The Ratio Studiorum of 1599.
The number of colleges of the Society grew very rapidly. Colleges
were opened during the life-time of St. Ignatius, at Messina, Palermo,
Naples, and other towns in Italy; at Gandia, Salamanca, Valencia,
Alcala, Burgos, Valladolid, and Saragossa in Spain; at Lisbon in
Portugal; at Vienna in Austria; and at Billom in France. After the
death of the first General (1556), many more colleges were added to
the list, especially in those parts of Germany and the Netherlands
which had remained faithful to the Catholic Church. Thus Ingolstadt,
Cologne, Prague, Tyrnau (Hungary) were opened in 1556, Munich 1559,
Treves 1560, Innsbruck and Mentz 1561, etc.[203] In Belgium Audenarde
1566, Douay 1568, Bruges 1571, Antwerp 1575, Liège 1582, etc. But
the Society possessed as yet no uniform system of education; the
colleges in the various countries at first followed, more or less, the
systems prevailing there, not however, without improving the existing
methods according to the general principles of the fourth part of the
Constitutions. Still, it would be altogether wrong to suppose that the
Ratio Studiorum, or Plan of Studies, drawn up 1584-1599, was the first
important document of its kind. The recent historical researches of
the Spanish Jesuits have shed much new light on this question.[204]
These Fathers have published in 1901-1902 many important documents on
the educational methods of the Society, drawn up before 1584. Three
documents especially exhibit three complete “Plans of Studies.” The
first was written by Father Jerome Nadal (Latinized Natalis), probably
between 1548-1552, during the life-time of St. Ignatius. Nadal was
well fitted for drawing up a plan of studies. Possessed of great
talent and a singular prudence, he had made excellent studies in the
University of Paris. Appointed Rector of the new College at Messina,
in 1548, he wrote his treatise _De Studiis Societatis Jesu_, the first
plan of studies of the Society known thus far.[205] The second is an
adaptation of Father Nadal’s plan which was sent from Messina to the
Roman College.[206] The most important is the third, written by Father
Ledesma. This distinguished scholar had studied in the Universities
of Alcala, Paris and Louvain. Immediately after his entrance into the
Society, in 1557, he taught in the Roman College until his death, in
1575. As Prefect of Studies in this college, he drew up a plan of
studies which practically contains, at least in outline, all points
which were later on laid down in the Ratio Studiorum concerning
classical studies.[207] Besides these three documents there are extant
fragments of plans of studies of various colleges in Italy, France,
Spain, Portugal, and Germany.[208]
With the increase of the colleges, the want of a uniform system for the
whole Society was felt more and more. Teachers and superiors of schools
and provinces asked more urgently for the plan of studies which St.
Ignatius had promised in the Constitutions. The final completion of
the educational system was reserved to the fifth General of the Order,
Father Claudius Aquaviva, who governed the Society from 1581-1615. His
Generalate was a most stormy, but at the same time the most brilliant,
epoch in the history of the Order. It was the glorious time of the
English and Japanese martyrs; the time when the great missions in
Japan, China, and Brazil began to flourish; the time in which learned
men like Bellarmine, Suarez, Maldonatus, Toletus, de Lugo, Vasquez,
Molina, Lessius, a Lapide, Peter Canisius, Clavius, and a host of other
writers not only added lustre to the Society, but were held to be the
foremost scholars of the age and the most renowned champions of the
Catholic Church.
In 1584, Father Aquaviva called to Rome six experienced schoolmen,
who had been elected from different nationalities and provinces, in
order that the peculiarities of the various nations might be considered
in the formation of a system which was destined to be put to practice
in so many countries all over the world. These men worked for about a
year, consulting authors on education, examining the regulations and
customs of universities and colleges, especially those of the Roman
College, and the letters, observations, and other documents sent to
Rome from the various provinces. The standard which guided these men in
their deliberations was the fourth part of the Constitutions. In 1585
they presented the result of their labor to the General.[209] In 1586,
Father Aquaviva sent the report to the provinces; and at the same time
ordered that in each province at least five men of eminent learning and
experience should examine the report, first in private, then in common,
and should send the result of their examination to Rome.
How much liberty was granted in these remarks on the educational
methods then prevailing in the Order, may be seen from the verdict
given by James Pontanus (his German name was Spanmiller), one of the
ablest classic scholars of the Society. He boldly censures some abuses,
especially that sometimes young men were employed in teaching who were
not sufficiently prepared for the work; men who were not well grounded
in Greek; that too frequent changes occurred among teachers, etc. He
deplores the fact that too much weight is laid on physics, metaphysics,
and dialectics, and that the humanistic studies are not valued as they
deserve. “Without classical education,” he says, “the other branches
of study are cold, dumb and dead; classical learning gives these other
studies life, breath, motion, blood and language.” Pontanus’ memorandum
was by no means free from exaggerations and unwarranted generalizations
of single instances. But it is interesting to see how freely opinions
could be uttered on a question of such importance.[210]
The notes and suggestions sent from the different provinces were
examined by the most prominent Professors of the Roman College and
three members of the committee of 1584-85, and then were used in
drawing up a second plan. This new plan, after having been revised by
the General and his Assistants, was sent to the provinces in 1591 as
_Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum_, the _editio princeps_ of the Ratio.
The Provincials who came to Rome for the fifth General Congregation
(1593-94), again reported on the results of the plan as practised
during the last years, and demanded some changes. At length, in 1599,
when every possible effort had been made, when theory and practice
alike had been consulted, and every advisable modification had been
added, the final plan of studies appeared under the title: _Ratio atque
Institutio Studiorum Societatis Jesu_ (Naples 1599), usually quoted
as _Ratio Studiorum_. Well could it be said that this Ratio was “the
fruit of many prayers, of long and patient efforts, and the result of
the combined wisdom of the whole Order.”--It has sometimes been said
that the word _Ratio Studiorum_ is a misnomer, as it does not propose
any educational _principles_. However, as Father Eyre, S. J., years
ago has pointed out,[211] Ratio, as applied to studies, more naturally
means _method_ than principle, and the Ratio Studiorum is essentially
a practical method or system of teaching. Hence the name is altogether
appropriate.
How easily an author, even without ill will, may be led into mistakes
regarding the Ratio Studiorum, can be inferred from the following
passage which is found in a Catholic magazine.[212] “The work which
caused the greatest sensation was the _Ratio atque Institutio Studiorum
Societatis Jesu_, published in the College at Rome in 1586. It took
nine months to print it. The part bearing on theological opinions
raised a storm of opposition among the other religious orders,
principally the Dominicans, who denounced it to the Inquisition. The
result was that Sixtus V. pronounced against the book, and, in the
following editions, the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ was omitted.”
