The Revised Ratio of 1832 and Later Regulations.
The Society had been suppressed by Clement XIV. The historian Dr.
Brück says: “The Pope’s conduct was harsh and unjust”, as he had not
a single crime to lay to their charge;[381] and even Dr. Döllinger,
however hostile to the Society, must have considered its suppression
unjust; for he calls its restoration an act of justice.[382]
Documentary evidence proves that the Jesuits heroically submitted. Even
in Silesia, where Frederick II. wanted to maintain them, “they were
unwilling to hold out against the papal bull”,[383] and laying aside
whatever was specifically characteristic of the Society, they directed
the schools as secular priests. Catharine II. of Russia stubbornly
refused to allow the Papal Brief of suppression to be published in her
dominions. As the publication was required before the Brief could take
effect, the Jesuits continued their work in the two colleges at Mohilev
and Polotzk in White Russia. Five years after the suppression, in 1778,
the new Pope Pius VI. granted them permission to establish a novitiate.
Thus, as Frederick II. expressed it, “the seed had been preserved for
those who should wish to cultivate a plant so rare.” In 1801, Pius
VII., the successor of Pius VI., allowed the Jesuits to establish
themselves as a Congregation in Russia, and in 1804 he authorized the
introduction of this Congregation into the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
At length, in 1814, Pius VII., who had been educated by the enemies
of the Jesuits, reestablished the Society of Jesus. The Pope gives as
the motive of this step, that “he acted on the demand of all Catholic
Christendom”. “We should deem ourselves guilty of a great crime towards
God, if amidst the dangers of the Christian republic, we neglected
the aids which the special providence of God has put at our disposal;
and, if placed in the bark of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual
storms, we refuse to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who
volunteer their services, in order to break the waves of a sea which
threatens every moment shipwreck and death.”[384] In this Bull, Pius
VII. expressly says: “We declare besides, and grant power that they may
freely and lawfully apply themselves to the education of youth in the
principles of the Catholic faith, to form them to good morals, and to
direct colleges and seminaries.”
The Society immediately took up this work so dear to its founder and
ever cherished by the Fathers of the Old Society. New fields had been
opened in the meantime for establishing colleges, especially in England
and her dependencies, and in the United States of America.
As regards the system of studies it was found necessary, soon after
the restoration of the Society, to accommodate the Ratio to the new
conditions of the time. The changes were undertaken with the same
calm circumspection with which the old Ratio had been drawn up under
Father Aquaviva. As early as 1820 suggestions and observations were
sent to Rome from the different provinces. In 1830, the General of the
Society, Father Roothaan,[385] himself an excellent classical scholar
and experienced teacher, summoned to Rome representatives of all the
provinces. After careful deliberations the Revised Ratio appeared
in 1832. It was not a new system; nothing had been changed in the
essentials, in the fundamental principles. It was an adaptation to
modern exigencies of the old methods which had been approved by such
great success in former times.
The changes referred mainly to those _branches_ of study, which had
become important in the course of time. In the colleges Latin and
Greek should remain the principal subjects, but more time and care
should henceforth be devoted to the study of the mother-tongue and
its literature, although this had by no means been neglected in the
Old Society.[386] Thus to the 23. Rule of the Provincial was added:
“He shall take great care that the pupils [in the colleges of his
Province] are thoroughly instructed in their mother-tongue, and he
shall assign to each class the amount and kind of work to be done.” The
speaking of Latin in the lower classes was no longer possible; special
care of idiom in translating is recommended, as also correctness
of pronunciation of the mother-tongue. In the higher classes the
cultivation of style in the vernacular, according to the best models,
is insisted on. The rules concerning dramatic performances are left
out; exhibitions are neither encouraged nor forbidden. In the report
of the commission it is said that, if dramas are given, they should
be in the vernacular.[387] For the grammar classes, other authors are
introduced; in the highest grammar class, Sallust, Curtius and Livy
are read besides Cicero, the elements of mythology and archaeology
are to be taught. Xenophon takes the place of Aesop and Agapetus. In
the middle grammar class Caesar is added; in the lowest, Cornelius
Nepos.[388]
As mathematics and natural sciences, history and geography claimed
more attention, the Revised Ratio prescribed accordingly that more
time should be devoted to these branches,[389] although they were to
be considered rather as “accessories” in the literary curriculum. For
the study of more advanced mathematics and of natural sciences was even
then thought to belong properly to the course of philosophy. Still
the new Ratio left to Provincial Superiors considerable liberty in
this matter, and the Jesuit colleges, conforming to the customs of the
respective countries, have introduced some of these branches also in
the lower classes.
