and of the patrons of youth. Father Jouvancy[1065] tells the
teacher never to go to class without having said a fervent prayer, if
possible in the Church before the Blessed Sacrament. He suggests a
beautiful prayer which is almost wholly drawn from Scripture: “Lord
Jesus, thou hast not hesitated to meet the most cruel death for these
children; thou lovest them with an unspeakable tenderness; thou wouldst
that they were led to thee (_Mark_ 10, 14). Yea, whatever is done to
one of these thy least brethren, thou wilt consider as done to thee
(_Matth._ 25, 40): I beg and implore thee, ‘keep them in thy name whom
thou hast given me;’ ‘they are thine’, ‘sanctify them in truth’ (_John_
17, 6. 9. 11. 17). ‘Give thy words in my mouth’ (_Jerem._ 1, 9), open
their hearts that they may begin to love and fear thee. ‘Turn away thy
face from my sins’ (_Psalm_ 50, 11), and let not thy mercy be hindered
through my faults. Give me the grace to educate these children, whom
thou hast entrusted to me, with prudence, piety and firmness, to thy
glory, which is all I ask.” Truly, this is praying in the name of
Jesus. And if the teacher is a man of solid piety and virtue, as the
Society expects him to be after a religious training of so many years,
the grace of God will surely lighten the burden of his work. “For the
continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”[1066]
FOOTNOTES:
[1021] “The Society of Jesus,” says Cardinal Newman, “has been more
distinguished than any before it for the rule of obedience.... With
the Jesuits, as well as with the religious Communities which are their
juniors, usefulness, secular and religious, literature, education,
the confessional, preaching, the oversight of the poor, missions, the
care of the sick, have been their chief object of attention; bodily
austerities and the ceremonial of devotion have been made of but
secondary importance. Yet it may fairly be questioned, whether in an
intellectual age, when freedom both of thought and of action is so
dearly prized, a greater penance can be devised for the soldier of
Christ than the absolute surrender of judgment and will to the command
of another.” In _Development of Christian Doctrine_, ch. VIII.
[1022] The _Open Court_, Jan. 1902, p. 14.
[1023] _Following of Christ_, I, ch. 20.
[1024] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1.
[1025] _Matth._ 5, 16.
[1026] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 2.
[1027] See below § 3.
[1028] See below § 2.
[1029] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 3.
[1030] _Ratio Stud._, _Reg. Praef. Stud. Inf._ 38, 42.--_Reg. com._
40.--Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 1, no. 2.--Kropf,
_Ratio et Via_, ch. 6, art. 7.--Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 11
and 12.--_Monumenta Paedag._, chapter “Del Castigare,” p. 277
foll.--_Woodstock Letters_, 1896, p. 244.
[1031] An old regulation for Jesuit schools, written in Italian, well
says: “Non convien castigar subito dopo la colpa per non dar luogo alla
passione che fa passar’ la misura del castigo.” _Monum. Paed._, p. 279.
[1032] _Reg. com. mag. cl. inf._, 40.
[1033] _Proverbs_ 13, 24.
[1034] _Ib._, 22, 15.
[1035] See Fitch, _Lectures on Teaching_, IV: “The proud notion of
independence and dignity, which revolts at the idea of personal
chastisement is not reasonable and is certainly not Christian. After
all it is sin which degrades, and not punishment.”--On the views of
Edward Thring of Uppingham on this subject, see _Life and Letters_, by
Parkin, London 1898.
[1036] _Reg. com._ 40.
[1037] On this point modern views, at least in Northern countries,
are different, and a punishment inflicted by a servant is considered
especially disgraceful. Therefore, the unpleasant task devolves
on the Prefect of Discipline.--In some Jesuit colleges punishment
was administered at fixed hours, and it was left to the lad that
had offended to go to apply for castigation. In this way he had an
opportunity of showing his manliness and taking his punishment with
a sense of having deserved it. An English writer in the _St. James’s
Gazette_ calls it “evidence of the skill and tact of the Order to have
devised this method.” _Littell’s Living Age_, Boston, 1886, vol. 170,
p. 248.--Of the _ferula_, the instrument used at Stonyhurst, the same
writer says: “Few things are more disagreeably painful and at the same
time more harmless and transitory in its effects than the application
of this instrument.”
[1038] See _The Spectator_, No. 168.
[1039] As a curious illustration the case of the Suabian schoolmaster
may be mentioned, who kept a diary and jotted down in the course of
his fifty-one years’ schoolmaster’s career the number of times he
administered punishment to his recalcitrant pupils. Schoolmaster John
records that he distributed 911,517 strokes with a stick; 240,100
“smites” with a birchrod; 10,986 hits with a ruler; 136,715 hand
smacks; 10,235 slaps on the face; 7,905 boxes on the ears; 115,800
blows on the head; 12,763 tasks from the Bible, catechism, the poets
and grammar. Every two years he had to buy a Bible, to replace the one
so roughly handled by his scholars; 777 times he made his pupils kneel
on peas, and 5,001 scholars had to do penance with a ruler held over
their hands. As to his abusive words, not a third of them were to be
found in any dictionary.
[1040] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1902, vol. X, p. 296.
[1041] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 160, 207, 279; IV, 164-170.--It is not
improbable that the moderation required by the rules was not always
observed through the fault of some individuals. Hence the one instance
of excessive flogging quoted by Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 14, was
certainly an exception.
[1042] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 278.
[1043] See: _The Little Imperfections_, by Rev. F. P. Garesché, S. J.;
chapter on “_Partialities_.” (Herder, St. Louis, 1901.)
[1044] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 1, art. 2.
[1045] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2.--Kropf, _Ratio et
Via_, ch. 6, art. 3.--Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 19.
[1046] Barbier, _La discipline_, Paris 1888. Quoted at greater length
by Quick, _Educational Reformers_, pp. 60-62.
[1047] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2.
[1048] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 19, no. 5.
[1049] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2, No. 4.
[1050] _Reg. com._ 43.
[1051] Jouvancy, _Ratio Docendi_, ch. 3, art. 2, 5.
[1052] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 14.--Kropf, _Ratio et Via_, ch. 5,
art. 1, § 8.
[1053] Quoted in the Chicago _Open Court_, January 1902, p. 29.
[1054] _Matth._ 12, 20.--Father Faber remarks in his _Spiritual
Conferences_: “There is a peculiar clearness about characters which
have learned to be true after having been deceitful.”--The humiliating
consciousness of having been found guilty of deceit, and the yearning
desire to be trusted again, forces them to renounce everything like
untruth, and to keep guard over themselves, lest they fall again into
the old habit.--See the beautiful chapter (XII): “On being true and
trusty” in _Practical Notes on Moral Training_, with preface by Father
Gallway, S. J., London, Burns & Oates.
[1055] _Matth._ 11, 29.
[1056] Pachtler, vol. I, pp. 159-160.
[1057] 1. _Thess._ 2, 7.
[1058] Words of King Arthur in _Morte d’Arthur_.
[1059] _John_ 15, 5.
[1060] _John_ 14, 13.
[1061] 1. _Cor._ 3, 6.
[1062] _James_ 1, 5.
[1063] _Reg. com. mag. cl. inf._ 10.
[1064] _Paraenesis_, art. 15.
[1065] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. I, art. 1.
[1066] _James_ 5, 16.
CHAPTER XX.
The Teacher’s Motives and Ideals.
The teacher’s life is a most arduous one. Like that of the scholar
and scientist it presents few attractions. It has none of the external
brilliant dramatic quality that makes the soldier’s and stateman’s
career attractive, and as its material remuneration is relatively
scanty, and the chance of promotion to a lucrative position is almost
excluded, it can make little impression on an age whose watchwords are
exterior success and material progress.[1067] Still, the teacher’s
mission is one of the greatest importance while touched with sublimity.
It is in a way a “priestly” office, for the material on which the
teacher works is the mind, the immortal soul of man; his object is
truly “sacerdotal,” namely to consecrate these souls to their Creator,
to make them more God-like in wisdom and moral goodness. The teacher is
also entrusted with the destinies of society; the children and youths
whom he now trains will one day be the heads of families, the parents
of a new generation, the men that powerfully influence public opinion
for good or ill, in the press and from the platform, the citizens whose
vote will make or mar their country. Surely, this is a profession that
deserves the enthusiasm of noble hearts and the absorbing interest of
the ablest minds.
In the case of the Jesuit teacher there can be no question of a
material compensation. What he needs for his sustenance is furnished by
the Order; beyond this he seeks no earthly reward. In this all members
of the Order are equally situated: the professor of philosophy and the
teacher of the lowest grammar class, the President of the college, and
the lay brother who acts as porter. What, then, are the motives that
inspire him to undergo willingly and cheerfully the labors and trials
of his profession? They are in the first place the consideration of
the _utility_ and the _dignity_ of his calling. He is convinced that
teaching is a grand and noble profession. St. Gregory Nazianzen says:
“There is nothing more God-like than to benefit others;”[1068] and what
benefit can be greater than that of education, as we have described it
in previous chapters: the making of man, the harmonious development
of all his faculties, the fitting him for best performing the duties
of this life and the preparing him for the life to come? Is not this
thought a reward as well as a powerful incentive for the teacher to
exert himself most strenuously in his sublime vocation?
The Jesuits Sacchini and Jouvancy have written some beautiful passages
on this subject. Their comparisons may seem to some far-fetched or
even fantastic, but they will appear natural and appropriate to every
person who views things in the light of the teaching of the Great
Master. These two Jesuits say that the school may be considered as a
_garden_, a nursery,[1069] in which the choicest trees and flowers are
cultivated, plants whose saplings are not brought from the tropics,
but from heaven, whither they are again to be transplanted, when fully
grown. They are, under the tender and prudent care of the teacher, to
yield abundant fruit of virtues, of human and divine wisdom. They are
to become the ornaments of Church, State and society. They are the
plants of which the Son of Sirach said: “Hear me, ye divine offspring
and bud forth as the rose planted by the brooks of waters, give ye a
sweet odor as frankincense. Send forth flowers, as the lily, and bring
forth leaves in grace.”[1070] In this garden the teacher, like him
“who sowed the good seed,” has to sow and to plant by instruction,
to dig and to water by practice and exercise, to weed and to prune
by salutary admonition, to fence and restrain by wise regulations.
Besides, the virtuous example of the teacher combined with cheerfulness
in performing all his duties, will be the atmosphere in which the
plants grow wonderfully. However, the husbandman can plant and water,
but not prevent storms and hail and frost and drought, and, therefore,
implores heaven’s protection for his fields; so the teacher must see
the necessity of divine blessing for his class, a grace which will be
given to humble and fervent prayer.
The teacher may consider himself the _shepherd_ of the tender lambs
of the flock of Christ.[1071] The children, in a special sense, may
be called the lambs of Christ’s flock. The teacher’s duty is to feed
them, to lead them to the wholesome pasture and to the clear springs of
divine and human knowledge. He must protect them against the wolves,
especially those that “are clothed in sheepskins,” that come in the
garb of agnostic and infidel science, or in the glittering dress of
pernicious reading. He must protect his flock without sparing himself,
not fly from dangers and exertions like the hireling, but must be
ready to “give his life for his sheep,” that means, he must sacrifice
himself, devote all his time and strength to his class. He should “go
before his sheep” by his good example, attract them by kindness and
meekness, that they may “know his voice and follow him, and fly not
from him as from a stranger whose voice they know not.”[1072]
Again, is not the teacher to be compared to a _sculptor_, or a
_painter_?[1073] We admire the masterpieces of Phidias, Praxiteles,
Lysippus, of Michael Angelo and Raphael. And yet, the teacher’s art
is far nobler. Those artists produced likenesses of marble or bronze,
likenesses that are cold and lifeless, whereas the teacher is working
at living statues. Those artists could produce only exterior likenesses
of men or of superior beings; the teacher shapes the innermost nature
of man. Nay, more, the Christian teacher endeavors to bring out more
beautifully the image of God. Christ, the true teacher of mankind is
his ideal and model. In prayer and meditation on the life of Christ,
he studies line after line of him to whom he applies the words of the
royal prophet: “Thou art beautiful above the sons of men, grace is
poured abroad in thy lips. With thy comeliness and beauty set out,
proceed prosperously and reign.”[1074] Having grasped this beauty he
tries to express in his own character, and then to embody in the hearts
of his pupils that heavenly beauty of purity, humility, meekness and
charity which shines forth from every word and action of the God-man.
Thus he is making real living pictures of Christ, which for all
eternity shall be ornaments in heaven, the trophies of the labors and
struggles of the zealous teacher. And whereas the greatest artist can
work only at one statue or picture at the same time, the teacher is
working on as many as he has auditors.