The same mistake is made by Dr. Huber.[213]
The author of the article was betrayed into making these very
inaccurate statements by implicitly trusting Debure (_Biographie
Instructive_, Paris, 1764). The historical truth is established by
Father Pachtler,[214] and by Father Duhr.[215] The evidence given by
Father Pachtler may be summed up as follows:
1. The Ratio of 1586 was in no sense of the word “published”, and
hence caused no “sensation” whatever. It was only the project or plan
of a Ratio, and printed privately for the members of the Order. How it
should have taken “nine months to print it,” is unintelligible; the
error arose probably from misunderstanding the fact, that it took the
six fathers who formed the committee, nine months to work out the plan
of the Ratio.
2. This first draft, written in the form of dissertations, is now very
rare. It is known to exist at present in Trier (Treves), Berlin, Milan,
and Marseilles. Father Pachtler has for the first time reprinted it
entirely from the copy found in the city library at Trier (located in
the former Jesuit College).
3. This private document was not “denounced to the Inquisition,” but
was wrongfully seized by the “Spanish Inquisition,” at the instance of
the Spanish Dominicans, set on by some disloyal Spanish Jesuits who
were soon after expelled from the Society.
4. As soon as the seizure was reported to Rome, Father Aquaviva
complained directly to Pope Sixtus V. This energetic Pope, formerly
a Franciscan and by no means partial to the Jesuits, far from
“pronouncing against the book,” became highly incensed at the action
of the Spanish Inquisition, and wrote a characteristic dispatch to his
nuncio in Spain, inclosing a letter to the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor
Quiroga, and bidding the nuncio deliver the letter to the Cardinal
only after having read it to him. In this letter the masterful Pontiff
commands Quiroga, in virtue of his apostolic power, forthwith to
restore to the Society the book of the Institute (which had also been
seized), and especially the Ratio Studiorum. And unless he obeyed this
command, the Pope threatened to depose him at once from the office of
Grand Inquisitor, and strip him of the dignity of Cardinal.[216]
5. The second draft of the Ratio was sent to the Provinces in 1591.
In this draft the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ (i. e. catalogue of
philosophical and theological questions which were not to be taught in
the Society), was omitted, but was sent out separately for examination
in the following year. Hence the statement that in the following
editions the chapter _De Opinionum Delectu_ was omitted, is again
inaccurate.
6. The final Ratio, including, of course, the _Catalogus Quaestionum_,
was, as we have seen before, promulgated in 1599.[217]
This final Ratio did not contain any discussions on the educational
value of different subjects, nor any treatises why this or that
method had been adopted. Such discussions had preceded, and had been
contained in the Ratio of 1585.[218] That of 1599 was a code of laws,
a collection of rules for the different officials, in whose hands
lies the government of a college, and for the teachers of the various
classes. The rules are divided as follows:
I.
_Regulae Provincialis_ (Provincial Superior).
” _Rectoris_ (President).
” _Praefecti Studiorum_ (Prefect or Superintendent of Studies).
II.
_Regulae Communes omnibus Professoribus Superiorum Facultatum_
(General regulations for the Professors of theology and
philosophy).
” _Professoris Sacrae Scripturae._
” ” _Linguae Hebraicae._
” ” _Scholasticae Theologiae._
” ” _Historiae Ecclesiasticae._
” ” _Juris Canonici._
” ” _Casuum Conscientiae_ (Moral Theology).
III.
_Regulae Professoris Philosophiae._
” ” _Philosophiae Moralis_ (Ethics).
” ” _Physicae_ (Physics and other natural sciences).[219]
” ” _Mathematicae._
IV.
_Regulae Praefecti Studiorum Inferiorum_ (together with regulations
for written examinations and for
awarding prizes).
_Regulae Communes Professoribus Classium Inferiorum._
” _Professoris Rhetoricae._
” ” _Humanitatis._
” ” _Supremae Classis Grammaticae._
” ” _Mediae_ ” ”
” ” _Infimae_ ” ”
Then follow various rules: for the pupils, for the management of
academies (literary and debating societies) etc.
The rules under No. I are those of the Superiors.[220] The entire
government of a college is in the hands of the _Rector_ (President).
He is also the court of appeal in all disputed questions among the
teachers, or between the masters and the students. He is to inspect
the classes from time to time, in order to inform himself of the
progress of the students, and to give advice to the teachers. As far as
possible, he is to take an interest in each pupil personally. Nothing
of importance can be undertaken in the college without consulting
him, nor can any custom of the house be changed without his consent.
The subordinate officials have that amount of authority which he
gives them, and they are obliged to report to him frequently on the
conditions of affairs in the college. The Rector’s power is, however,
not absolute; he has to follow the laws laid down for him. Besides he
is provided with a Board of Consultors and he is obliged to ask their
opinion on all matters of greater moment, although he remains free to
follow their advice or to reject it. The teachers have to carry out
the decisions of the Rector, but they may always have recourse to the
higher Superior, the Provincial. The Provincial visits the colleges at
least once a year, and every teacher has to confer with him privately
and may lay before him any complaints against the Rector. In this
manner, a firm centralized government is ensured, while at the same
time any arbitrariness on the part of Superiors is prevented.
Interesting are, in this regard, the words of Father Nadal: “Let the
Rector have his ordinary advisers (_consultores_) and let him hold
regular meetings (_concilia_). One is the meeting of ‘languages’,
in which all teachers of the languages take part; the second of
philosophy, and the third of theology. To these meetings the Rector may
invite two or three other experienced men, if he thinks it necessary
or useful. In order to settle a question concerning languages, or
philosophy, or theology, a meeting of the respective professors should
be held; if a question concerns the whole institution, a meeting of
all professors should be called. However, the Rector is not so bound
that he could not do anything without convoking such a meeting. For
these meetings are held that he may benefit by their advice. The whole
authority and responsibility of the administration rests with him; but
every year the Rector shall report to the General about the college,
and all officials of the college shall inform the General through
sealed letters about the administration by the Rector.”[221]
The chief assistant of the Rector is the _Prefect of Studies_. To
him belongs the direct supervision of the classes and everything
connected with instruction. He must be a man of literary and scientific
accomplishments and of experience in teaching, so that both teachers
and students can have recourse to him with confidence in all questions
pertaining to education. It is his duty to assign the students to their
proper classes, to determine the matter of examination, and to appoint
the examiners, to select the authors to be read during the following
scholastic year,[222] to visit every class at least once in two weeks,
to admonish the masters of any defects he notices in their manner of
teaching, and to direct them by other useful advice. In all this he is
the instrument of the Rector, whom he has to consult in all important
matters.