The greatest change was made in the rules concerning the teaching
of philosophy and natural sciences. Aristotle, _the_ Philosopher of
former times, could no longer hold his place in the schools. So the
Revised Ratio does not mention him, although the speculative questions
of logics and general metaphysics are mostly treated according to
Aristotelian principles. And rightly so; for as a modern Professor of
Philosophy says, “Aristotle’s doctrine forms the basis of traditional
logic even to this day.”[390]
It may be safely said that after the vagaries of Hegel and others,
there was manifested, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, a
greater appreciation of Aristotelian philosophy. The most prominent
advocate of this revival, Professor Trendelenburg of Berlin, expressly
declares that “the organic theory of the universe, the basis of which
was laid by Plato and Aristotle, is the only philosophy which has a
future before it; and that speculation done by fits and starts and by
every man for himself, has proved itself to have no permanence.”[391]
A remark of Professor Paulsen may not be without interest. “There are
people who are inclined to use the names of Thomas Aquinas and Scotus
as synonymous with nonsense and craziness. To such it may be well to
say that even at the present day there are men who think similarly
as Saint Thomas, whom they consider the prince of philosophers, and
on whom they base their whole philosophical instruction. And these
are the men to whom the despisers of scholasticism give credit for a
great amount, if not of wisdom, at least of extraordinary prudence and
cunning, I mean the Jesuits. Has not the See of Rome restored Saint
Thomas, the philosopher whom the Society of Jesus has chosen as its
guide, as the philosopher of the Church? Has this been done in order to
stultify the clergy? Can this be the intention of those who, through
the clergy, wish to domineer over the world?”[392]
Physics, chemistry, physiology, psychology, astronomy, geology, and
cosmology are taught according to the established principles of modern
science. The basis of this study is thus laid down: “The professor
of physics is to expose theories, systems, and hypotheses, so as
to make it clear what degree of certitude or probability belongs
to each. Since in this faculty new progress is made every day, the
professor must consider it part of his duty, to know the more recent
discoveries, so that in his prelections he may advance with the science
itself.”[393] Higher mathematics (analytic geometry and calculus) are
to be taught not only in one but in two, if possible in three, years of
the philosophical course. We may now invite the reader to judge about
Compayré’s assertions: “The sciences and philosophy are involved in the
same disdain as history. Scientific studies are entirely proscribed
in the lower classes, and the student enters his year in philosophy,
having studied only the ancient languages. Philosophy itself is reduced
to a barren study of words, to subtile discussions, and to commentaries
on Aristotle. Memory and syllogistic reasoning are the only faculties
called into play; no facts, no real inductions, no care for the
observation of nature. In all things the Jesuits are the enemies of
progress. Intolerant of anything new, they would arrest the progress of
the human mind and make it immovable.”[394] It seems almost impossible
to crowd more falsehoods into so small a space. There are at least ten
flagrant misrepresentations in these six short sentences.[395]
Philosophy has been discarded from most modern programs of college
instruction, but to the great detriment of solid learning. A thorough
philosophical training is of the greatest value for the lawyer,
physician, and scientist, and for every man who wishes to occupy
a higher position in life. Paulsen, and many other leading German
schoolmen, express their regret that in the new systems philosophical
training has been entirely relegated to the university. Two objections
are made against this method: First, the form of instruction proper
to the university is of the continuous lecture. But this method
presupposes instruction in form of question and answer, in philosophy
as well as in other branches. We should consider it a failure to try
to teach grammar from the beginning by lectures, as given at the
university. It seems as little promising of success to teach logic in
this manner. Exercises in logic must be _practised_ as well as must the
forms of grammar. By giving a boy a definition of the Subjunctive or
of the Ablative Absolute, you will not enable him to write correctly.
