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.