The teacher is an _architect_; he does not build merely a splendid city
hall, nor a national capitol, nor even a cathedral of stone or marble:
he builds up those living temples, of which St. Paul speaks: “Know you
not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you?”[1075]
The teacher is the _tutor of the sons of the Most High_. King Philip
of Macedon chose Aristotle as preceptor to his son Alexander, an office
which the great philosopher discharged for many years. The letter
which Philip wrote to invite Aristotle, is said to have been couched
in the following terms: “Be informed that I have a son, and that I am
thankful to the gods not so much for his birth as that he was born in
the same age with you; for if you will undertake the charge of his
education, I assure myself that he will become worthy of his father
and of the kingdom which he will inherit.” King Philip’s hope was not
disappointed. His son, Alexander the Great, became one of the greatest
figures in human history, and his success is partly due to his great
teacher. At all times it was a much coveted honor to be the tutor to
the sons of Emperors, Kings, Princes, and other high personages. Is not
every Christian teacher tutor to the sons of the King of Kings?[1076]
St. John says: “Behold, what manner of charity the Father has bestowed
upon us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God.”[1077]
Lastly, the teacher should consider himself the _representative_ and
_successor_ of Christ in his love for his children. No feature in the
life of the Teacher of mankind is more fascinating than his love for
children. The Gospels commemorate a scene of unspeakable tenderness
and sweetness. “Then little children were brought to him that he might
touch them.”[1078] He does not bless them together, but lays his hands
on every child, and takes one after the other in his arms. From this
scene Christian teachers must learn an important lesson: love and
reverence for children. Indeed, princes of heaven are appointed their
guardians, and the teacher should be like them in watchful care for the
young. This care is all the more necessary as the teacher in higher
schools has to do with the young when the first and most attractive
chapter of their history is already over, at the time when the storms
of temptations rage most furiously in their hearts. With Christ’s
love for children must frequently be united the good _Samaritan’s_
compassion and anxious solicitude for the wayfarer who fell among the
robbers. Frequently enough there is sad need of the teacher’s fatherly
care, not only in the case of the children of the poor but also of the
rich. Some wealthy parents pride themselves that they do all in their
power to procure for their children the best possible education, from
the best instructors in elocution, music, gymnastics, etc., and yet
that which above all is education--moral and religious training--is
sadly neglected, owing to the indifference that pervades the family
life. In consequence of this neglect of the most important part of
education, it has happened that many a man ended his life in disgrace
and wretchedness whose childhood was spent among the luxuries of a
splendid home. Fortunate is the youth who is placed under the tutelage
of teachers who endeavor to counteract the baneful influences of a
neglected or ill-directed home training. These considerations explain
the anxious care and strenuous exertions of religious teachers to
promote the moral training of their charges. They realize that now is
the spring-time of life when the good seed must be sown, if a rich
harvest is to be hoped for in the autumn. They know that now their
work is most useful, most promising of success. Now the pupil’s nature
is docile and pliable as wax. And if it were hard as marble, still
the material is not yet spoiled and may be shaped into a beautiful
statue, and it should not be forgotten, of the hardest marble the
most endurable statues are made, though with greater care and labor.
Similarly the most stubborn and headstrong of boys, under patient and
prudent guidance, often develop into the finest character of manhood.
To the Jesuit these considerations furnish powerful incentives, the
motives which inspire him in all his work. St. Ignatius, in calling
his Order the Society of Jesus, wished to impress it forcibly on the
minds of his sons that they were to endeavor to imitate him whose name
they bear, especially in his zeal for the glory of his Father and the
welfare of men. Indeed, other educators may take as their guides and
ideals Spencer, or Rousseau, or Kant, or Pestalozzi, or Herbart--the
Jesuits’ guide and ideal is Christ.[1079] Him they are told to imitate
in his devotion to his life-work, in his all-embracing zeal, in his
patience and meekness. In education they behold a participation in the
work of the Great Master, that work whose end and object it is to make
men truly wise, good, and God-like, and thereby to lead them to true
happiness. Can there be a nobler, a loftier work, a holier mission on
earth?
When the teacher thus reflects on the dignity of his work, and on its
necessity and utility for the individual, the family, the State and
the Church, can he ever become tired and disgusted with it? Are all
these considerations not most encouraging, and do they not constitute
one of the rewards of the teacher? He may truly say with the sacred
writer: “Wisdom I have learned without guile and communicate without
envy and her riches I hide not,”[1080] and again: “I have not labored
for myself alone, but for all who seek discipline.”[1081] Such thoughts
may well inspire a man with love and enthusiasm for this profession.
To the Jesuit the educational work is a labor of love. We read that in
the seventeenth century, in the period of witch panic, some Protestant
writers charged the Jesuits with using secret charms in order to attach
the pupils to themselves and to advance them in learning.[1082] Indeed,
the Jesuits as educators have a spell, and make no secret of it, but
they will be glad if others wish to borrow it. This spell is nothing
but ardent _devotion_ to their work, a devotion which springs from
the conviction of the importance and usefulness of their work. This
devotion is their strongest motive to action and it urges them to use
all the resources within their reach.
Although the teacher does not seek himself in his work, nevertheless he
labors also for himself. What better compensation can there be than the
thought of performing so important a work, the conviction that through
his instrumentality noble characters are formed, that some youths are
preserved in their innocence and others led back from evil paths on
which they had trodden in their ignorance and levity? The teacher may
not receive much recognition and gratitude for his efforts--youths
do not reflect on the debts they owe to a zealous teacher--, nor is
it this that he is looking for in his labors. However, some pupils
will show their thankfulness by a lifelong affection for their former
master. If one wishes to know with what reverence, devotion, and
frequently with what attachment Jesuit pupils regard their teachers,
let him read the biographies of Jesuit educators. The letters written
by former pupils sufficiently testify to the impressions made by their
religious teachers.
If one wishes to see beautiful specimens of the relation of Jesuit
pupils to their teachers, he may read the biography of Father Alexis
Clerc, who left the French Navy to become a Jesuit and professor of
mathematics and was shot by the Communards in Paris 1871.[1083]
But it is rather the success of his pupils over which the teacher
rejoices, than their tribute of gratitude. An incident is related of
the life of Father Bonifacio, a distinguished Jesuit teacher of the
Old Society, who for more than forty years taught the classics. One
day he was visited by his brother, a professor in a university, whom
he had not seen for many years. When the professor heard that the
Father had spent all the years of his life in the Society in teaching
Latin and Greek to young boys, he exclaimed: “You have wasted your
great talents in such inferior work! I expected to find you at least a
professor of philosophy or theology. What have you done that this post
is assigned to you?” Father Bonifacio quietly opened a little book,
and showed him the list of hundreds of pupils whom he had taught, many
of whom occupied high positions in Church or State, or in the world
of business. Pointing at their names, the Father said with a pleasant
smile: “The success which my pupils have achieved is to me a far
sweeter reward than any honor which I might have obtained in the most
celebrated university of the kingdom.”
Not all teachers may have the consolation of seeing their pupils in
high positions. It happens that the best efforts of a devoted teacher
seem to be lost on many pupils. Even this will not discourage the
religious teacher. He will remember that his model, Jesus Christ, did
not reap the fruit which might have been expected from the teaching
of such a Master. Not all that he sowed brought forth fruit, a
hundredfold, not even thirtyfold. Some fell upon stony ground, and
some other fell among the thorns, and yet he went on patiently sowing.
So a teacher ought not to be disheartened if the success should not
correspond with his labors. He knows that one reward is certainly in
store for him, the measure of which will not be his success, but his
zeal; not the fruit, but his efforts. The Great Master has promised
that “whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup
of cold water, he shall not lose his reward.”[1084] What, then, may
he expect, who has given the little ones of Christ not a cup of cold
water, but with great patience and labor has opened to them the streams
of knowledge, human and divine? Indeed, “they that instruct many to
justice shall shine as stars for all eternity.”[1085]
FOOTNOTES:
[1067] See _Brownson’s Review_, 1860, pp. 303 and 314.
[1068] Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, vol. XXXV, 892.
[1069] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 5, no. 1-2.
[1070] _Ecclesiasticus_ 39, 17 sq.
[1071] Sacchini, _Paraenesis_, art. 5, no. 3.
[1072] _John_ 10, 4. 5. 11.
[1073] Sacchini, _Protrepticon_, Part I, art. 8.
[1074] _Psalm_ 44, 3 sq.
[1075] 1. _Cor._ 3, 16.
[1076] Sacchini, _Protrepticon_, Part I, art. 12.
[1077] 1 _John_ 3, 1.
[1078] _Mark_ 10, 13.
[1079] On the “Pedagogy of Our Lord” there is a beautiful article by
Father Meschler, S. J., in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. 38,
1890, p. 265 foll.
[1080] _The Book of Wisdom_ 7, 13.
[1081] _Ecclesiasticus_ 33, 18.
[1082] See above pp. 147-148.
[1083] _Alexis Clerc, Sailor and Martyr_, New York, Sadlier, 1879.
See especially chap. XII: “Father Clerc and his pupils.” It may be
interesting to add that the American edition of this biography is
dedicated to the memory of Father Andrew Monroe, S. J. (grand-nephew of
President Monroe), officer in the American Navy and a convert to the
Catholic faith, who, after spending his religious life, like his friend
Father Clerc, chiefly in the humble duties of a professor, died at St.
Francis Xavier College, New York, 1871.
[1084] _Matth._ 10, 42.
[1085] _Daniel_ 12, 3.
Conclusion.
We have examined the educational system of the Jesuits in its various
aspects, its history and its principles, its theory and practice, its
aims and means. There are few of its principles which have not been
censured by some of its opponents. But we have also seen that there
is hardly one principle in it which has not been heartily recommended
by most distinguished educators, Protestants as well as Catholics. We
have seen that on many lines there is, at present, a decided return to
what the Jesuits defended and practised all along.[1086] Can it then be
said in justice that the Jesuit system is antiquated and that little
can be hoped for it, and from its principles, in the improvement of
education at present? Or can it be said with a modern writer that “the
regulations of the Jesuit system of studies, viewed in the light of
modern requirements, need not shun any comparison, and the pedagogical
wisdom contained therein, is in no way antiquated”?[1087] Another
writer declared a few years ago, with reference to modern school
systems: “Those now living may desire that in the new much of the old
may be preserved which has proved of benefit.”[1088] May it not be said
that much, very much, of the Jesuit system should be preserved, and
that many of its principles and regulations could, with best advantage,
be followed in the education of the present day? We leave it to the
impartial reader to pass judgment. It is true that in our times Jesuit
education is not viewed with favor by the many. To some it is too
religious, too “clerical;” to others it appears old-fashioned. For this
reason it is not popular; popular favor is never bestowed on what seems
old. It is the novelty that attracts, and the bolder the innovations,
the more captivating for the large majority of the people. This is as
true now as it was 2600 years ago when old Homer sang:
“For novel lays attract our ravished ears;
But old, the mind with inattention hears.”
And yet the novel songs are not always the best.--As to the Jesuits,
they know full well that there are not many who will take the trouble
to investigate thoroughly their educational system, in order to pass
a fair and independent judgment on its merit, but that there are many
who will content themselves with repeating the verdict passed on this
system by others who were either ignorant of its true character, or
were misled in their estimates by prejudice. Hence the Jesuits do
not expect that the misrepresentations of their system will ever
cease; their experience of three hundred years has taught them not to
entertain such sanguine hopes. On the other hand, this same experience
has taught them another valuable lesson, namely, not to be disheartened
by the antipathy and opposition of those who do not know them, but to
continue their efforts to realize, to the best of their ability, in the
education of Catholic youth that which they have chosen as their motto:
_The greater glory of God, and the welfare of their fellow-men._
FOOTNOTES:
[1086] See especially chapter XVI.
[1087] See above p. 288.
[1088] Dr. Nohle of Berlin, in the _Report of the Commissioner of
Education_, 1897-1898, vol. I, p. 82.
APPENDIX I.
Additions and Corrections.
CHAPTER I.
Observations on American Histories of Education.[1089]
In the course of the present book we have frequently had occasion
to point out that the histories of education by Painter, Seeley and
Compayré are utterly untrustworthy in their account of the Jesuit
system, and of Catholic education in general. It is natural to infer
that in other respects they may be equally unreliable. Professor
Cubberley, in his recent _Syllabus of Lectures on the History of
Education_ (New York, Macmillan, 1902), says, on page 1, that the works
of “Painter, Payne, and Seeley are very unsatisfactory, and are not
referred to in the Syllabus.” The same should have been done as regards
Compayré; for his _History of Pedagogy_ is as unsatisfactory as those
mentioned before; it only assumes an air of impartiality, which makes
it all the more insidious. (See the present book, pp. 10-11.) Some
writers quote from the Ratio Studiorum, but the quotations are often
mistranslated in such a manner that they are hardly recognizable when
compared with the original. Setting aside the disastrous influence
which antipathy and prejudice may have had on some writers, the
following reasons may account for many errors. The Ratio Studiorum is
in many respects a peculiar document, which is unintelligible unless
one is acquainted with the Latin terminology of scholastic philosophy
and theology, and there are exceedingly few non-Catholic writers on
education who possess this knowledge. Further, numerous regulations
of the Ratio are clear only when explained by other documents of the
Society, which have either not been known, or not been examined by
these writers. Another difficulty is to be found in the fact that the
Ratio contains also the regulations for the studies of the members of
the Society. Some writers have confounded rules for the novices and
scholastics of the Order with regulations for the lay pupils in the
colleges. Thus what is said in the _Constitutions_ of the Society about
the obedience to be rendered to Superiors by the Jesuits themselves,
Mr. Painter has applied to the lay students. (_Hist. of Ed._, p.