Similarly by lecturing about the definition or by giving a definition
of definition, even when illustrated by examples, you will not enable
the student to handle these formulas logically. To a certain extent
this applies also to psychology, ethics and civics. The elementary
notions must be practised by concrete examples, so that they are ready,
and as it were, handy in mind; then it is possible to use them for more
complicated operations.[396]
The second reason for not relegating philosophy entirely to the
university, has been well stated by Professor Elsperger. “If the
gymnasia do not wish to leave to chance the sort of ideas the pupils
get from a reading that is often enough desultory, and from intercourse
with others, then they need, in the highest classes, a branch of
study which gives them the ideas needed. This can be attained only by
elementary training in philosophy. Mathematics can do nothing in this
direction, the study of Latin and Greek literature does something,
but is not sufficient, and unfortunately, religion is to some extent
mistrusted by not a few teachers. Thus it happens that many of our
older pupils not only suffer shipwreck in their faith, but leave
college with that lamentable scepticism of the uneducated, which views
every nobler idea with suspicion. This tendency of very many of our
young men can be counteracted only by a branch of study which attacks
that sceptical disposition, and forces the pupil to obtain a deeper
view of things.”[397]
It is exactly for such reasons that the Society of Jesus has kept the
course of philosophy in its curriculum of higher education. It agrees
with Professor Paulsen that elementary training in philosophy is
possible and necessary in higher schools.[398] About the possibility,
the Jesuits never could entertain the least doubt, as for centuries
they carried it out successfully, and at present are giving a solid
philosophical training in all their larger colleges.
The Revised Ratio of 1832 was in no way considered final. In the
letter accompanying this Ratio, Father General Roothaan, writes to
the provinces: “We offer to you the result of careful examinations
and discussions. You must test it practically that it may be again
corrected, if necessary, or enlarged, and then be sanctioned as a
universal law (for the Society).”[399] Only by a decree of a General
Congregation of the Order is this sanction possible. Such a decree,
however, was not passed; consequently, the Revised Ratio has not the
force of a law in the Society, but is merely to be considered as a
regulation of the General. So much liberty is left to Provincials
that the teaching in Jesuit colleges can easily be adapted to the
educational needs of all countries. In 1853, the XXII. Congregation
of the Order passed a decree that “the Provincials should be free to
exercise the power granted them by the 29th rule of making changes
in the studies, according to the demands of various countries and
times.”[400] The same decree ordered that “new proposals for amendments
be sent from the single provinces and that the Ratio (of 1832) be
revised with the advice of learned and experienced men.”
In the XXIII. Congregation, 1883, the study of natural sciences was
especially recommended. Among others the following regulation was
passed: “Those scholastics [the younger members of the Order engaged in
studies] who seem to have a special talent for any of these sciences,
should be given a fourth year, or special hours in the third year of
their philosophical course, to perfect themselves in that science under
the direction of a professor.”[401] “It is advisable to destine select
younger members of the Society for the acquisition of the degrees which
empower them to act as authorized public teachers.” (State examinations
in the European Universities.) These special subjects are to be pursued
after the regular course of studies has been finished.[402] Finally, it
was asked “that some regulations should be made as to special studies
in ancient languages, philology, ethnology, archaeology, history,
higher mathematics and all natural sciences.” It was decreed that no
“general prescription could be made in this matter, but the Provincials
should confer with the General as to how these studies should be
arranged in the different provinces. At the same time the Congregation
decrees that, provided the customary studies of the Society, and as
far as possible, the preeminence of literary studies remain intact in
the classical schools, the progress and increased cultivation of those
[special] branches should be earnestly recommended to the Provincials.