There is another assistant of the Rector, the _Prefect of Discipline_,
who is immediately responsible for all that concerns external order and
discipline. From these few details, it will appear that the government
of a Jesuit college is, at once, extremely simple and highly efficient.
The regulations contained under No. II are for the theological faculty
in universities and seminaries. We have to examine chiefly the last two
classes: the regulations for the faculty of Arts or Philosophy, and
those for the _Studia inferiora_ or _Humanities_. These “lower studies”
were for the greater part literary and correspond to the classical
course of the high school and part of the college. The Ratio Studiorum
treated languages, mathematics and sciences not simultaneously, but
successively; hence the distinction between Philosophy (Arts) and
_Studia inferiora_.
In the five lower classes--in many places there were six--the classical
languages were the staple studies. Other branches, as history and
geography, were to be treated as _accessories_ or complements of the
literary studies. The task for each grade is expressed in the first
rule of the Professor of the respective class.[223]
LOWER GRAMMAR. The aim of this class is a perfect knowledge of the
rudiments and elementary knowledge of the syntax.--In Greek: reading,
writing, and a certain portion of the grammar. The work used for the
prelection,[224] will be some easy selections from Cicero, besides
fables of Phaedrus and Lives of Nepos.
MIDDLE GRAMMAR. The aim is a knowledge, though not entire, of all
grammar; and, for the prelection, only the select epistles, narrations,
descriptions and the like from Cicero, with the Commentaries of Caesar,
and some of the easiest poems of Ovid.--In Greek: the fables of Aesop,
select dialogues of Lucian, the Tablet of Cebes.
UPPER GRAMMAR. The aim is a complete knowledge of grammar, including
all the exceptions and idioms in syntax, figures and rhetoric, and the
art of versification.--In Greek: the eight parts of speech, or all
the rudiments. For the lessons: in prose, the most important epistles
of Cicero, the books, _De Amicitia_, _De Senectute_, and others of
the kind, or even some of the easier orations; in poetry, some select
elegies and epistles of Ovid, also selection from Catullus, Tibullus,
Propertius, and the Eclogues of Virgil, or some of Virgil’s easier
books, as the fourth book of the Georgics, or the fifth and seventh
books of the Aeneid.--In Greek: St. Chrysostom, Aesop, and the like.
HUMANITIES. The aim is to prepare, as it were, the ground for
eloquence, which is done in three ways: by a knowledge of the language,
some erudition, and a sketch of the precepts pertaining to rhetoric.
For a command of the language, which consists chiefly in acquiring
propriety of expression and fluency, the one prose author employed in
daily prelections is Cicero; as historical writers, Caesar, Sallust,
Livy, Curtius, and others of the kind; the poets used are, first of
all, Virgil; also odes of Horace, with the elegies, epigrams and other
productions of illustrious poets, expurgated; in like manner orators,
historians, and poets, in the vernacular (1832). The erudition conveyed
should be slight, and only to stimulate and recreate the mind, not
to impede progress in learning the tongue. The precepts will be the
general rules of expression and style, and the special rules on the
minor kinds of composition, epistles, narrations, descriptions, both in
verse and prose.--In Greek: the art of versification, and some notions
of the dialects; also a clear understanding of authors, and some
composition in Greek. The Greek prose authors will be Saints Chrysostom
and Basil, epistles of Plato and Synesius, and some selections
from Plutarch; the poets: Homer, Phocylides, Theognis, St. Gregory
Nazianzen, Synesius, and others like them.
RHETORIC. The grade of this class cannot be easily defined. For it
trains to perfect eloquence, which comprises two great faculties,
the oratorical and the poetical, the former chiefly being the object
of culture; nor does it regard only the practical, but the beautiful
also. For the precepts, Cicero may be supplemented with Quintilian and
Aristotle. The style, which may be assisted by drawing on the most
approved historians and poets, is to be formed on Cicero; all of his
works are most fitted for this purpose, but only his speeches should
be made the subject of prelection, that the precepts of the art may be
seen in practice.--As to the vernacular, the style should be formed on
the best authors (1832). The erudition will be derived from the history
and manners of nations, from the authority of writers and all learning;
but moderately as befits the capacity of the students.--In Greek: the
fuller knowledge of authors and of dialects is to be acquired. The
Greek authors, whether orators, historians, or poets, are to be ancient
and classic: Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and
others of the kind, including Saints Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom.
Let it not be imagined, however, that this plan was followed
slavishly. The different provinces of the Order made such adaptations
and introduced such changes as they thought best for their respective
countries. We give here the plan which was followed in the colleges in
Upper Germany, in the beginning of the eighteenth century. It is taken
from the _Ratio et Via_ of Father Kropf, published in 1736.[225]
LOWER GRAMMAR. _First Year._
(First high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar of Alvarez, elements, and easier rules of
construction.--Reading: The easiest letters of Cicero, specially
selected and separately printed. Selections from book I and II of
Father Pontanus’ _Progymnasmata_.[226]
_Greek._ Grammar of Father Gretser,[227] or of Father Bayer.[228]
Correct reading and writing; accents and declensions.
_Religion._ Small Catechism of Peter Canisius,[229] part I-II.
Explanation of the Latin Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_,[230] vol. I., treating chiefly of
the history of the people of Israel.
LOWER GRAMMAR. _Second Year._
(Second high school class.)
_Latin._ Alvarez’ Grammar, book I, part II; repetition of first year’s
matter; the irregular verb; first part of syntax.--Reading: Select
letters of Cicero. Selections from Pontanus’ _Progymnasmata_.
_Greek._ Grammar: repetition of declensions; comparison of adjectives;
pronouns and auxiliary verbs.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius, part I-III. Explanation of Latin
Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. II: The four monarchies (Ancient
history).
MIDDLE GRAMMAR.
(Third high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar: The whole of syntax; repetition of irregular
verbs.--Reading: chiefly Cicero’s _Epistulae ad Familiares_, some
parts of the _Progymnasmata_. The reading of poetical works which is
customary in other Jesuit colleges in this class, is not sanctioned in
this province.
_Greek._ Grammar: the verb completed.--As regards reading it is left
to the judgment of the Prefect of Studies to prescribe the study of
the Greek Catechism or Cebes’ Tablet. At all events the pupils should
practise the reading of these books from time to time and give an
account of their reading.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius and Latin Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. III: The Christian Emperors of
Rome (Medieval history).
UPPER GRAMMAR.
(Fourth high school class.)