170.) Evidently an entirely false impression must be produced by such
confusion.
However, in most cases it is almost certain that these writers
have not taken the trouble to examine the Ratio Studiorum, but have
contented themselves with copying the assertions of untrustworthy
secondary authorities. Raumer’s _History of Education_ seems still
to be considered by some a reliable source. Even Professor Cubberley
styles it “still quite valuable” (_l. c._). And yet this work is
altogether antiquated. Besides, in regard to Catholic education it is
so biased that fair-minded Protestants have rejected many parts of it.
Thus Henry Barnard, in his translation of the chapter on the Jesuit
schools, says: “We omit in this place as well as towards the close
of the article, several passages of Raumer’s chapter on the Jesuits,
in which he discusses, from the extreme Protestant stand-point, the
influence of the confessional, and the principles of what he calls
‘Jesuitical’ morality. These topics, and especially when handled
in a partisan spirit, are more appropriate to a theological and
controversial, than to an educational journal. The past as well as
the present organization of the schools of the Jesuits, the course
of instruction, the methods of teaching and discipline, are worthy
of profound study by teachers and educators, who would profit by the
experience of wise and learned men.” (_American Journal of Education_,
vol. V, p. 215.) However, even in the statements which Barnard
accepted from Raumer, there are not a few that are incorrect. Owing to
protests of Raumer, Barnard, in the VI. volume of his journal, added
the passages which he had omitted in the previous translation. The
misrepresentations which Raumer had borrowed from Pascal and others,
need not be dwelt on here.
Nor is the estimate of the Jesuit system correct which is found in
the _History of Modern Education_, by Samuel H. Williams, Professor
of the Science and Art of Teaching, in Cornell University. The author
evidently endeavored at times to be impartial, but he was not fortunate
in the choice of his sources. They were evidently not the original
documents. Otherwise he would not have been betrayed into such absurd
statements as this: “The teachers were mostly novices of the Order,
with a much smaller number of the fully professed brothers.” Now, as
the chapter on the “Training of the Jesuit Teacher” proves, novices are
not employed in teaching, and the Jesuit is not engaged in teaching
until after a training of five or six years succeeding the _completion_
of the novitiate. The expression “fully professed brothers,” also,
shows that this author knows very little about Jesuit teachers.
Mr. Shoup, in his _History and Science of Education_, admits many good
features in the Jesuit system; he expressly states that it has many
points in common with American methods, but then his authorities lead
him away into the old tirades of “neglecting mathematics, sciences,
practical knowledge; suppressing of independent thought,” etc.
We gladly acknowledge that the latest American book on the subject,
Mr. Kemp’s _History of Education_ (Lippincott, 1902), is, in point of
impartiality, superior to most other works. On the whole, it is free
from offensive attacks on the relation of the Church to education.
However, we must say that it is not free from assertions which cannot
stand in the light of modern historical research. Particularly in
chapter XV, many statements need considerable correction, v. g., the
assertion that before the Reformation “the large majority of the people
felt no need of education and took little interest in it.” With this
should be compared the authors from whom we quoted on p. 23 _sqq._
On p. 172, Mr. Kemp repeats Green’s assertions about the Grammar
schools founded by Henry VIII. But Mr. Arthur F. Leach has proved,
from incontestable documents, that this is a pure myth, and that the
statements of Green and Mullinger are a distortion of the historical
facts. In his _English Schools at the Reformation_ (Westminster,
Archibald Constable, 1896), Mr. Leach says: “The records appended to
this book show that close on 200 Grammar [secondary] schools existed in
England before the reign of Edward VI., which were, for the most part,
abolished or crippled under him.... It will appear, however, that these
records are defective.... three hundred Grammar schools is a moderate
estimate of the number in the year 1535, when the floods of the great
revolution were let loose. Most of them were swept away either under
Henry or his son; or if not swept away, they were plundered and
damaged” (pp. 5-6). Of the character of these schools the author says
that they were not mere “monkish” schools, but secondary schools of
exactly the same type as the secondary schools of the present day.
Considering the population of England at the time, there were previous
to the Reformation more higher schools in England than at present; in
Herefordshire, v. g., 17 higher schools for a population of 30,000!
Nearly every town had a higher school. (_Ib._, 99-100.) Mr. Leach
confesses that his researches revolutionize the traditional view of
pre-Reformation schools in England, and that on this account his book
was looked upon unfavorably by some people.--We call attention to these
facts, because they show how the current tradition has influenced
men who earnestly endeavor to be impartial. Had all American writers
been animated by the spirit of fair-mindedness and zeal for correct
information which distinguished that excellent American educator, and
first U. S. Commissioner of Education, Henry Barnard, the cause of
truth and justice would have been better served in this country.
CHAPTER II.
The Brethren of the Common Life.
What is said on pp. 31-34 about the Brethren, must partly be
corrected. Recent investigations have proved that they were not, as
Raumer had represented them, an order of teachers like the Jesuits.
They taught, indeed, in a few schools, as in that of Liège; but in
most schools with which they were connected, they received boarders
and looked chiefly after their moral and religious training, while the
secular instruction was in the hands of other teachers, who, however,
were mostly imbued with the spirit of the Brethren. See Paulsen,
_Geschichte des g. U._, 2nd ed., vol. I, pp. 158-160, where this author
modifies, in the same way, the statements expressed in the first
edition of his work. Further see the recent valuable work on _Jakob
Wimpfeling_, by Dr. Knepper (Herder, 1902), page 7.
CHAPTERS V AND VII.
Jesuit Scholars.
CHAPTER V, p. 156.--The importance of Father Saccheri’s work is
being recognized more and more. Professor Ricci of Padua contributed
a highly interesting article to the _Jahresbericht der mathematischen
Verbindung_ (Vol. XI, October-December 1902), on the “Origin and
Development of the Modern Conception of the Foundations of Geometry.”
There it is said that “Saccheri’s works prove him a man of indisputable
merit, and one of the first geometricians of his century.... The
_Euclides vindicatus_ alone is a work which could claim the labors of
a whole life. In this work he erects an edifice of classical beauty
which testifies to the extraordinary ability and geometrical taste of
the architect.” It is a perplexing problem to modern mathematicians
how Saccheri could endeavor to refute his own arguments, with which he
had so ably attacked the Euclidian system. Of this attempt Professor
Ricci says: “To-day it is hard to understand that a man of so sublime
an intellect did not see the truth which he almost could grasp with his
hands, and that he stubbornly tried to destroy with sophisms what he
had built up with so much correct geometrical skill. Able and sagacious
as he is in constructing his system, he is awkward and unskilful,
in tearing it down.”--If for once I may be allowed to venture a
conjecture, I would ask: Is it not possible that Saccheri _did_
grasp the truth, but did not think fit to publish it boldly? He may
have feared lest his contemporaries would raise a cry of indignation
against such a mathematical heresy. Besides, as at that time such
hypotheses would have been looked upon as mere freaks, there may have
been apprehensions that the publication of such a work would injure
the reputation of the college in which Saccheri taught mathematics.
The attacks on the Jesuits on account of the bold theories of Hardouin
(see p. 160), and similar instances in which the whole Society was
reprehended for the attitude of individuals, would have been a
sufficient cause for the wariness of the author. If this explanation
were the correct one, it would certainly account for the weakness of
the arguments which he used to pull down his splendid structure. These
arguments, accordingly, would have been merely a thin veil to hide the
purport of his work. I communicated this conjecture to Father Hagen
of Georgetown, and was surprised to learn that this distinguished
mathematician had given the same explanation of the curious phenomenon
to Professor Halsted of the University of Texas, the translator of
Father Saccheri’s works. However, this is only a conjecture, though
not void of probability. But even if the author did not see the full
truth of his deductions at the time, this has happened to many great
discoverers. Professor Whewell says of Kepler, with reference to a
similar instance, that it seems strange that he did not fully succeed;
“but this lot of missing what afterwards seems to have been obvious,
is a common one in the pursuit of truth.” (_History of the Inductive
Sciences_, vol. II, p. 56. Appleton’s ed., 1859.)
CHAPTER VII.
Among the Jesuit scholars of the last decades mention should have
been made of the sinologist Father Angelo Zottoli, who died in the
College of Zi-ka-wei, near Shanghai, November 9, 1902. In 1876, Baron
von Richthofen, in his work on China, expressed his regret that the
Jesuit missionaries of recent times had not succeeded in regaining
the scientific prestige of the Old Society. But a few years after, in
1879, the first volumes of a work appeared which inaugurated a new
period in the scientific activity of the Jesuits in China. This was
Father Zottoli’s _Cursus Literaturae Sinicae_. When the work had been
completed in five volumes, it put the humble religious in the front
rank of sinologists. It has been styled “a landmark in the history of
Chinese philology,” and received the great prize of the _Académie des
Inscriptions et des belles Lettres_. Mr. Legge, formerly a Protestant
missionary in China, and one of the foremost sinologists of our age,
declares that in Father Zottoli’s _Cursus_ “the scholarship of the
earlier Jesuit missionaries has revived.” (In vol. XXVII of the _Sacred
Books of the East_, Preface, p. XIII.) In Father Zottoli’s school some
able Jesuit sinologists were trained, who now publish their researches
in a special review, the _Variétés Sinologiques_, whose scholarly
character has been frequently attested to by the foremost orientalists.
Father Zottoli was engaged for thirty years in writing a gigantic
Chinese dictionary. The ablest of his pupils are now completing this
work. (See _Kölnische Volkszeitung_, Wochenausgabe, January 1, 1903.)
Some readers may be surprised at the list of Jesuit writers--we have
enumerated only a small fraction of the number of scholars that well
deserve to be known better than is the case--, and ask why so little
is said about them in works that treat of the history of the various
sciences. It is not because their works are not of great importance
for science. The explanation may be found in a remarkable utterance of
the celebrated Kepler, the prince of astronomers: “Alas for prejudice
and hatred! If a Jesuit writes anything, it is completely ignored by
the adherents of Scaliger.” Allusion is made to the famous controversy
on chronology between the Protestant Scaliger and the Jesuit Petavius
(see page 160). The same may be said of many another scientific
discussion. Kepler himself, though a Protestant, was not afraid of
being a friend of Jesuit scholars, nor of asking their opinion on many
of the important questions which he was investigating. (See _Johann
Kepler, der Gesetzgeber der neueren Astronomie_, by Adolph Müller, S.
J., Professor of astronomy in the Gregorian University in Rome [Herder,
1903]; see especially chapters 12 and 17, and page 166.)
CHAPTER VIII.
The Recent Educational Troubles in France.
On page 265 it is said that the non-Catholic view of the Jesuits is
not based on historical facts, but largely on works of fiction. A case
in point is Zola’s posthumous novel, the English edition of which was
issued in this country in February, 1903. The subject of this work was
announced as “illustrating the keenly antagonistic influences of the
_Jesuitical_ and secular parties in France, as instanced in the recent
educational troubles.” Though the book is styled “Truth,” it is in
reality a tissue of falsehoods and enormous charges, not only against
the religious orders, but the Catholic Church as such. The Baltimore
_Sun_, February 19, 1903, says in a very judicious criticism, that the
author “asserts and asserts, but, behold! of proof there is little or
nothing. This, however, will make no difference to those readers to
whom this diatribe appeals [among them the same paper reckons those who
hate the Catholic Church, and who welcome any attack that may be made
upon it]. In the present instance Zola has, seemingly, cared little
about the truth of his statements.” The book furnishes a strong proof
of what we said on page 268, namely, that the present persecution of
the teaching Congregations in France is in reality a brutal attack on
Christianity and all religion. Zola says little about Jesuit education,
but what is meant by secular education, is set forth in clearest light:
All religious beliefs and observances are derided, every sign of
religion is to be banished from the school, women are to be emancipated
from the influence of the Church, experimental science is to take the
place of religion in school and private life. It is the old Voltairian
_Écrasez l’infâme_! This is the antagonist of “Jesuitical” education!
(On this subject see the article of M. Brunetière, in the _Revue des
Deux Mondes_, December 15, 1902: “The Laws of Proscription in France,”
translated in the _Catholic Mind_, New York, 1903, no. 2).
For the Catholic view of the educational movement in France during the
last decade we refer to the _Études_, which contain many excellent
articles not only on the religious side of the question, but also
on modern school reforms, the classics, etc. See especially volumes
54 (page 100 _sqq._), 57 (page 345 _sqq._), 69 (page 224. _sqq._),
70 (page 496 _sqq._), 78 (page 21 _sqq._), 79 (page 41 _sqq._), 84
(page 654 _sqq._), 86 (page 29 _sqq._ and 501 _sqq._). In the volume
mentioned in the last place, the article: _L’Enseignement classique
en Allemagne, son rôle pédagogique_, contains interesting comparisons
between the French and German secondary schools.