It is also their duty to select those young men, who have a special
talent for these branches, that they may devote themselves to them
entirely.”[403]
From all that has been said so far, it becomes evident that the Society
is continually improving its system, and adapting it to the conditions
of the age. It would also seem that it was inadvertence to these more
recent legislations which betrayed President Eliot into the statement:
“The curriculum of the Jesuit colleges has remained almost unchanged
for four hundred years, disregarding some trifling concessions made
to natural sciences.”[404] As the Ratio of 1832 has not been ratified
by a Congregation, and as a further revision has been demanded, we
may expect to hear in the future of further development in the Jesuit
system.
FOOTNOTES:
[381] _History of the Catholic Church_, (Engl. transl.) vol. II, p. 306.
[382] See _Historische Zeitschrift_, 1900, vol. LXXXIV, p. 300.
[383] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. III, p. 571. Against Theiner’s
charge of disobedience see Zalenski, _Les Jésuites de la Russie
Blanche_, vol. I, pp. 169-213.
[384] The Papal Bull: _Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum_. This Bull
and that of the suppression of the Society are translated in the
_Protestant Advocate_, vol. III, pp. 13 and 153 etc.
[385] J. A. Thym, S. J., _Life of Father Roothaan_. (In Dutch; German
Translation by Jos. Martin, S. J.) pp. 110-113.
[386] See above pp. 129-131, and the chapter on the study of the
mother-tongue in Jouvancy’s _Ratio Disc. et Doc._, part I, ch. I, §
3.--_Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 309.--Father Duhr, _Studienordnung_,
pp. 107-118.
[387] Pachtler, _op. cit._, vol. IV, p. 479.
[388] Other changes see Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 459-469.
[389] _Reg. Prov._, 23, sect. 3.--_Reg. Praef. Stud. Inf._, 8, sect. 11.
[390] Windelband, _History of Philosophy_, p. 135.
[391] Erdmann, _History of Philosophy_, vol. III, p. 278.
[392] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 38.
[393] _Reg. Prof. Phys._, 34-35.--Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 275.
[394] _History of Pedagogy_, p. 145.--It is beyond my comprehension how
Mr. Payne, the translator, can style this book “a model, in matter and
form, for a general history of education”, nor is it intelligible how
such a superficial production could be received so favorably by the
American educational public.
[395] 1. History, as has been proved before, is not disdained; 2.
sciences and philosophy are not disdained; 3. scientific studies are
not entirely proscribed in the lower classes; 4. there are ordinarily
two years of philosophy, not one; 5. the student, entering philosophy,
has studied much more than only the ancient languages; 6. philosophy
is not merely a barren study of words; 7. nor is it reduced to a
commentary on Aristotle; 8. facts, inductions, the observation of
nature are not neglected; 9. the Jesuits are not enemies of progress
in all things (see what has been said by Protestant scholars on their
writers, above pp. 149-173, 179-182, and below, chapter VII); 10. far
from being intolerant of everything new, the professors are expressly
told to study carefully the new discoveries and to keep abreast of the
advance of science; etc., etc.
[396] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 771. (2. ed.
vol. II, p. 668.)--See also Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. II, pp. 142 foll.
[397] _Blätter für das bayerische Gymnasialwesen_, vol. VII, p.
41. (Paulsen, _l. c._, II, 667.)--In recent years educators demand
more and more that college education should terminate in a solid
course of philosophy. See Lehmann, _Erziehung und Erzieher_, Berlin,
1901.--Paulsen, _l. c._, II, 664-670.
[398] _L. c._, vol. II, p. 666: “The lack of philosophical training
makes itself felt more painfully every day among the scientists, and in
public life.”
[399] Pachtler, vol. II, pp. 228-233. There it is also stated
expressly: “Some of these regulations are merely temporary”; p. 232.
[400] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 115.
[401] _Decr._ XVII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 121.
[402] _Decr._ XXII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[403] _Decr._ XXIII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[404] _Atlantic Monthly_, October 1899.