_Latin._ Grammar: the whole of syntax (repeated), rules of
construction; rules of prosody.--Reading: Above all, the Letters
of Cicero to Atticus and his brother Quintus; _De Amicitia_, _De
Senectute_, etc. Selections from the _Progymnasmata_, books II and
III.--Selections from Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius; Ovid; Virgil;
fourth book of the Georgics; Aeneid, books V and VII.
_Greek._ First book of Gretser’s grammar, except the
dialects.--Reading: Chrysostom, Aesop, Agapetus, etc.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius. Greek Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. IV: The States of the World
(Modern history).
HUMANITIES. (Freshman.)
_Latin._ Rules of rhetoric from a brief compendium; rules of style,
tropes, figures, etc.--Reading: Cicero’s ethical works; Caesar, Livy,
Curtius, Sallust, etc., or easier orations of Cicero: _Pro Lege
Manilla_, _Pro Archia_, _Pro Marcello_, etc. Virgil; select odes of
Horace, etc.
_Greek._ The whole of syntax. The teacher should see that the pupils
acquire a fair understanding of the authors, and that they are able
to write an easier Greek composition. The authors are orations of
Isocrates, or of Chrysostom and Basil; also letters of Plato and
Synesius, selections from Plutarch, poems of Phocylides, Theognis, etc.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius; the Greek Gospel.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. V: Geography and heraldics.
RHETORIC. (Sophomore.)
Precepts of rhetoric from the oratorical works of Cicero and
Aristotle. The practice of the rules is chiefly based on Cicero,
particularly his orations; also the historians may be used to some
extent. The rules of poetry may be drawn from Aristotle’s _Poetics_. Of
the poets only the best should be read: Virgil, Horace, etc.
_Greek._ Repetition of syntax; prosody; the dialects, a further
introduction into Greek literature. The standard authors are
Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, etc.; also
Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom may be read.
Other Latin and Greek authors which may be given into the hands of the
pupils of the class of Rhetoric and of other classes, are enumerated by
Juvencius.
_Religion._ Catechism of Canisius (larger one). On Saturday the Acts of
the Apostles are read in Greek, or an oration of Chrysostom.
_History._ _Rudimenta historica_, vol. VI: Compendium of Church history.
The school hours were not too long; two hours and a half in the morning
and the same in the afternoon; in the highest class (rhetoric),
only two hours in the morning and the same in the afternoon; thus
the students of the highest grade were wisely given more time for
home work. There was ordinarily a full holiday every week, usually
Wednesday or Thursday, “lest,” as the regulations of the Province of
the Upper Rhine have it, “the pupils have to go to school four days in
succession.”[231] These holidays were frequently spent in a country
house (_villa_), near the city. On the whole, study and recreation were
so distributed that the complaints of “overburdening” the students
could not reasonably be made in Jesuit schools.
Against the literary curriculum of the Society some serious charges
have been made by modern critics. It has been said that nothing but
the ancient languages was studied in Jesuit colleges, and that other
branches, as history, were entirely neglected, “Preoccupied before
all else with purely formal studies, and exclusively devoted to the
exercises which give a training in the use of elegant language, the
Jesuits leave real and concrete studies in entire neglect. History is
almost wholly banished from their programme. It is only with reference
to the Greek and Latin texts that the teacher should make allusion to
the matters of history, which are necessary for the understanding of
the passage under examination. No account is made of modern history,
nor of the history of France. ‘History’, says a Jesuit Father, ‘is the
destruction of him who studies it’.”[232] This last remark strikes us,
and perhaps also other readers of M. Compayré’s work, as ridiculous. We
ask: Who is this Jesuit Father that made such a silly statement? Is he
one of the framers of the Ratio Studiorum, or one of its commentators,
or a Superior of the Order? No; no one knows who he is--if ever a
Jesuit has said such nonsense. But granted one has said it, must not
every fair-minded reader ask: Can the Jesuit Order be said to hold and
defend all the views which every individual Jesuit has uttered? If a
Professor of Harvard or Yale University made a foolish remark, would it
be fair to hold up the two universities to ridicule?
But let us examine the facts. History is taught in Jesuit schools
and was taught in the Old Society, it matters little whether this and
other branches were called _accessories_ or side branches--they were
called so because much less time was devoted to them than to the study
of language and literature. It is true, the historical studies were
not then cultivated, neither in Protestant nor Catholic schools, to
such extent as is done now. But history was never neglected in Jesuit
colleges, and it gradually obtained a place of honor among the literary
studies. This was evidently the case in France in the beginning of the
eighteenth century. We refer the reader to various works which deal
with this subject.[233] In Germany we find in the Jesuit colleges, as
early as 1622, special historical works assigned to various classes.
In these compendia also “modern” history was treated.[234] The
text-books most in use in German Jesuit colleges during the eighteenth
century, were the _Rudimenta Historica_ of Father Dufrène,[235] and
the _Introductio_ of Father Wagner.[236] From Father Kropf’s work it
is evident that, when he wrote this work in 1736, history was treated
quite systematically, in a well graded course, in all the classes below
philosophy. This is evident from the programme given above on pages
121-125. The same author gives also a method of teaching history.[237]
Nor was geography neglected. In the earlier Jesuit schools it was
treated more fully only in the philosophical course, in connection
with astronomy, or as “erudition” in the class of rhetoric. As early
as 1677 a geographical text-book, written by Father König,[238] was
used in German colleges. We have proofs that geography was taught in
the colleges in France, twelve years after the publication of the
Ratio Studiorum. A few years ago a manuscript was found belonging to
the old Jesuit college of Avignon, written in the year 1611 by Father
Bonvalot. It contains, in ninety-four folio pages, a brief but complete
course of geography. This course is divided into two parts: Europe,
and the countries outside of Europe. Every country of Europe forms the
subject of a special chapter, in which ancient and modern geography
are combined. Special attention is paid to the customs of the peoples,
the form of government, etc. This manuscript was used as the basis
of lessons in geography, which were dictated to the pupils. It has
been said that geography was not taught in Jesuit schools until long
after this branch had been cultivated in the schools of the Oratory
and the _Petites-Écoles_ of Port-Royal. And yet Father Bonvalot wrote
his course of geography the very year in which the Oratory was founded
and more than thirty years before the opening of the _Petites-Écoles_.