CHAPTERS X-XII.
“Impressions of American Education.”
Under the above title, the _Educational Review_ (March, 1903)
published an address delivered by Mr. Sadler, at the Annual Congress
of the Educational Institute, Glasgow, Scotland, December 30, 1902.
Mr. Sadler admires many features in American education: the hearty
belief of Americans in the value of education, the sacrifices they
make for it, etc. But he discovers also the following defects and
weaknesses: 1) In some cases municipal corruption has baleful results
in the sphere of educational administration. 2) There is a grave
doubt whether the stricter forms of intellectual discipline have not
been unduly sacrificed in many American schools. The besetting sin
of some modern methods of education is that they stimulate interest
without laying corresponding stress on intellectual discipline. As it
were, they feed the children on sweeties and plumcake, in a strenuous
revolt against an austere tradition of too much oatmeal porridge.
Nor does home discipline restore the balance. The younger Americans
find it difficult to focus their attention on uncongenial tasks. An
insidious evil is the tendency on the part of teachers to make lessons
interesting by avoiding the harder, duller, and more disciplinary
parts of the subjects. Another evil is the excessive encouraging,
among young children, of what is called “self-realization”, even
occasionally to the point of impertinence. 3) Lack of severe discipline
leads to a third weakness,--superficiality,--with its attendant evils,
exaggeration in language and love of excitement. The Americans do not
as yet sufficiently allow for the slow percolation of ideas into the
mind. They make too many short cuts. They are too fond of the last new
thing. They forget that a pupil gains true independence of taste and
judgment by slowly and thoroughly working his way, under guidance and
with encouragement, through masterpieces as a whole, and through masses
of the same kind of work, often against the grain. All true culture
has in it an element of stubbornness and persistence, which must be
acquired through the lessons of life, and the lessons of the school,
which ought to prepare for life. 4) A fourth danger proceeds from the
tendency of American men to become unduly concentrated in business
pursuits. Many Americans sterilize part of their nature by too great
absorption in the excitement and struggles of commercial competition.
This overzeal for business forms an atmosphere which cannot but affect
educational ideals. Intense absorption in commercial enterprise is
not an aim worthy to dominate the thoughts and lives of the rising
generation of a great people. The noble answer of the Short Catechism
to the question: “What is the chief end of man?”, deserves not to be
forgotten in commercial pursuits.
It may be well to compare these statements with what has been said
in the chapters on the “Intellectual Scope,” “Prescribed Courses or
Elective Studies,” and “Classical Studies”.
FOOTNOTES:
[1089] See also the interesting article: “The History of Education. A
Plea for the Study of Original Sources,” by the Rev. W. Turner, D. D.,
in the new and promising _Review of Catholic Pedagogy_, January, 1903.
APPENDIX II.
Bibliography.
I. Primary Sources.
_The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus._ Numerous editions
in Latin. The English translation, published by a Protestant
in 1838 (London, Rivington, etc.), is very unscholarly and
unreliable.--The fourth part of the Constitutions, which treats of
the studies, is given in Latin and German in the work of Father
Pachtler quoted further on (vol. I, pp. 9-69).
_Decreta Congregationum Generalium._ (Decrees of the General
Congregations of the Society.) The General Congregation is the
legislative assembly of the Order; the decrees of different
Congregations relating to studies are contained in Father
Pachtler’s work, vol. I, pp. 70-125.
_Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum Societatis Jesu_, usually quoted as
_Ratio Studiorum_. Latin text and German translation in Pachtler’s
vol. II, and German translation in Father Duhr’s _Studienordnung_.
Pachtler, G. M., S. J. _Ratio Studiorum et Institutiones Scholasticae
Societatis Jesu per Germaniam olim vigentes._ Berlin, Hofmann,
1887-1894. Volumes II, V, IX, and XVI of the great collection
_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_, edited by Dr. Karl Kehrbach.
This is the standard work on the educational system of the
Jesuits; it contains all the most important historical documents
relating to Jesuit education, particularly in Germany. The great
value of the work has been acknowledged by numerous historians and
writers on pedagogy. (We quote: Pachtler, I, II, III, IV.)
_Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu_, Madrid, 1894 foll.
A huge collection of material relating to the early history of
the Society. Published since 1894 in monthly instalments of 160
pages each; up to February 1903 there were out 110 instalments.
The collection is a most valuable source of information for the
history of religion and education in the sixteenth century. Of
particular importance for the history of Jesuit education are
instalments 93, 97, 99, 100, 101, 194, entitled:
_Monumenta Paedagogica_, Madrid, 1901-1902.
To be carefully distinguished from Father Pachtler’s volumes in
the _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_.
The following works are important commentaries on the Ratio Studiorum:
Sacchini, F., S. J., _Paraenesis ad Magistros Scholarum Inferiorum
Societatis Jesu_, and _Protrepticon ad Magistros Scholarum
Inferiorum Societatis Jesu_ (1625).--German translation by J.
Stier, S. J., in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_,
1898, vol. X, pp. 1-185.
Jouvancy, J., S. J., _Ratio Discendi et Docendi_ (1703). Of this
important educational work (see above pp. 434-435) there exist
eighteen editions in the original Latin, a French translation
by J. Lefortier, Paris 1803, and a recent German translation:
_Lern- und Lehrmethode_, by R. Schwickerath, S. J., in Herder’s
_Bibliothek_, etc., 1898, vol. X, pp. 207-322.
Kropf, F. X., S. J., _Ratio et Via Recte atque Ordine Procedendi in
Literis Humanioribus Aetati Tenerae Tradendis_ (1736). German
translation: _Gymnasial-Pädagogik_, by F. Zorell, S. J., in
Herder’s _Bibliothek_, vol. X, pp. 323-466. (We quote Kropf,
_Ratio et Via_.)
2. Works Treating Exclusively of Jesuit Education.
Hughes, T., S. J., _Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits_.
New York, Scribners, 1892.--Belongs to the _Great Educators
Series_, edited by Nicholas Murray Butler.
Duhr, B., S. J., _Die Studienordnung der Gesellschaft Jesu_.--Freiburg
(Germany) and St. Louis, Mo., 1896.--
Contains the translation of the Ratio Studiorum (both of 1599 and
of 1832), and a valuable commentary. Father Duhr’s work is volume
IX of Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_.
Maynard, Abbé, _The Studies and Teaching of the Society of Jesus
at the Time of its Suppression_. Translated from the French.
Baltimore, John Murphy, 1855.
De Rochemonteix, C., S. J., _Un Collège de Jésuites aux XVII. et
XVIII. siècles. Le Collège Henri IV. de la Flèche._ 4 volumes. Le
Mans, Leguicheux, 1889.--
This work gives the history of one of the most flourishing
colleges of the Society in France; from detailed descriptions
based on documentary evidence, one can learn how the Ratio
Studiorum was carried into practice.
Chossat, M., S. J., _Les Jésuites et leurs oeuvres à Avignon_,
1553-1768. Avignon, Seguin, 1896.
This work, like the preceding, furnishes interesting details about
the working of the Jesuit system.
De Badts de Cugnac, A., _Les Jésuites et l’éducation_. Lille,
Desclée, 1879.
3. Works Having Particular Reference to Jesuit Education.
Paulsen, F., _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen
Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur
Gegenwart_. Leipsic, Veit and Co., 1885; second edition in two
volumes, 1896-1897.
Dr. Paulsen is one of the leading Professors of the University of
Berlin. Of the present work the _Report of the Commissioner of
Education_ (1896-1897, I, p. 199) says: “It is a most thorough
historical review of higher education known in the educational
literature of any country.” The chapter on the colleges of the
Society and the educational labors of the Jesuits (vol. I,
pp. 379-432) is far more thorough, more independent, and more
impartial, than most books written on the Jesuits by non-Catholics.
Schmid, K. A., _Geschichte der Erziehung vom Anfang bis auf unsere
Zeit_. 5 volumes in 10 parts, by a number of scholars and
educators. Stuttgart, Cotta, 1884-1901 (Part 3 of volume V, which
will complete this great history of education, is not yet out).
On Jesuit education see volume III, Abteilung 1, pp. 1-109 (by
Prof. Dr. Müller of Dresden); pp. 159-175 (“Jesuit Colleges in
France,” by Dr. E. von Sallwürk, Karlsruhe).--Volume IV, Abteilung
1, pp. 455-467; 538-543.--Volume V, Abteilung 2, pp. 176-221
(“Jesuit Education since 1600; Suppression and Restoration of the
Society; the Revised Ratio Studiorum,” by Dr. von Sallwürk).--The
articles on the Jesuit schools are not free from some serious
misinterpretations of the Ratio Studiorum. Especially Dr. Müller
has misunderstood and rendered falsely several passages. In other
cases, he applies to the secular students of Jesuit Colleges rules
which are only for the younger members of the Society engaged in
studies (_scholastics_).
Ziegler, T., _Geschichte der Pädagogik_. Munich, Beck, 1895. Is part
1, of vol. I of the _Handbuch der Erziehungs- und Unterrichtslehre für
höhere Schulen_, edited by Dr. A. Baumeister.
Dr. Ziegler, Professor of Philosophy and Pedagogy in the
University of Strasburg, is a prominent writer on education in
Germany. In point of impartiality he is inferior to Professor
Paulsen.
Willmann, O., _Didaktik als Bildlungslehre_. 2 volumes, Braunschweig,
Vieweg, second edition, 1894.
The author, a pupil of Herbart, became a Catholic, and is now
Professor of Philosophy and Pedagogy in the University of Prague,
and one of the ablest educational writers in the German tongue.
His _Didaktik_ is one of the most important pedagogical works
published within the last decades.
Quick, H., _Educational Reformers_. London, Longmans, Green and Co.,
1868. The revised edition forms part of the _International Education
Series_, New York, Appleton, 1890.
Jourdain, C., _Histoire de l’Université de Paris aux 17e et 18e
siècles_. 2 volumes. Paris, Didot, 1888.
A very valuable work; gives an account of the struggles of the
Jesuits with the University.
Duhr, B., S. J., _Jesuitenfabeln_ (Jesuit myths). Freiburg and St.
Louis, Herder, 3. edition, 1899.
To this work readers must be referred who wish to see the
absurdity of most legends about the Jesuits. The book has, in
the words of a non-Catholic review, “done away With a heap of
calumnies against the Order.” (_Literarisches Centralblatt_,
Leipzig, 1899.)
Du Lac, S. J., _Jésuites_. Paris, Librairie Plon, 1901.
Huber, J., _Der Jesuiten-Orden_. Berlin, Habel, 1873.
Janssen, J., _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des
Mittelalters_. 8 volumes. Herder, Freiburg and St. Louis. The edition
used is the 18th of the first three volumes (1897-1899); 16th of vols.
IV and VI; 14th of vol. V; 12th of vols. VII and VIII. The first three
volumes have been translated into English:
_History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages_, by M.
A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie. 6 volumes. London, Kegan Paul, 1896,
1900, 1903, and St. Louis, Mo., Herder.
It is superfluous to comment on this famous work. No historical
work of the 19th century caused such a stir all over Europe as
the history of the Reformation period written by Janssen from the
testimony of the Reformers and their contemporaries. Unfortunately
the greater part of Dr. Janssen’s illustrative notes, in which
the chief value of the work consists, are missing in the English
version. Besides, it is not free from mistranslations; hence
the German original ought to be consulted.--Jesuit education is
chiefly treated in volumes IV, V and VII.
4. Miscellaneous Works.
Butler, N. M., _Education in the United States_. A Series of Monograms
prepared for the United States Exhibit at the Paris Exposition,
1900. Edited by Nicholas Murray Butler. Albany, J. B. Lyon
Company, 1900.
Newman, Cardinal, _Idea of a University_, and _Historical Sketches_.
London and New York, Longmans.
Russell, J. E., _German Higher Schools_. New York, Longmans, 1899.
Gives a good account of the German Gymnasium, its history,
organization and practical working.
_The Life of James McCosh._ A Record Chiefly Autobiographical. Edited
by W. M. Sloane. New York, Scribners, 1897.
The life of the President of Princeton College is deserving of the
careful study of all American teachers.
Fitch, Sir Joshua, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold and their Influence on
English Education_. New York, Scribners, 1897. (_Great Educators
Series._)
Alzog, J., _Manual of Universal Church History_. Translated from the
German by Dr. Pabisch and Professor Byrne. 3 volumes. Cincinnati,
Clarke, 1878.
Pastor, L., _The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle
Ages_. Edited by F. I. Antrobus. 6 volumes. London, John Hodges
and Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co., 1891 foll., and Herder,
St. Louis, Mo. The original German edition in 3 volumes, Herder,
Freiburg and St. Louis, Mo.
