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.