But Father Bonvalot was perhaps an exception. By no means. Documentary
evidence is at hand to show that, before the middle of the seventeenth
century, there was hardly a manuscript “course of rhetoric” in the
colleges of Lyons, Tournon, Avignon, etc., which did not contain a
course of geography.[239] The custom of dictating these lessons was
continued until the handbooks of geography were published by the
Jesuits Monet, Riccioli, Labbe, Briet, Saint-Juste, Buffier. Father
Daniel, S. J., in an interesting essay of twenty-eight pages, has
given many important details about the teaching of geography in Jesuit
colleges of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.[240]
Special attention was given to the geography of the country in which
the colleges were situated, but great interest was also taken in
the geographical discoveries in foreign countries. The Jesuits had,
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, better advantages for
obtaining geographical information than any other body of men. The
Jesuit missionaries scattered all over the world sent regular accounts
of their journeys and observations to their brethren in Europe. That
much valuable geographical and ethnological information was contained
in these reports may be seen from the “Jesuit Relations”, seventy-three
volumes of letters of Jesuits from New France, i. e. Canada and the
Northern part of the United States.[241] Several Jesuit missionaries
have made most important contributions to the science of geography,
not only by great discoveries as that of the Mississippi by Father
Marquette, but also by most valuable maps. Thus we read of Father
Martini in Baron von Richthofen’s work on China: “Father Martini is the
best geographer of all the missioners. By his great work, _Novus Atlas
Sinensis_, the best and most complete description which we possess of
China, he has become the Father of Chinese geography.” The first maps
of North Mexico, Arizona and Lower California, were prepared by four
German Jesuits, among them, the famous Father Kino (his German name was
Kühn).[242]
These few details taken from a mass of similar facts, show what
interest the Jesuits took in geography, and even if we had no positive
proof we would have to conjecture that they did not neglect its study
in their schools. But the positive proofs abundantly show that another
charge against the Jesuit colleges of former centuries is a sheer
calumny.
Owing to the importance of Latin as the universal language of
the educated world, less attention was devoted to the study of the
mother-tongue. In this regard the schools of the Jesuits did not
differ from those of the Protestants. However, at no time was the
mother-tongue entirely neglected; and gradually it received more and
more consideration. Thus, in France, rules for writing French verses
appear in the dictated “courses of rhetoric” in 1663.[243] About 1600,
the Bohemian Jesuits asked and received permission to open a private
“academy” for the study of the Czech language.[244] As early as 1560
Father Jerome Nadal had exhorted the Jesuits at Cologne, “to cultivate
diligently the German language and to find out a method of teaching
it; they should also select pupils and teachers for this branch.”[245]
In 1567 he gave the same order in Mentz. During the Thirty Years’ War,
the German Jesuits Balde, Mair, Bidermann and Pexenfelder, planned the
establishment of a society for the improvement of the German language;
but the calamities of that horrible war, which reduced Germany to a
state of utter misery, frustrated this whole plan. From about 1730
on, the German language was taught in the Jesuit schools according to
fixed rules, and the pupils were diligently practised in writing prose
compositions and poetry. Many valuable testimonies on this subject
are given by Father Duhr.[246] The fact that many Jesuits are to be
found among the prominent writers in the different modern languages
is another proof that the vernacular was not neglected, much less
“proscribed” as M. Compayré says.[247] One of the finest German writers
of the seventeenth century was the Jesuit Spe. The sweetness, power
and literary merits of his collection of exquisite poems, entitled
_Trutz-Nachtigall_ (Dare-Nightingale), and of his prose work _Güldnes
Tugendbuch_ (Virtue’s Golden Book) are admired by critics of the most
different schools, Protestants as well as Catholics.[248] Father Denis,
a Jesuit of the eighteenth century, was a most distinguished German
writer, and has been called “the pioneer of German literature in
Austria.” How could all these facts be explained if what Mr. Painter
says were true: “The Jesuits were hostile to the mother-tongue; and
distrusting the influence of its associations, endeavored to supplant
it”?[249]
After the pupil’s mind had been enriched with the treasures of
Latin and Greek literature, and after his native talents had been
“cultivated” or “stimulated”, as the Ratio very expressively
designates it, the student entered on the study of philosophy.[250]
This course, if given completely, comprised three years. The Ratio
of 1599 prescribed for the _First Year_: Introduction and Logics;
_Second Year_: Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy; _Third Year_: Special
Metaphysics, Psychology and Ethics. A course of mathematics runs
parallel with philosophy.
In philosophy Aristotle was the standard author. Of course, those
of his opinions which were contradictory to revealed truths were
refuted.[251] Special care is recommended in the correct explanation
of the text of Aristotle. “No less pains are to be taken in the
interpretation of the text than in the questions themselves. And the
Professor should also convince the students that it is a very defective
philosophy which neglects this study of the text.”[252] The Professor
of Philosophy is also told “to speak respectfully of St. Thomas Aquinas
and to follow him whenever possible.”[253] The Ratio had to encounter
many an attack for not following St. Thomas more rigorously. But the
composers of the Ratio wisely admitted modifications, as St. Thomas
evidently could not claim infallibility in all questions.
The philosophical course comprised not only philosophy properly so
called, but also mathematics and natural sciences. This _successive_
teaching of literary and scientific subjects secured concentration and
unity in instruction, whereas in modern systems too many branches,
which have no connection with each other, are taught in the same class
so that the mind of the young untrained learner is bewildered. There is
another consideration which may vindicate the educational wisdom of the
Ratio Studiorum in assigning mathematics and sciences to a later stage
in the curriculum. Distinguished teachers of mathematics have recently
pointed out that the mathematical teaching in the lower and middle
classes is frequently beyond the capacity of the students of those
grades. Problems are proposed which, at that stage, can at best be
treated only mechanically and superficially.[254] Mathematics, says a
prominent writer on this subject, makes very high demands on the mental
powers of the pupils, in such a degree that only the mature age derives
the full benefit from the study of this branch.[255]
In the philosophical course of the Jesuit colleges, mathematics was
by no means slighted, or treated as a branch of small educational
value. It will suffice to quote what an autograph treatise written
by Father Clavius, the “Euclid of his Age,” has on the teaching of
mathematics. “_First_, let a teacher of more than ordinary learning
and authority be chosen to teach this branch; otherwise, as experience
proves, the pupils cannot be attracted to the study of mathematics....
It is necessary that the professor have an inclination and a liking for
teaching this science; he must not be distracted by other occupations,
otherwise he will hardly be able to advance the students. In order
that the Society may always have capable professors of this science,
some men should be selected who are specially fitted for this task,
and they should be trained in a private school (_academia_) in the
science of mathematics.... I need not mention that without mathematics
the teaching of natural philosophy is defective and imperfect.--In
the _second_ place it is necessary that the pupils understand that
this science is useful and necessary for a correct understanding of
philosophy, and, at the same time, complements and embellishes all
other studies. Nay more, they should know that this science is so
closely related to natural philosophy that, unless they help each
other, neither can maintain its proper place and dignity. In order to
accomplish this it will be necessary for the students of physics to
study mathematics at the same time; this is a custom which has always
been kept up in the schools of the Society. For if the mathematical
sciences were taught at any other time, the students of philosophy
would think, and not without some reason, that they were not necessary
for physics, and so very few would be inclined to study mathematics.”