Guggenberger, A., S. J., _A General History of the Christian Era_. 3
volumes. St. Louis, Herder, 1900-1901.
Rashdall, H., _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_. 2 volumes
in 3 parts. Oxford, 1895.
Drane, A. T., _Christian Schools and Scholars, or Sketches of
Education from the Christian Era to the Council of Trent_. 2
volumes. London, Longmans, 1867.
Popularly written; in many parts antiquated.
Taylor, H. O., _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_. New York,
Columbia University Press (Macmillan), 1900.
Einstein, L., _The Italian Renaissance in England_. New York, Columbia
University Press, 1902.
Woodward, W. H., _Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators_.
Cambridge, University Press, 1897.
Gasquet, F. A., O. S. B., _The Eve of the Reformation_. London and New
York, 1900.
Baumgartner, A., S. J., _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_. Herder,
1897-1900.
Of this magnificent history of Universal Literature four volumes
are out so far. Volumes III and IV were used chiefly. (On this
great work see pp. 233-234.)
Nägelsbach, C. F., _Gymnasial-Pädagogik_. Third edition, Erlangen, 1879.
Dettweiler, P., _Didaktik und Methodik des Lateinischen_. Munich, Beck,
1895.
---- _Didaktik und Methodik des Griechischen_. Munich, Beck, 1898.
These two excellent books belong to Baumeister’s _Handbuch der
Erziehungs- und Unterrichtslehre_.
Schiller, H., _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik für höhere
Lehranstalten_. Leipsic, Reisland, 1894, 3d edition.
_Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höheren Schulen in Preussen_, 1901
(The Prussian School Order). Official edition. Halle, Waisenhaus, 1901.
_Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höheren Unterrichts._ Berlin, 6. bis
8. Juni 1900. Halle, Waisenhaus, 1902.
The transactions of the Berlin Conference on questions of higher
education.
_Report of the Commissioner of Education._ Washington, Government
Printing Office.
Chiefly used were the volumes from 1888-1901.
5. Periodicals Quoted Frequently.
American: _Educational Review_, _Atlantic Monthly_, _North American
Review_, _Forum_, _American Catholic Quarterly_, _American
Ecclesiastical Review_, _Messenger_, _The Review_, _Woodstock
Letters_ (published at Woodstock College, for private circulation).
English: _Month_, _Tablet_, _Dublin Review_, _Fortnightly Review_,
_Nineteenth Century_, _Contemporary Review_.
German: _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, _Geschichte
und deutsche Literatur und für Pädagogik_ (Leipsic, Teubner),
_Monatschrift für höhere Schulen_ (Berlin, Weidmann), _Stimmen aus
Maria-Laach_ (Freiburg, Herder).
French: _Études_ (Paris, Victor Retaux).
INDEX.
Academies, in Jesuit colleges, 518 _sqq._
Accessories, in Jesuit curriculum, 118, 125, 192.
Acosta, Jesuit writer, 159.
Adaptability, of Jesuit system, 197 _sqq._, 280-296.
Adaptation, in the Old Society, 283;
since the revision of the Ratio Studiorum, 191 _sqq._, 283 _sqq._
Affection, of pupils, as element of teacher’s authority, 612, 644.
Agricola, humanist, 33, 60, 67.
Albertus Magnus, 39, 99.
Alcala, university, 42-43, 79.
d’Alembert, 149, 174, 176.
Algué, Jesuit scientist, 230-231.
Aloysius, St., feast of students, 557;
devotion to, 559-560.
Alvarez, 121 _sqq._;
grammar, 286.
America, school reforms, 1 _sqq._, 292 _sqq._;
weaknesses of education, 293 _sqq._, 301 _sqq._, 307, 326 _sqq._,
659-661;
scholarship, 411-414;
aid to schools, 412;
classical studies, 344 _sqq._;
Jesuit colleges, 201 _sqq._;
American Histories of Education, 649 _sqq._
Ancient authors, see “Classical Studies.”
Antiquities, as taught in schools, 199, 284, 382, 451-454;
method of teaching, 486 _sqq._, 519-520;
Jesuit writers on, 157-158, 233.
Appointment, of teachers according to ability, 439-442.
Aquaviva, General of the Society of Jesus, 103, 109 _sqq._, 113.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, 39, 99;
in Jesuit system, 132, 136, 193-194.
Archæology, see “Antiquities”.
Aristotle, study of in Middle Ages, 45;
Luther’s attacks, 63;
in Jesuit system, 131, 136, 193, 283;
in Protestant schools, 136 note 262;
in modern times, 193-194.
Arnold, Matthew, on translating, 354.
Arnold, of Rugby, on general education, 306;
school exercises, 309;
Latin and Greek, 351, 356;
scholarship of teachers, 406;
dangers of boarding schools, 537 note 927, 552 note 945;
Jesuit methods, 549-550;
on athletics, 571 note 968;
religious instruction, 602-603;
cultivating truthfulness in pupils, 629.
Arnold, Thomas, son of former, 163 note 332.
Astronomers, Jesuits, 179-180, 226-229, 232.
Astronomy, in Jesuit curriculum, 131, 194.
Athletics, in college, 569 _sqq._
Auger, Jesuit writer, 593.
Austen, T., 321-322.
Authority of teacher, 610-614.
Avignon, Jesuit College, 127-128.
Azarias, Brother, 11 note 16.
Bacon, Roger, 39-40, 46.
Bacon, Francis, 39-40;
on Jesuit schools, 145.
Bain, Professor, on home lessons, 475-476;
teaching English, 491-492.
Balde, Jesuit writer, 130, 161-162.
Ballestrem, Count, on Jesuit teachers, 535.
Bancroft, G., on Jesuit colleges, 145;
Catholics in Maryland, 203.
Barbier, Jesuit educator, 623-624.
Barnard, Henry, on Jesuit schools, 650 _sqq._
Barnes, Dr., 323-324.
Barth, Professor, 566.
Bartoli, Jesuit writer, 137.
Baumgartner, Jesuit writer, 162, 233-234, 236, 238, 377, 381, 383,
384, 386, 387, 390, 391, 393, 396, 398, 401.
Bayer, Jesuit educator, 121 note 228.
Beaumont (England), Jesuit College, 257.
Beckx, General of the Society, 362 note 626;
on national and political attitude of Jesuits, 262-263;
religious instruction, 599, 604.
Beissel, Jesuit writer, 236.
Bellarmine, Robert (Cardinal), Jesuit theologian, 109;
his catechism, 592, 593 note 999.
Benedict, St., 86, 633.
Benedict XIV., Pope, Jesuit pupil, 172;
on the Sodalities, 561.
Benedictines, educational labors, 25-26, 86-87;
as historians, 160.
Bennett, Professor in Cornell University, on experimenting in
American schools, 293 note 538;
on Latin, 349 note 593;
on Roman pronunciation, 460 note 804;
on compositions, 505.
Berlin Conferences on higher studies, 136 note 262, 289-291, 333
_sqq._, 351, 356, 378, 509, 517.
Beschi, Jesuit linguist, 152.
Beirut, Jesuit University, 206.
Bible, and Reformers, 62-63;
in Jesuit colleges, 121-124, 590;
in Greek, 398-399;
alone not sufficient for religious instruction, 583 _sqq._;
objections of Catholics to reading in public schools, 587 _sqq._
_Biblical World_, on religious instruction, 577-578, 585, 603.
Bidermann, Jesuit writer, 130.
Bishops of France, on Jesuits, 273 _sqq._
Boarding schools, of Jesuits, 250;
dangers of boarding schools, 537 _sqq._, 552, and note 945.
Boccaccio, humanist, 50.
Bohemia Manor, Maryland, Jesuit school, 204.
Bollandists, Jesuit historians, 161, 234-235.
Bolsius, Jesuit scientist, 233.
Bombay, St. Francis Xavier, Jesuit College, 206, 216.
Bonaventure, St., 39, 99.
Bonifacio, Jesuit educator, 163, 453, 645.
Bonvalot, Jesuit educator, 127.
Boscovich, Jesuit scientist, 179.
Boston College and President Eliot, 224 _sqq._
Branch teacher, 442 _sqq._
Braun, Jesuit scientist, 232.
Braunsberger, Jesuit historian, 236.
Brethren of the Common Life, 31-33, 138;
see correction 653.
Briggs, Dean of Harvard College, 320, 406, 538-539.
Bristol, Professor in Cornell University, 397 note 695, 398, 401 note
700, 505.
Broderick, G. C., 409-410, 415.
Brosnahan, Jesuit writer, controversy with President Eliot, 223 note
434, 224-225, 327.
Browning, O., on Jesuit education, 16, 186, 244-245, 263.
Brownson, O., 331, 529.
Brunetière, F., 550, 658.
Brunswick, laws against Jesuit schools, 240-241.
Bryce, James, 305-306, 338.
Buckle, H. T., 263.
Buffier, Jesuit geographer, 128, 448 note 785.
Bunyan, 265.
Busaeus, Jesuit, 44, 138.
Butler, President of Columbia University, 66-67 note 135, 293-294.
Caesar, 381-382.
Cajori, Professor, 155-156, 157.
Calcutta, Jesuit College, 216.
Calmette, Jesuit Sanskrit scholar, 151-152.
Cambridge, 69-70.
Campbell, Thomas, Jesuit writer, 577 note 976.
Canfield, President, 313-315, 572 note 968.
Canisius, Peter, Jesuit, 43, 109, 138;
care for poor pupils, 248-250;
on emulation, 512;
catechisms and catechetical instructions, 593-599.
Carroll, Charles of Carrollton, 204, 260, 340.
Carroll, John, Jesuit and first Archbishop of Baltimore, 204-205, 260;
founder of Georgetown College, 205.
Castelein, Jesuit writer, 235.
Catalogues of authors in Jesuit colleges, 374-375;
of philological helps, 446-447, 453-454.
Catechetical training of Jesuits, 421;
instruction in Jesuit schools, 590 _sqq._
Catechisms written by Jesuits, 592 _sqq._
Catharine II., of Russia, and the Jesuits, 177-178, 189, 258.
Catholic Church, and education, 21 _sqq._, 28, 30-31, 36-39, 50,
85-87.
Catholics, and the Bible, 587 _sqq._;
and sectarian schools, 579 _sqq._
Cathrein, Jesuit writer, 235 note 453, 237.
Changes of teachers, 91-97, 444-445.
Character training, 317 _sqq._, 522 _sqq._
Charlemagne, 23, 26.
Chateaubriand, 184-185.
Chevalier, Jesuit scientist, 231.
China, cartographic works of Jesuits, 129, 158;
philological works, 153-154, 158, 232, 656;
Jesuit mathematicians, 156, 158;
Jesuit schools, 206-208.
Chossat Jesuit writer, 128, and _passim_.
Christ, the teacher’s model, 420, 631, 638, 643, 646;
centre of history, 449 _sqq._;
his teaching in relation to pedagogy, 526-527, 540;
Christian interpretation of authors, 365, 600.
Christian Brothers, 88, 98.
Chrysostom, St., 85.
Church and education, see “Catholic Church.”
Cicero, 88, 139, 376, 377 _sqq._, 395-396, 468-471, 500.
Clarke, Jesuit writer and educator, 212, 235, 423-424, 551-555.
Classes in Jesuit schools, 118 _sqq._, 370, 372 _sqq._
Classical studies, in Middle Ages and at time of Renaissance, 27
_sqq._, 33 _sqq._, 41-45, 47 _sqq._;
in Jesuit system, 286-287, 331 _sqq._, 360;
educational value of, 330-369;
dangers of, 50-55, 367, 563 _sqq._;
the Gaume controversy, 366 _sqq._;
classical authors, 351-352, 370-401;
explained in Christian spirit, 365, 600.
Class matches, 515 _sqq._; see “Emulation.”
Class teachers, 442 _sqq._
Clavius (Klau), Jesuit, mathematician, 133-134, 155, 438.
Clement XIV., Pope, 175.
Clerc, A., Jesuit teacher, 645.
Clergymen as educators, 100, 408, 601-602.
Clerics, Regular, 80 note 162.
Cleveland, President of the United States, on patriotism of Jesuit
schools, 261;
on modern school reforms, 294.
Cleveland, Ohio, Jesuit College and Meteorological Observatory, 227,
229.
Coe, Professor in Northwestern University, 579.
Coeurdoux, Jesuit Sanskrit scholar, 151.
Colet, Dean, 30.
College, American, its equivalent in Jesuit system, 118, 370;
function of, 304, 306 _sqq._
Colleges of the Society, 78, 107;
number, 144-146;
in United States, 200-205;
in other countries, 201, 205 _sqq._;
success of Jesuit colleges, 89 _sqq._, 145-150, 207, 208-222;
Roman College, 108;
German College, 138.
Comenius, 292.
Communion, educational influence, 557-558.
Comparative philology, contributions by Jesuits, 149-151.
Compayré, character of his _History of Pedagogy_, 10, 11 note 16, 649;
on primary schools, 24;
medieval universities, 40 note 75;
attacks on Jesuit education, 10-11, 13 note 18, 77 note 154, 104
note 197, 125, 130, 135, 159, 163, 194-195, 233, 243, 245-247,
249, 250, 361, 362-363, 366 _sqq._, 437, 489, 493, 511, 618.
Competition, see “Emulation.”
Composition, see “Written exercises.”
Compulsory education, 23, 29, 66.
Confession, educational influence of, 550-557.
Conservatism in Jesuit education, 288 _sqq._;
Grover Cleveland on conservatism in education, 294.
Constitutions of the Society, 74-75, 101 _sqq._
Contests, exercises in Jesuit schools, 511 _sqq._
Conway, James, Jesuit writer, 577 note 976.
Copernicus, 33, 42.
Cortie, Jesuit astronomer, 229.
Coster, Jesuit educator, 44, 138.
Cramming in modern systems, 299 _sqq._
Cubberley, Professor, 649, 650.
Cusanus, Cardinal, 33.
Dahlmann, Jesuit scholar, 233, 236.
Dalberg, Bishop, patron of learning, 34.
Dana, C., 343.
Daniel, Jesuit writer, 128, 366.
Dante, 48-49, 387, 391.
Darjeeling, Jesuit College, 216.
Dark Ages, 21 _sqq._
Davidson, Thomas, on Jesuit system, 13-14, 76 note 153.
Decline of teaching, 404-407.
Decurions, 139, 286.
Deharbe, J., Jesuit, 599.
Delaney, W., Jesuit, 606.
Demosthenes, 398.
Denis, Jesuit writer, 131, 162, 181.
Denominational schools, 580 _sqq._
Devotions, as educational means, 558-560;
devotion of teacher to work, 14, 147, 440-441, 643-644.
Dewey, Admiral, on Jesuit Observatory at Manila, 230.
Dierckx, Jesuit scientist, 233.
Discipline, in school, 537 _sqq._, 608-635.
Disputations, in Jesuit colleges, 139, 422-425, 511, 518.
Disraeli, 583, 589-590.
Döllinger, 58, 61;
on the Jesuits, 103, 189, 277.
Dominicans, 39, 56, 86-87, 99.
Dowling, M. P., Jesuit, 298.
Drama, in Jesuit colleges, 164 _sqq._;
in vernacular, 165 note 338, 192.
Draper, President, 293, 301 note 546, 327.
Dressel, Jesuit scientist, 236-237.
Dreves, Jesuit writer, 236.
Dufrène, Jesuit educator, 121, 126.
Du Halde, Jesuit geographer, 159.
Duhr, Jesuit historian, 12, 112, and _passim_.
Du Pons, Jesuit linguist, 151.
Duruy, A., on Jesuit schools, 218, 260, 535 note 924.
Education, meaning of, 297-298;
scope, 298-300;
liberal education, 301, 305, 307, 341;
commercial, 306, 337-338;
professional, 303, 335;
education and the Society, 87 _sqq._, 104 _sqq._;
see “Ratio Studiorum.”
Edward VI, 29, 30, 652.
Efficiency, of Jesuit schools, 89 _sqq._, 145-150, 182 _sqq._,
208-223;
causes of, 13-14, 17-18, 89-98, 135, 415 _sqq._, 643-644.
Ehrle, Jesuit historian, 234, 236, 238.
Einstein, L., 28, 31, 37.
Elective system, 5-6, 9-10, 310-329.
_Electrical World_, 293-294, 311, 339 note 590.
Elementary education, before Reformation, 23 _sqq._;
and the Jesuits, 104-106, 209, 247-248.
Eliot, President of Harvard University, on the Jesuit system, 5, 9,
199, 223-225, 243-244, 283, 311 _sqq._;
school reform, 293-294;
elective system, 311 _sqq._;
on Roman pronunciation, 460 note 804;
on failure of education, 523.
Elsperger, Professor, 196-197.
Emery, Abbé, 184.
Emulation, as a factor in education, 511-518.
England, education before Reformation, 29-31, 652-653;
humanism, 28, 30, 37, 53;
decline of learning, 69-71;
penal laws against Jesuit schools, 239-240;
recent attacks on Jesuits, 256 _sqq._
England, Bishop, 330 note 578, 340.
English, teaching of, see “Mother-tongue.”
Eobanus Hessus, 55, 61.
Epping, Jesuit scientist, 236.
Erasmus, leader of the humanists, 34, 36, 54-55;
on schools in Spain, 41, 43;
on decline of learning in consequence of the Reformation, 61-62;
St. Ignatius and Erasmus, 140.
Erudition, part of interpretation of the authors in Jesuit system,
the same as subject explanation, 447 _sqq._, 452, 461, 470, 485
_sqq._
Esteem, element of teachers authority, 611 _sqq._
Ethics, 131, 284.
Euclid, 153;
non-Euclidean geometry, 156-157, cf. “Saccheri.”
Example of teacher, 419, 531 _sqq._, 627, 630.
Exercises, means of intellectual training, 308-309, 456 _sqq._;
written exercises, 499-506;
correction, 503 _sqq._
Explanation, of authors, see “Prelection.”
Expulsion of the Jesuits from various countries, 200, 225.
Expurgated editions of the classics, 363 _sqq._, 562 _sqq._
Eyre, Jesuit educator, 111.
Faber, F. W., 630 note 1054.
Faber, Peter, Jesuit, 43, 60, 79.
Fabri, Jesuit writer, 349, 392.
Family, relation of Jesuit schools to, 250-251.
Fear, element of authority, 614.
Febres, Jesuit linguist, 155.
Feldkirch, Austria, Jesuit College, 411, 573.
Feltre, see “Vittorino.”
Ferry, French Premier, 222, 260.
Fisher, John, Bishop, 30, 53.
Fischer, Joseph, Jesuit writer, 237.
Fitch, Sir Joshua, on clergymen as educators, 100;
on home work, 475;
on writing Latin verses, 506;
on Jesuit education, 549-550;
on religious instruction, 602;
on corporal punishment, 616 note 1035.
Fox, Jesuit philologist, 236.
France, success of Jesuit schools, 92, 182-184, 218-222;
cause of opposition to teaching congregations, 268-269, 658;
testimony of Bishops to Jesuits, 273-276.
Francis Xavier, St., 43, 78, 79;
Jesuit College in: Bombay, 206, 216;
Calcutta, 216;
New York, 202.
Franciscans, 39, 56 note 110, 99.
Frederick the Great, of Prussia, 90;
and the Jesuits, 176-178, 189, 258.
Freiburg, Jesuit College, 163 note 332, 332 note 579, 573.
Friars, 39 _sqq._, 80 note 162.
Frisbee, S. H., Jesuit, 479 _sqq._
Gambetta, 220.
Gates, Professor, 577.
Gaubil, Jesuit sinologist, 153.
Gaume, Abbé, 366 _sqq._
Geiler, of Kaisersberg, 34-35.
Genelli, Jesuit writer, 15, 73, 280.
General of the Society of Jesus, 101-102.
General Congregations, 101-102.
Genung, Professor, 353.
Geography, in Jesuit colleges, 127-129, 192, 447 note 785, 448;
Jesuit geographers, 128-129, 158-159, 237.
Georgetown, Jesuit College, 205, 227, 261, 411.
Gerard, J., Jesuit writer, 298, 337.
German higher schools, before Reformation, 31 _sqq._;
modern, 9, 289 _sqq._, 333 _sqq._;
Jesuits as educators and writers, 206, 235-238, 262, 271.
Gibbon, 450, 514.
Gietmann, Jesuit writer, 236.
Gnauck-Kühne, Mrs., 96 _sqq._
Goethe, 161;
on Jesuit drama, 171;
on specialization, 324;
on classics, 360;
on reading, 566.
Goodwin, Professor, 544.
Grammar, study of, 370 _sqq._;
Greek, 392 _sqq._
Gratuitousness of instruction, 246, 249-250.
Greek, study of, 339 _sqq._, 392 _sqq._
Gretser, Jesuit writer, 121 note 227.
Grimaldi, Jesuit scientist, 157.
Grisar, Jesuit historian, 46, 234.
Groot, Gerard, 31.
Guggenberger, Jesuit historian, 54 _sqq._
Guizot, 425.
Günther, Professor, 180-181.
Hadley, President of Yale University, 2 note 1, 339 note 590.
Hadley, Professor, 479 _sqq._
Hagen, Jesuit mathematician, 227, 237, 655.
Hall, Stanley, President of Clark University, 307 note 554, 321, 360,
476-477, 501.
Hallam, 67-69, 71, 251.
Hanus, Professor, 310-311.
Hanxleden, Jesuit scholar, 151.
Hardouin, Jesuit historian, 160.
Harnack, Professor (Berlin), 22 note 32, 52, 60 note 119, 75-76,
83-84, 103, 290, 351.
Harris, W. T., Commissioner of Education, 330 note 578.
Hartmann, Edward von, 52-53.
Harvard University, 1, 203, 223, 315, 326, 327.
Health, of pupils cared for, 124, 572 _sqq._
Hegius, humanist, 33-34, 53, 60.
Hell, Jesuit astronomer, 179.
Helmholtz, Professor, 333, 356.
Herodotus, 395.
Hervas, Jesuit linguist, 149-151, 181.
Henry VIII, 29-30, 69, 70, 652.
Herder, 161.
High school, equivalent in Jesuit system, 118, 370;
function of, 303, 306;
modern high school, 332.
Hildebrand, 337, 349.
Hillig, F., Jesuit, 232.
Historians, among Jesuits, 160-161, 233-234, 235.
History in Jesuit colleges, 124-126, 192, 199, 447-448;
ancient, 448-451;
viewpoint of Christian teacher, 448 _sqq._, 600.
Hohenlohe, Prince, 173.
Holguin, Jesuit scholar, 154.
Holzmüller, Director, 333.
Home tasks, 475 _sqq._
Homer, 354, 399-401, 480 _sqq._
Horace, 391.
Howorth, Sir Henry, on the Jesuits, 175, 256 note 481, 532 note 918.
Huber, Professor, 77-78, 103, 104, 148, 252, 258.
Hughes, T., Jesuit writer, 200 and _passim_.
Humanism, rise and character, 26-30, 33-37, 47-49 _sqq._;
attitude of Church, 28, 30, 50, 60;
radical humanists, 54-57;
Luther’s alliance with, 58-60;
relation of the Jesuits to, 88, 138-140.
Humanities, class in Jesuit system, 119, 370.
Humphrey, W., Jesuit writer, 81 note 163.
Hutten, humanist, 55, 59, 60.
Ignatius of Loyola, 15;
character, 73-75;
studies, 32, 43, 78 _sqq._, 137;
and Luther, 59-60, 77-78, 140;
and the Constitutions, 75-77, 101;
as educator, 87 _sqq._, 106;
on Paris and Louvain, 137-138;
on self-activity, 308, 499;
on self-conquest, 420;
on individuality, 426;
on dangers of reading, 51, 140, 563, 569;
adaptation of his system, 15, 280, 281;
prayer for persecution, 278;
summary of Christian philosophy, 527-528;
on good example, 532, 569;
summary of religion, 574;
obedience, 610;
modesty, 627;
prayer, 633 _sqq._;
see “Spiritual Exercises.”
Imitation exercises, 500 _sqq._
Impartiality of teacher, 612, 619-622.
India (East), Jesuit writers, 151-152;
colleges, 206, 216.
Individuality, 317 _sqq._;
and Jesuit training, 367 note 633, 425-429.
Intellectual scope of education, 297 _sqq._, 316, 322 _sqq._;
liberty, 136 note 262, 251-253, 270-271, 489.
Interpretation, see “Prelection.”
Ireland, monastic schools, 26;
modern Jesuit colleges, 213-216.
Italy, education, see “Humanism.”
Jäger, Dr., 351, 371.
Jansenists, 164, 174.
Janssen, 23 _sqq._, and _passim_.
Jesuits, see Society of Jesus, Constitutions, Ratio Studiorum,
Colleges, Teachers, Writers, Pupils, Opposition.
Jogues, Jesuit in New York, 201-202.
Jones, President of Hobart College, 307, 321, 339, 541 note 930.
Jourdain, 182-184, 270-271.
Jouvancy, (Juvencius), Jesuit educator, 162, 164, 248, 331, 353, 362,
377, 382, 383-385, 387, 400, 434-435, 447, 453, 454, 461, 467
_sqq._, 484-485, 502, 548, 565, 600, 610, 622, 624-625, 634,
637;
his educational treatise: _Ratio Discendi et Docendi_, 162, 163
note 331, 434-435.
Jullien, Jesuit scientist, 232.
Juniorate, 422, 431 _sqq._
Kant, 324, 513, 643.
Kemp, E. L., 10 note 15, 513, 652-653.
Kempis, Thomas a, 31, 32, 322, 527, 610.
Kepler, astronomer, on Jesuit writers, 657.
Kern, Professor, 531.
Ketteler, Bishop, 241, 534.