The writer then goes on to show the necessity of mathematics for the
study of the movements of heavenly bodies, of their distances, of the
oppositions and conjunctions of the comets; of the tides, the winds,
the rainbow, and other physical phenomena. He also treats of various
exercises by which the study of mathematics can best be advanced, such
as lectures given by the students on mathematical and astronomical
subjects.[256]
We find that in mathematics, pure and applied, the courses of the
Jesuit colleges were advanced to the foremost rank; in arithmetic and
geometry we notice that, as early as 1667, a single public course,
under the direction of the Jesuits at Caen, numbered four hundred
students.[257] The Order had among its members many distinguished
mathematicians, some of whom will be mentioned in succeeding chapters.
The modern course of physics was, in those centuries, a thing of the
future. But the physical sciences were taught as far as they were
known; in the middle of the eighteenth century, we find physical
cabinets in regular use, and experimental lectures given to the classes
by the professor of physics.[258]
These testimonies will suffice to show that the Jesuits, however
much they valued the classical studies, were not so one-sided as to
disregard or neglect mathematics and natural sciences. What, then,
should be said of Compayré’s statements: “The Jesuits leave real and
concrete studies in entire neglect.... The sciences are involved in the
same disdain as history. Scientific studies are entirely proscribed in
the lower classes.”[259] Indeed, in the Old Society, the sciences were
not taught in the five lower classes; there the Jesuits concentrated
the efforts of the pupils on the languages; but in the three highest
classes they applied the students with the same energy to the study of
mathematics, sciences and philosophy.
Having thus far analyzed the Ratio Studiorum, we may be allowed to
quote the judgment of Mr. Quick on the Ratio Studiorum: “The Jesuit
system stands out in the history of education as a remarkable instance
of a school system elaborately thought out and worked as a whole. In it
the individual schoolmaster withered (_sic!_), but the system grew, and
was, and I may say _is_, a mighty organism. The single Jesuit teacher
might not be the superior of the average teacher in good Protestant
schools, but by their unity of action the Jesuits triumphed over their
rivals as easily as a regiment of soldiers scatters a mob.”[260] This
system “points out a perfectly attainable goal, and carefully defines
the road by which that goal is to be approached. For each class was
prescribed not only the work to be done, but also the end to be kept
in view. Thus method reigned throughout--perhaps not the best method,
as the object to be attained was assuredly not the highest object
(_sic!_), but the method such as it was, was applied with undeviating
exactness. In this particular the Jesuit schools contrasted strongly
with their rivals of old, as indeed with the ordinary school of the
present day.”[261]
If we ask to which sources the Ratio Studiorum is to be referred, we
must confess that an adequate answer is not easy. There are many little
brooks which by their conflux form that mighty river. Ignatius and his
companions had been trained in scholastic philosophy. The Constitutions
and the Ratio Studiorum adapted this philosophic system, modified,
however, and perfected by the teachers and writers of the Order. Hence
the central position of Aristotle in philosophy, and St. Thomas Aquinas
in theology.[262]
The literary course was an adaptation of the humanistic schools as
they existed shortly before the outbreak of the Reformation. It is
especially Paris and the Netherlands which we have to consider as the
chief sources of much that is contained in the Ratio. We heard that
the great University of Paris was the _Alma Mater_ of St. Ignatius
and his first companions. Great must have been the influence of this
seat of learning on the formation of the educational system of the
Jesuits. Bartoli, one of the historians of the Society, goes so far
as to say: “Spain gave the Society a father in St. Ignatius, France
a mother in the University of Paris.” From this University Ignatius
probably adopted the division of his system of studies into the three
parts: Languages, Arts or Philosophy, Theology. In languages again the
Constitutions, as well as the Paris University, distinguished three
parts: Grammar, Humanities, Rhetoric. The school exercises, especially
the disputations in philosophy, were fashioned after those of Paris.
Father Polanco, secretary of the Society, himself a student of Paris,
writes about the colleges of Messina and Vienna, that “exercises
(disputations) were added to the lectures after the model of those of
Paris (_more parisiensi_).”[263]
Ignatius himself had recommended Paris as “the University where one
gains more profit in a few years than in some others in many.”[264] In
1553 he writes to Cardinal Morone that in the _Collegium Germanicum_ in
Rome, the exercises in the _Artes Liberales_ were the same as in Paris,
Louvain, and other celebrated Universities.[265] Louvain was called
by him a “most flourishing University,” and he wishes to establish
a college there.[266] It was pointed out before, that the “plans of
study” of Nadal and Ledesma exerted a great influence on the _Ratio_ of
1599. Both these men had for many years studied at Paris, Ledesma also
in Louvain.
This leads us to another source of the educational system of the
Jesuits: the humanistic schools of the Netherlands. We spoke of
Louvain in chapter II. Ignatius had visited the Netherlands in 1529
and 1530, and a considerable number of Jesuits in the first decades
of the Society came from that country. Ribadeneira enumerates 53 who
became known as writers before 1600. Two of the men who were in the
Commissions for drawing up the Ratio, Francis Coster and Peter Busaeus,
were from the Netherlands. Others were influential as founders of
colleges, for instance, Peter Canisius of Nymwegen; or as heads of
famous institutions, like Leonard Kessel of Louvain, Rector of the
College of Cologne.
As was said before, during his sojourn at Paris, Ignatius may have
come into contact with the Brethren of the Common Life.[267] These
Brethren conducted famous schools all over the Netherlands; their
college in Liège was perhaps the most flourishing school in Europe
at the beginning of the Reformation. Many points conspicuous in the
Ratio Studiorum, as well as in Sturm’s system, were to be found
in this college. Latin was the principal branch. It was taught
very methodically, and the imitation of authors was insisted on.
The course had eight classes; the lower were grammar classes; the
fifth--and part of the sixth--was Rhetoric, the seventh and eighth
taught Aristotelian philosophy and mathematics. Contests between
the pupils (_concertationes_) were frequent, especially solemn ones
at the distribution of prizes at the end of the scholastic year. On
account of the great number of pupils, the classes were divided into
_decuriae_, divisions of ten pupils each. At the head of each decuria
was a _decurio_, to whom his ten subjects had to recite their lessons,
etc.[268] All these customs are found in the Ratio Studiorum.
A result of humanistic influences was also the domineering position
which Cicero held in the classical course. To the humanists Cicero
had been _the_ author, whose style was considered by many with almost
superstitious reverence.