Kino (Kühn), Jesuit missionary and geographer, 129.
Kircher, Jesuit scholar, 157-158;
_Museo Kircheriano_, 158, 226.
Knecht, Bishop, 592-593.
Kohlmann, Jesuit in New York, 202.
König, Jesuit writer, 127.
Körner, 535-536.
Kreiten, Jesuit writer, 236.
Kropf, Jesuit educator, 121 _sqq._, 126, 163, 448, 548, 610, and
_passim_.
Kübler, Dr., 290, 510.
Kugler, Jesuit scholar, 236.
Labbe, Jesuit historian, 128, 160, 448 note 785.
La Cerda, Jesuit philologist, 162, 163.
Ladevèze, M. de, on Jesuits, 267, 609.
La Flèche, Jesuit College, 168, 484.
Lainez, General of the Society, 79, 101.
Lalande, 179, 180, 186.
Lang, Andrew, 265.
Lang, Jesuit writer, 165.
La Rue (Ruaeus), Jesuit philologist, 163-164.
Latimer, 70.
Latin, during Middle Ages, 29, 44 _sqq._;
in Protestant and Jesuit schools, 6-9, 129, 345-346;
in modern German schools, 290 _sqq._, 333 _sqq._, 476 _sqq._, 509
_sqq._;
in American schools, 2, 345;
as means of logical training, 346-351, 357-358;
speaking and writing, 6-9, 129, 422, 429-430, 498-511;
“Monkish” Latin, 430 note 746.
Leach, A. F., 30, 430, 652-653.
Ledesma, Jesuit educator, 108, 138, 403-404, 445.
Lehmkuhl, Jesuit writer, 237.
Leibnitz, 52, 156, 161.
Lemaître, J., 368 _sqq._
Leo XIII, Jesuit pupil, 278;
on religious orders, 277;
on Sodalities, 560;
Bellarmine’s catechism, 593;
religious instruction, 601, 605.
Leon, Jesuit, founder of Sodalities, 560.
Leopold I., King of Belgium, on Jesuit schools, 259.
Liberal education, 301, 305, 307, 341.
Liège, school, 33, 107, 139, 140-141, 240.
Limerick, P., 276.
Lines, as punishment, 497, 619.
Literature, Jesuit writers on, 130-131, 161-163, 181, 233-234, 235.
Littledale, Canon, 73, 103, 264.
Livy, 382.
Longhaye, Jesuit writer, 234.
Louis-le-Grand, Jesuit College, 144.
Louvain, school, 33, 138.
Lowell, 323, 357.
Loyola, see “Ignatius.”
Lucas, Herbert, Jesuit writer, 532.
Lugo, Jesuit theologian, 109, 427.
Luther, in Protestant tradition, 57-58;
alliance with radical humanists, 58-60;
and Loyola, 59-60, 77, 140;
violent language against universities and Aristotle, 63-65;
appalled at decline of schools, 65-66;
Hallam’s estimate of, 67-69;
on vows and monasticism, 81;
his catechism, 593-594.
Mabillon, Benedictine historian, 87.
Macaulay, 73.
Madagascar, Jesuits in, 231.
Maher, M., Jesuit writer, 235.
Mallinckrodt, von, 534.
Manare, Oliver, Jesuit, 444.
Manila, Jesuit College and Observatory, 229 _sqq._
Manning, Professor, 157 note 314.
Marquette, Jesuit, 128-129.
Martin, Luiz, General of the Society, 286-287, 297, 509.
Martineau, 320 _sqq._
Martini, Jesuit geographer, 129, 159.
Maryland, Jesuits in, 202-204.
Masen, Jesuit writer, 164.
Matches, class matches, 515 _sqq._
Mathematicians, Jesuits, 155-158, 182, 227-228, 232.
Mathematics, in Jesuit colleges, 132-134, 182, 192, 194, 284;
educational value compared with linguistic training, 333, 336, 355;
training of Jesuit teachers of mathematics, 438-439.
Matthias, Dr., of Berlin, 4 note 5, 290, 510.
Maynard, Abbé, on educational labors of the Jesuits before the
suppression, 178 _sqq._
McCosh, President of Princeton, on liberal education, 302;
on elective system at Harvard, 315-316;
on American scholarship, 413;
on moral training, 522, 537-538;
on athletics, 570;
on religious instruction, 582.
McCloskey, Cardinal, Archbishop of New York, 557-558.
Melanchthon, on decline of education, 61;
attitude towards higher studies, 64, 67;
drew inspirations from medieval schools, 72, 530 note 912;
on Canisius, 595.
Memory lessons, 493-499.
Messina, Jesuit College, 108, 137.
Messmer, Bishop of Green Bay, 592, 593 note 999.
Meteorology, cultivated by Jesuits, 227, 229-232.
Method of teaching in practice, 456 _sqq._
Meyer, Theodore, Jesuit writer on ethics, 237.
Middle Ages, educational conditions, 21-44;
character of education, 44 _sqq._, see “Scholasticism.”
Modern languages, 332;
modern high school, _ib._
Modesty, to be inculcated in pupils, 626 _sqq._
Mommsen, Theodore, 378, 380, 381.
Monasticism, 80-84.
_Monita Secreta_, 102-103.
Monks, Protestant view of, 80 note 162;
as educators, 84-87.
Monroe, Jesuit educator, 645 note 1083.
Morality in Jesuit schools, 251 _sqq._, 531-536.
Moral training, 317 _sqq._, 522-573.
More, Thomas, 53.
Mother-tongue, studied in Jesuit colleges, 129-131, 191-192, 284, 448
note 785, 491 _sqq._;
and study of classics, 356 _sqq._
Müller, Max, Professor at Oxford, on Jesuit writers, 149-151, 233.
Munich, splendor of Jesuit drama, 168-170.
Münsterberg, Professor at Harvard, on modern school reforms, 5;
American teachers, 92-94;
premature specialization, 303;
elective system, 319-320, 325-327;
preparation of teachers, 402, 403;
American scholarship, 413.
Nadal, Jerome, Jesuit educator, on elementary education, 106;
plan of studies, 108 note 204, 116, 117 note 222;
geographical reading, 128 note 241;
study of German, 130;
relation to the Ratio Studiorum, 138;
instruction gratuitous, 249;
training of teachers, 404, 441-442;
religious toleration, 596.
Nägelsbach, Professor, 385, 387, 389-390, 398, 473.
Natalis, see “Nadal.”
_Nation_, New York, on electivism, 326;
on decline of teaching, 404-406.
National questions, attitude of the Jesuits, 262-263.
Natural sciences, see “Sciences.”
Neander, on monks as educators, 85-86.
Nepos, 384.
Netherlands, humanist schools, 31-32, 43;
influence on formation of Ratio Studiorum, 138 _sqq._
Newcomb, Simon, on Father Hell, 179;
on American scholarship, 413.
Newman, Cardinal, on medieval education, 23 note 32;
on monks, 81 note 162;
religious as educators, 86-87;
on classics, 355, 359-360, 378;
on individuality among Jesuits, 367 note 633, 425-427;
on moral training, 555 _sqq._;
Jesuit obedience, 609 note 1021.
New York, Jesuit College, 201-202.
Nightingale, Professor, 307 note 554, 357.
Nobili, Robert, Jesuit, first European Sanskrit scholar, 151.
Notes, taken in class, 463-465.
Non-sectarian school, 580 _sqq._
Noviciate, in the Society, 418-422.
Number of Jesuit colleges, 78, 107, 144 _sqq._, 200-206;
of Jesuit pupils, 13, 144-146, 206.
Obedience, of teacher, 609-610, 650;
of pupil, 650.
Oberammergau, Passion play, and Jesuit drama, 169.
Observatories, of Jesuits, 180, 227, 229-232.
Odenbach, F. L., Jesuit meteorologist, 227.
Officials, in Jesuit colleges, 115-118.
Oliphant, L., 208.
Opposition, to Jesuit education, 5 _sqq._, 146-148, 239-279;
causes of, 6-13, 264 _sqq._
Oratorians, 127, 448 note 785.
Ovid, 44, 385, 386, 565.
Oxford, 69-71, 212, 411.
Pachtler, Jesuit historian, 112, 283, 410, 494, and _passim_.
Painter, F. V. N., 10 note 14, 37, 131, 245, 252-254, 361, 511, 596.
Pantel, Jesuit scientist, 233.
Papenbroeck, Jesuit historian, 161.
Paris, University of, 32, 39, 43, 79, 99, 137;
influence on Jesuit system, 137 _sqq._;
opposition to Jesuits, 182 _sqq._, 269-271.
Patience, of teacher, 420, 630, 631-632, 646.
Patriotism, and Jesuit schools, 255-263.
Paulsen, Professor, 7, 22, 52, 59-60, 81-82, 90-91, 100, 136,
195-197, 324, 407-409, 425;
on Jesuit schools, 17-18, 79-80, 193-194, 254-255, 271-272, 512,
532-533.
Peck, Professor in Columbia University, 223 note 434, 224, 327.
Pedagogy, meaning of, 524 _sqq._;
relation to philosophy, 524-525;
pagan and Christian, 526;
Jesuit writers on, 162-163, 434-435.
Permanent teachers, 435 _sqq._
Perpinian, Jesuit writer, 162.
Perry, Jesuit astronomer, 228.
Pesch, Henry, Jesuit writer, 237.
Petavius, Jesuit scholar, 160, 427, 448 note 785.
Petrarch, 49-50.
Phaedrus, 385, 472-473.
Philology, in the Society of Jesus, 149-155, 199, 446-447, 453-454;
Jesuit contributions to comparative philology, 149-150.
Philosophy, Aristotelian, see “Aristotle”;
in Jesuit system, 131, 193-197;
philosophy neglected in modern systems, 195-197;
philosophical training of Jesuits, 422 _sqq._;
philosophy in relation to pedagogy, 524-525.
Physics, in Jesuit curriculum, 131, 134, 194.
Pitt, on classics, 358.
Plans of studies, previous to the Ratio Studiorum, 108-109.
Plato, 396-398, 451.
Plautus, 165-166, 391, 565.
Polanco, Jesuit, 137.
Poland, W., Jesuit writer, 11 note 16, 577 note 976.
Politeness, of pupils, 626 _sqq._
Politics, attitude of Jesuits, 262-263.
Pombal, 174.
Pompadour, 174.
Pontanus, Jesuit philologian, 110, 121 note 226, 162.
Poor pupils, care of, in Jesuit schools, 247-250.
Porée, Jesuit educator, 181.
Porter, Noah, of Yale, on Jesuit schools, 245, 246, 269.
Port Royal, 127, 164.
Portugal, suppression of Society, 174.
Postgate, Professor, 498 note 849.
Poulton, Jesuit, founder of school in Maryland, 203.
Prayer, educational help, 632 _sqq._
Prefect of Discipline, 117.
Prefect of Studies, 117, 609.
Prelection, i. e. interpretation of authors, etc., 457-493;
preparation of, 464-466.
Prémare, Jesuit sinologist, 153.
Prescribed courses, 310-329.
Primary education, see “Elementary.”
Prince Henry, and the Jesuits in China, 207-208.
Private talks with pupils, 548 _sqq._
Prizes, 514;
see “Emulation.”
Pronunciation, correct, 459-461;
Roman, of Latin, 460 note 804.
Protestant, Reformation and education, 57-72;
schools in 16. and 17. centuries, 89-91;
view of Jesuits, 264-267;
moral training in Protestant and Catholic schools, 538 _sqq._, 541
note 930, 551-557;
reading of Bible, 583 _sqq._
Provincial, 101.
Prussia, Jesuit colleges after suppression, 176.
Prussian School Order, 9, 289, 291, 392, 394 note 690;
on class teachers, 443;
on translations, 478;
on written exercises, 500;
religious instruction, 581, 601-602.
Psychology, in Jesuit course, 131, 194.
Punishments, 614-619; corporal, 616.
Pupils, of Jesuit schools, number, 13, 144-146, 206;
distinguished, 172, 204-205, 258.
Quick, on Jesuit system, 10, 13, 98, 135-136, 241, 243, 246-249, 265,
431, 437, 466, 489, 516-517, 518, 530, 565, 624.
Quigley, Archbishop of Chicago, 302.
Quintilian, 419, 564, 614.
Ranke, 18, 89, 145, 246, 322, 595, 628.
Rashdall, H., 21 _sqq._, 29-30, 39-40, 41, 430.
_Ratio Discendi et Docendi_, of Jouvancy, 162, 163 note 331, 434-435.
Ratio Studiorum, 107-143, 189-199;
modern criticism on, 5-16;
drawn up, 109-111;
name, 111;
seized by Spanish Inquisition, 112 _sqq._;
character, 114 _sqq._;
classes, 118, 121 _sqq._;
school hours, 124;
branches: languages, 118, 331 _sqq._, 345-360;
mother-tongue, 129, 284, 491 _sqq._;
history, 125 _sqq._, 447 note 785;
geography, 127 _sqq._;
archaeology, see “Antiquities”;
philosophy, 131 _sqq._, 193-197;
mathematics, 132-134;
sciences, 134, 192, 194-195, 197-199;
successive teaching, of branches, 132;
class teachers, 442 _sqq._,
sources of Ratio, 19-20, 136-143;
revision, 191 _sqq._;
results, see “Efficiency”, adaptability, 280 _sqq._;
essentials, 286 _sqq._;
defects, 14, 92 note 177, 444-445.
Raumer, 17, 166, 251-252;
character of his history of education, 650 _sqq._
Reading, according to sense, 458-461, 498;
amount of, 482 _sqq._;
dangers of reading, 51, 166, 367, 562 _sqq._
Rector, President in Jesuit colleges, 115-116.
Reformation, and education, 57 _sqq._;
decline of schools, 60-66;
in England, 69-71;
elementary school not child of Reformation, 24;
Jesuit system not borrowed from Protestant schools, 19-20, 140
_sqq._;
compulsory education and state-monopoly result of, 66.
Reform-Gymnasium, 291-292, 336.
Reforms, modern, 1-5;
in Germany, 289-292;
in America, 292-296;
towards elective system, 310-312.
_Relations_, of Jesuits, 128.
Religious, name, 80 note 162;
as educators, 84 _sqq._, 96-98, 209;
opposition to, 89, 98-100;
success of, 92-98, 221 _sqq._
Religions instruction, 574-607;
necessity, 574-578;
Catholic position, 578-582;
undenominational religion, 582-583;
reading of Bible, 583 _sqq._;
catechism, 590 _sqq._;
correlation of all branches with religion, 599-605;
religious instruction in higher schools, 605 _sqq._
Renaissance, see “Humanism.”
Repetition, in Jesuit system, 466-467, 474.
Resistance, value of, in education, 319-322.
Rethwisch, C., 7 _sqq._
Revival of Learning, see “Humanism.”
Revision of the Ratio Studiorum, 191 _sqq._
Rhetoric, class in Jesuit system, 120, 370;
meaning of, 432.
Ribadeneira, Peter, Jesuit writer, 102, 138, 511.
Ribot, M., on secondary schools in France, 218-219.
Ricci, Jesuit scholar, 153, 156.
Richelieu, Cardinal, Jesuit pupil, 172;
on Jesuit colleges, 271.
Richthofen, Baron, on Jesuit scholars, 129, 158-159.
Rickaby, Joseph, Jesuit writer, 235.
Rivals, see “Class matches.”
Rogers, Thorold, 30.
Roman College, 108, 110, 144, 227.
Roman history, 448-451.
Roothaan, General of the Society, 191, 197-198, 296, 329, 360-361.
Roth, Jesuit, author of first European Sanskrit grammar, 151.
Rousseau, 175, 643.
Rowland, Professor in Johns Hopkins University, 413.
Ruaeus (La Rue), Jesuit scholar, 163-164.
Ruhkopf, on morality in Jesuit schools, 537.
Ruiz, Jesuit linguist, 155.
Russell, Dr., Columbia University, 8-9, 19, 20, 141, 244, 313.
Russia, Society preserved in, 177, 189.
Sabatier, P., 209.
Saccheri, Jesuit mathematician, 156-157, 654-655.
Sacchini, Jesuit writer, 162, 249, 436, 438, 497, 530, 548, 592, 600,
624, 634, 637.
Sadler, Mr., 659.
Saintsbury, on Southwell, 162.
Saint-Vincent, Gregory, 156.
Salamanca, University, 41, 43, 79.
Salisbury, Lord, on undenominational religion, 583.
Sallust, 382-383.
Sallwürk, Dr. von, 435, 448 note 785.
Sanskrit, Jesuit scholars, 151-152.
Sanson, geographer, 448 note 785.
Sarbiewski, Jesuit poet, 161.
Savonarola, 51, 60.
Scaliger, 160, 657.
Schall, Jesuit mathematician, 156.
Scheiner, Jesuit scientist, 157.
Schiller, Director, 478, 566 note 960, 588-589, 601-602.
Scholars, Jesuits, see “Writers.”
Scholarship, among Jesuits, 198-199, 226-238, 410-411;
in America, 411 _sqq._;
scholarship and teaching ability, 402-414.
Scholasticism, 45-57;
defects of, 46 _sqq._;
humanists on, 52;
relation of Jesuit system to, 136.
School drama, 164 _sqq._
School management, 608-635.
Schopenhauer, 325.
Sciences, in Jesuit curriculum, 134, 192, 194-195, 197-198, 199, 283;
and classics, 359.
Scientists, among Jesuits, 157, 178-181, 226-233, 654-656.
Scoraille, Jesuit writer, 515-516.
Scotland, education before Reformation, 28-29.
Scope of education, intellectual, 297 _sqq._;
injured by electivism, 316 _sqq._;
moral, 317 _sqq._, 522 _sqq._
Scotus, 39, 193, 425.
Secchi, Angelo, Jesuit astronomer, 226-227.
Secondary schools before Reformation, 26 _sqq._, 652-653.
Sectarian schools, 580 _sqq._
Seeley, Levi, 10 note 15, 37, 246-247, 511, 649.
Selfishness, alleged of Jesuits, 251, 254-255.
Seminary of teachers in Society, 433-434, 453.
Seneca, 384-385.
Seyffert, M., 309, 379, 507.
Shea, Gilmary, 536-537.
Shoup, W. J., 652.
Sirmond, Jesuit historian, 448 note 785.
Sixtus V., and the Ratio Studiorum, 112-113.
Sloane, Rev. M., on Jesuits, 243.
Smith, Clement L., 304-305.
Smith, Sydney, Jesuit writer, 173 note 354.
Snyder, Carl, 413.
Society of Jesus, name, 75;
foundation and aim, 75-77, 79 _sqq._;
and education, 80 _sqq._;
constitutions, 101 _sqq._;
suppression, 173-175, 189-190.
Socrates, 253, 397.
Sodalities, 560-562.
Sommervogel, Jesuit writer, 148.
Sources, of Ratio Studiorum, 136-143.
Southwell, Robert, Jesuit poet, 162.
Spahn, Deputy, on Jesuit scholars, 235-237.
Spain, schools, 40-44;
suppression of Society, 174.
Spanish Inquisition, seized Ratio Studiorum, 112 _sqq._
Spe, Frederick, Jesuit writer, 130 and note 248.
Speaking Latin, 506 _sqq._
Specialization, 303, 317, 322-325;
in Society, 198-199, 440.
Spencer, 525, 643.
_Spiritual Exercises_, of St. Ignatius, 75, 420, 426, 527, 532 note
917, 560, 574.
Sport, see “Athletics.”
St. Boniface, Jesuit College, 216.
Stephens, Jesuit linguist, 152.
Stiglmayr, Jesuit scholar, 237, 397.
Stonyhurst, Jesuit College, 228, 229, 257-258, 564, 617.
Strassmaier, Jesuit assyriologist, 233, 236.
Stryker, President of Hamilton College, on liberal education, 341.
_Studia inferiora_, 118 _sqq._
Sturm, Reformer and schoolman at Strasburg, 19-20, 72;
his system not model of Ratio Studiorum, 140 _sqq._
Suarez, Jesuit theologian, 81 note 162, 88, 109, 426, 427.
Success, of Jesuit colleges, see “Efficiency.”
Successive teaching, preferred to simultaneous, 118, 132.
Sunday schools, and religious training, 578.
Supervision in college, 537 _sqq._, 541 _sqq._, 546-547.
Suppression of the Society, 173-175;
effects on education, 184-186.
Sydney Smith, discipline in English public schools, 539 note 929.
Syria, Jesuit schools, 106, 206-207, 209.
Tacitus, 383-384.
Taunton, E., 427-428.
Taylor, H. O., 45, 49, 82-83.
Teaching, in relation to scholarship, see “Scholarship.”
Teachers of the Society, 91-98, 415 _sqq._;
permanent teachers, 435, 437 _sqq._;
changes of teachers, 92 note 177, 444-445;
training of, 415-455;
direct training for teaching, 431-434, cf. 410;
continued self-training, 446 _sqq._;
training of teachers of mathematics in the Old Society, 133,
438-439;
appointment according to ability, 439-442;
qualities requisite: in general, 415-416;
in particular: mastery of the subject, 403-404, 410, 446 _sqq._,
453 sq., 611;
see also “Scholarship”;
qualities of character: authority, 610-614;
submission, 608-610;
self-control, 419-420, 531-533, 611-612, 615;
impartiality, 420, 612, 619 _sqq._;
politeness, 627-628;
truthfulness, 630;
patience, 420, 630, 631-632, 646;
kindness, 420, 612-613, 622;
firmness, 612, 614, 619, 623 _sqq._;
prudence, 418-419, 615, 624-625, 628-629;
zeal and devotion to work, 94, 98, 420, 436-438, 528-531, 535-537,
540-543, 545-547, 548-550, 562 _sqq._, 637-644;
piety, 419-421, 643 _sqq._;
perseverance, 95 _sqq._, 435-438, 642;
motives and ideals, 636-648.
Terence, 165-166, 391, 565.
Tetlow, Principal, 327-328.
Text-books, of Jesuits, 163-164, 393.
Theiner, 173, 178, 185.
Thomas, see “Aquinas” and “Kempis.”
Thornton, A., 578-579.
Thring, E., 337, 616.
Thucydides, 395.
Tiraboschi, Jesuit writer, 181.
_Times_, London, 222, 256-257.
Tolerance, religious and the Jesuits, 252-254, 595-596.
_Tom Brown’s School Days_, 537, 572.
Tragedies, 401.
Training of teachers, see “Teachers.”
Translation, of classical authors, 353 _sqq._;
by the teacher, 462-463;
in class, 474-478.
Trendelenburg, Professor, 193.
Trent, Council of, and reform of education, 71.
Trichinopoli, Jesuit College, 206.
_Trivium_ and _Quadrivium_, 27, 44.
Trotzendorf, 530.
_Truth_, on “Jesuit and Gaol-Bird System,” 546-547.
Truthfulness, 628 _sqq._
Tursellini, Jesuit writer, 126 note 234, 164.
Undenominational school, 579 _sqq._
Universities, before Reformation, 38-44;
denounced by Luther, 63-64;
opposition of, to Jesuits, 182 _sqq._, 269 _sqq._
Valla, humanist, 51.
Vasquez, Jesuit theologian, 109, 426, 427.
Vatican library, 28.
Vest, Senator, on Jesuit schools among the Indians, 209-211.
Viger, Jesuit philologist, 164.
Virchow, Professor, 290, 334.
Virgil, 44, 49, 387-391, 471.
Visconti, General of the Society 431-432, 434, 442.
Vitelleschi, General of the Society, 549.
Vittorino da Feltre, 26-28, 60, 563 note 953.
Vives, Luiz, humanist, 141-142.
Vogt, Professor, 336.
Voltaire, 152, 174, 435;
on Jesuit colleges, 174-175, 181;
on morality in Jesuit colleges, 533-534.
Wagner, Jesuit writer, 126.
Waldeck-Rousseau, and Jesuit schools, 186, 219.
Washington, George, at Georgetown College, 205;
on religion, 576.
Wasmann, Jesuit entomologist, 232-233, 236, 238.
Weissenfels, Professor, 306 note 553, 317.
Wellington, Duke of, on effects of suppression of Society, 185;
on schools without religion, 576.
Werenfels, Reformed theologian, 587.
West, Professor in Princeton, 344.
Whitton, Professor, 251, 406.
Wiese, Dr., 309, 356.
Wilamowitz, von, (University of Berlin), 369, 378, 505.
William of St. Amour, 99.
Williams, Professor in Cornell University, 651.
Willmann, Professor, 4 note 5, 468 _sqq._, 473, 485.
Wimpheling, humanist, 35-36, 54, 60.
Windle, Dr., 581.
Winsor, Justin, on Jesuit writers, 154-155, 159.
Witchcraft, charges against Jesuit teachers, 148.
Women, education of in Middle Ages, 41, and note 81.
Writers of the Society, 148-164, 179-182, 225-238;
why often ignored, 154, 657.
Written exercises, see “Exercises.”
Xavier, see “Francis.”
Xenophon, 394-395.
Ximenez, Cardinal, 42.
Yenni, Jesuit educator, 438.
Zahorowski, 103.
Zallinger, three Jesuit scientists, 180-181.
Ziegler, Professor, 82 note 163, 140, 255, 270, 433, 582.
Zi-ka-wei, Jesuit College and observatory, 207-208, 232.
Zottoli, Jesuit sinologist, 656.
Transcriber’s Notes
• Italic text represented with surrounding _underscores_.
• Bold text represented with surrounding =equal signs=.
• Small caps converted to ALL CAPS.
• Obvious typographic errors silently corrected.
• Variations in hyphenation and spelling kept as in the original.
• Footnotes renumbered consecutively and moved to the end of their
respective chapters. Corresponding references to notes also updated.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JESUIT EDUCATION ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