Humanism in the Netherlands had been much more conservative than in
Italy and Germany. Owing to the influence of the Brethren of the Common
Life, it had kept more faithfully the Christian views of the earlier
humanists. It certainly was this Christian humanism which appealed
to the religious mind of Ignatius; he always suspected the writings
of the younger humanists. Very early, shortly after his conversion,
the _Christian Knight_ of Erasmus had fallen into his hands.[269] He
conceived for this book, as well as for the _Colloquies_ and similar
works of the author, an aversion in which time only confirmed him. Not
that he was insensible to the author’s grace of style (for it is said
he made extracts from the _Christian Knight_ in order to familiarize
himself with the niceties of the Latin tongue), nor that he found
heterodox propositions in it; but he felt repulsed by the color in
which things and ideas were presented, by the malicious satire, lack of
feeling, vanity, and hollow scepticism which were prominent on every
page. Undoubtedly even if Luther had not started his Reformation,
Ignatius would have become a leader in a reform opposed to the radical
school of humanists, to whose disastrous influence the immorality of
the time and the worldliness of many ecclesiastics is, to a great
extent, to be ascribed.
The dependence of the Ratio on the University of Paris and the
humanistic schools of the Netherlands refutes also the supposition that
the Jesuits have drawn from Sturm’s “Plan of Studies”. Sturm himself
had studied, from 1521-1523, in the school of the Brethren in Liège,
from 1524-1529 at Louvain in the famous _Collegium Trilingue_; from
1530-1537 he was student and teacher in Paris. A German Protestant[270]
says: “The organization of the college of Liège made such an impression
on young Sturm that he adopted it even in some minute details as the
model for his school in Strasburg.”[271] Similarly speaks Professor
Ziegler.[272] Thus we see that Sturm had drawn his educational ideas
from the very same schools in which many of the first Jesuits had been
educated, and which were considered by them as models. Is it not much
more probable that the Jesuits fashioned their own system after these
schools, than after that of Sturm in Strasburg? Assertions, like that
of Dr. Russell, that “the Society of Jesus incorporated so many of
his [Sturm’s] methods into the new Catholic schools,”[273] are highly
improbable, and certainly not substantiated by any positive proof. What
was similar in both systems, was to be found in the humanistic schools
of the Netherlands.[274]
On equally feeble grounds rests another hypothesis advanced in
recent years, namely that “what is really good in the Jesuit system
can be traced almost in detail to Luiz Vives.”[275] In proof of this
statement the fact is mentioned that Ignatius met Vives in Bruges. The
Spaniard Vives was one of the most brilliant humanists of the time,
and a distinguished writer on pedagogy. He, too, had studied at Paris
(1509-1512), and spent a great part of his life in the Netherlands.
The argument used against the dependence on Sturm, holds good in this
case as well. It is asserted that Ignatius had borrowed from Vives,
among other good things, “the physical care bestowed upon the young,
the infrequency of punishment, the systematic teaching of Latin in
a series of classes, the study of practical science, of history and
geography, in conjunction with the explanation of the texts, the use of
note books, emulation, and the like.” Now many of these points were not
inventions of Vives, but had been already mentioned by Quintilian.[276]
The words of a German writer on pedagogy are well worth being quoted on
this point: “Strange attempts have recently been made to show that the
Jesuit pedagogy which, through its unquestionably grand results, has
become famous, is to be traced back to Vives. The fact that Vives met
the founder of the Society once, for a very short time, must serve as a
proof. But if one examines the educational principles which the Jesuits
are supposed to have taken from Vives: infrequency of punishment,
physical care of the pupils, etc., it becomes immediately evident that
these are principles which all reasonable educators have followed at
all times. We should be forced to make the absurd assumption that,
until the time of Vives, Catholics never in the past had had sound
pedagogical views, if we wished to trace back these self-evident
principles to Vives.”[277]
It really looks as though some writers are determined at least to
deny all originality to the Ratio Studiorum, if they are compelled to
admit that it achieved great results. We frankly and willingly admit
that the authors of the Ratio borrowed much from existing systems, it
matters little whence and how much. We must, however, claim that their
experience from 1540-1599, and their painstaking efforts in drawing
up the Ratio, had a considerable share in the results that attended
their system.[278] Above all, what is most characteristic in the Jesuit
system, the wonderful unity and organization, was not borrowed from any
other system, but is the work of the framers of the Constitutions and
of the Ratio Studiorum.
FOOTNOTES:
[203] The Colleges of Germany are enumerated by Paulsen, _l. c._, pp.
265-281 (2nd ed., vol. I, pp. 390-406); those of Germany (Austria),
Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, by Pachtler, vol. III, pp. IX-XVI.
[204] _Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu: Monumenta Paedagogica_,
1901-1902. We quote this important collection as _Monumenta
Paedagogica_, to be carefully distinguished from Father Pachtler’s
_Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_.
[205] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 8 and p. 89.
[206] _Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu_: “Litterae Quadrimestres”,
vol. I, pp. 349-358.
[207] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, pp. 10-12; and p. 141 foll.
[208] _Ibid._--Father Pachtler had published one such plan, which he
ascribed to Blessed Peter Canisius, probably written in 1560.
[209] Documents given by Pachtler, vol. II, p. 1 foll. A summary in the
_Études_, Paris, January 1889.
[210] Extracts of this Memorandum in Janssen’s _Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes_, vol. VII, pp. 100-103.
[211] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 57.
[212] In the _Catholic World_, April 1896: _Early Labors of the
Printing Press_.
[213] Huber, _Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 352.
[214] _Mon. Germ. Paed._, vol. II, pp. 19-21.
[215] _Studienordnung_, pp. 15-23.
[216] See Sacchini, _Historiae Societatis Jesu_, Pars V, _tom. prior_,
p. 337.
[217] _Woodstock Letters_, 1896, pp. 506-507.
[218] Pachtler, vol. II, pp. 25-217.
[219] Was added in 1832. In the Ratio of 1599 natural sciences were
treated as part of philosophy.
[220] See John Gilmary Shea, _History of Georgetown College_, 1891, pp.
83-84.
[221] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 102.
[222] “Before selecting the authors”, says Father Nadal, “let the
Prefect of Studies hear first the opinion of the teachers.” _Mon.
Paed._, p. 130.
[223] The following translation of these rules is mostly that of Father
Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 271 foll. These rules contain a few modifications
of the Revised Ratio of 1832. The two Ratios may be seen separately in
Pachtler, vol. II, 225 f. and Duhr, _l. c._, pp. 177-280.
[224] On _prelection_ see chapter XVI, § 1.
[225] In Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, pp.
340-348.
[226] James Pontanus S. J., _Progymnasmatum Latinitas sive dialogorum
selectorum libri quattuor_. Several works of this Jesuit were used in
most European schools for over a century.
[227] James Gretser, S. J., wrote several textbooks: a larger Greek
Grammar, and a Compendium: _Rudimenta Linguae Graecae_, both in many
editions; a Latin-Greek-German and a Latin-Greek Dictionary.
[228] James Bayer, S. J., wrote a Short Greek Grammar, a Latin-Greek
Dictionary, and a Latin-German and German-Latin Dictionary. Of the last
the eleventh edition was published by Professor Mayer, Würzburg, 1865.
[229] On this catechism see chapter XVIII.
[230] This history, comprising six volumes, was written by Max Dufrène,
S. J., (Landshut, Bavaria). It appeared first 1727-1730; several
editions followed.
[231] Pachtler, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 398.
[232] Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, pp. 144-145.
[233] Daniel, _Les Jésuites instituteurs de la jeunesse aux XVII. et
XVIII. siècles_.--Rochemonteix, _Un collège de Jésuites aux XVII. et
XVIII. siècles. Le collège Henri IV. de la Flèche_, vol. IV., pp.
123-147.
[234] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, pp. 104-106.--Pachtler, _Monumenta_, vol.
IV, p. 105 seq.--The first compendium used was that of Tursellini,
reaching down to 1598. It went through many editions in Germany, and in
1682 Father Ott supplemented it by a history of the seventeenth century.
[235] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 112 seq.
[236] Pachtler, _l. c._, p. 118 seq.
[237] Pachtler, _l. c._, p. 116; and German translation of Kropf’s work
in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, p. 422.
[238] Pachtler, _l. c._, pp. 106-107.
[239] Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_, pp. 316-318.
[240] _La géographie dans les collèges des Jésuites aux XVII. et XVIII.
siècles._ In the _Études_, June 1879.
[241] Edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites, published by Burrows Brothers,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1896-1901. The letters of the missionaries were read
by the students in the colleges. Father Nadal said they might be read
to the boarders during dinner and supper. (_Mon. Paed._ p. 612.).
[242] See _Notes upon the First Discoveries of California_, Washington,
1879.
[243] Chossat, _Les Jésuites, à Avignon_, p. 320.
[244] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 110.
[245] _Ib._, p. 109: “_Exerceant diligenter linguam germanicam, et
inveniant rationem qua id commodissime fieri possit; deligantur etiam
qui eam sunt docendi et quis docturus._”
[246] _Ib._, pp. 110-116.
[247] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[248] Duhr, _Frederick Spe_, Herder, Freiburg and St. Louis, 1901.
See the writer’s article “Attitude of the Jesuits in the Trials for
Witchcraft,” _American Catholic Quarterly Review_, July 1902, p.
500.--This Father Spe is better known as the heroic opponent of witch
persecution.
[249] _History of Education_, p. 170.
[250] See Hughes, _Loyola_, pp. 274-281.
[251] _Reg. Prof. Philosophiae_, 2.
[252] _Ib._, 12.
[253] _Ib._, 6.
[254] _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum etc._, 1901, vol.
VIII, p. 201.
[255] Professor Simon, in Baumeister’s _Handbuch der Erziehungs- und
Unterrichtslehre_, vol. IV, “Mathematik”, p. 33.
[256] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, pp. 471-478.
[257] Crétineau-Joly, _Histoire de la Compagnie_, vol. IV, ch.
3.--Hughes, _l. c._, p. 275.--See also Janssen, vol. VII, pp. 86-87;
vol. IV (16. ed.), p. 414.
[258] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 441, n. 7.
[259] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 144.
[260] _Educational Reformers_, p. 508.
[261] _Ib._, p. 49.
[262] This close adherence to Aristotle has been made a subject of
reproach against the Jesuit system. And yet Protestant universities
followed Aristotle as closely as the Ratio. Professor Schwalbe said
in the Conference on questions of Higher Education, held at Berlin in
1900: “We have grown up in the belief in the infallibility of the dogma
of Aristotle. When I was a student, Aristotle was still considered the
greatest scientist on earth. I have investigated this question most
thoroughly, and have found that the universities, even the freest,
with the one exception of Wittenberg, fined any one who dared to
contradict any of Aristotle’s propositions on scientific subjects. In
Oxford the penalty was so high that Giordano Bruno was unable to pay
it.” _Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höheren Unterrichts_ (Halle,
1902), p. 109.--This is a good illustration of the fact that there
existed a Protestant “Inquisition” as well as a Catholic, and it should
warn certain writers to speak with less religious bitterness on the
regrettable Galileo affair.--Professor Paulsen states in his latest
work: _Die deutschen Universitäten_ (1902, p. 43), that the dread of
heresy, during the seventeenth century, was probably greater in the
Lutheran universities than in the Catholic, because in the former the
doctrine was less certain, and dangers were apprehended not only from
Catholicism but also from Calvinism. Hence also in the philosophical
faculties of Protestant universities theological orthodoxy was insisted
on most rigorously. The same author says that in the frequent changes
from Lutheranism to Calvinism, and _vice versa_, which took place in
various Protestant states in Germany, careful inquiries were made as
to whether all teachers and officials had accepted the change with due
submission. _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 324.
[263] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 5.
[264] Joly, _Life of St. Ignatius_, p. 85.--_Cartas de San Ignacio_
(Madrid 1874), vol. I, p. 76.
[265] _Cartas_, vol. III, p. 178.
[266] _Ib._, vol. II, p. 292.
[267] See page 32.
[268] See Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 52.
[269] Joly, _Saint Ignatius of Loyola_, p. 70.
[270] Ch. Schmidt, Director of the Protestant _Gymnasium_ at Strasburg.
[271] _Jean Sturm_, pp. 5 and 36.
[272] _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 75.
[273] _German Higher Schools_, p. 47.
[274] After this chapter had been finished, I found that Professor
Paulsen had expressed the same conclusion in his _Geschichte des
gelehrten Unterrichts_ (vol. I, p. 412), where he states that any
dependence of the Jesuit system on Sturm’s plan is most improbable.
[275] Lange, in _Encyclopädie des gesammten Erziehungs- und
Unterrichtswesens_, IX, 776. See Duhr, _l. c._, p. 13.
[276] See Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 15.
[277] Dr. Frederick Kayser, in _Historisches Jahrbuch_, Munich 1894,
vol. XV, page 350, article: “Johannes Ludwig Vives.”
[278] “It may be said in general that the practical experience (of
the early Jesuits) exerted a greater influence on the formation of the
Order’s pedagogy than the study of pedagogical theorizers.” G. Müller,
quoted by Paulsen, _l. c._, vol. I, page 412.