Adaptability of the Ratio Studiorum.--Prudent Conservatism.
In the “Introductory Chapter” we quoted this remark of a biographer of
St. Ignatius: “The Ratio Studiorum is a plan of studies which admits
of every legitimate progress and perfection, and what Ignatius said
of the Society in general may be applied to its system of studies in
particular, namely that it ought to suit itself to the times and comply
with them, and not make the times suit themselves to it.”[519] We
assert, then, that this is the first principle of the Jesuit system:
that it should adapt itself to the different times and countries. We do
not treat here of single colleges; it is possible that some have not
adapted themselves sufficiently. The question to be discussed here is a
general one: namely about the _system_ as such.
That the Jesuit system has not suited itself to the times is the
criticism of some. Others go even further, maintaining that it cannot
be suited to the times, or only with great difficulty, as it is
altogether “antiquated.” Here we may be allowed to ask whether men who
make such assertions are sufficiently acquainted with Jesuit education.
Some of them seem to have seen Jesuit colleges only from the outside;
but an educational system cannot be fairly judged unless one has
watched its practical working. It is very easy to make a caricature of
a system which one does not know.
But let us, for fairness sake, assume that the opponents of the Jesuit
system take the trouble of reading the Constitutions of the Society
and the Ratio Studiorum, even then they may be led into serious
mistakes, unless they pay attention to a few regulations which are
usually overlooked. To say: the Jesuits teach only what is mentioned
in the Ratio Studiorum and neglect what is not put down there, is
altogether false. The Constitutions and the Ratio Studiorum leave great
liberty in the matter of changes and adaptations. In his Constitutions
Ignatius himself says: “Let public schools be opened wherever it may
conveniently be done. In the more important studies, they may be opened
_with reference to the circumstances of the places_ where our colleges
exist. And because _in particular subjects, there must needs be much
variety_, according to the difference of places and persons, we shall
not here insist on them severally; but this may be declared that
rules should be established in every college which shall embrace all
necessary points.”[520]
Conformably to this fundamental law of St. Ignatius, the Ratio
Studiorum emphasizes the lawfulness, nay, the necessity of changes
and adaptations. In the first part of the Ratio, in the _Rules for
the Provincial Superior_, it is expressed not less than six times.
Thus one rule reads: “As according to the difference of country, time
and persons, there may be a variety in the order of studies, in the
hours assigned to them, in repetitions, disputations and other school
exercises as well as in the vacations, if he [the Provincial] should
think anything more conducive to the greater advancement of learning
in his province, he shall inform the General in order that, after
all, special regulations be made for all the particular needs; these
regulations should, however, agree as closely as possible with our
general plan of studies.”[521] This is evidently a most important
regulation, proving that the arrangement of studies is practically
committed to the Provincial Superior. A distinguished commentator on
the Institute of the Society, in a recent work, could write: “We do
not deny that in their methods of teaching, the members of the Order
differ in many points from the Ratio Studiorum as we have explained
it. It cannot be otherwise, since in the various provinces, owing to
different conditions, it is necessary to make different regulations,
without interfering with the general principles on which the Institute
rests. We have already mentioned that St. Ignatius not only permitted
but ordered various regulations to be made, according to the various
conditions of time and place. This is much more necessary in our days,
when so many educational schemes, good ones and bad ones, have been
advanced. The Society, far from considering her own system absolutely
perfect and unalterable, on the contrary grants that _many things are
merely temporary and can be improved_.”[522]
This is what the Society itself thinks of its educational system. If
the system has not been changed for three hundred years--it existed
three hundred years, not, as President Eliot thinks, four hundred,--the
Society has proved false to the principles of its founder. That the
Society has changed its teaching in the course of time, is proved by
its history. We referred in a previous chapter to the Revision of
1832 and later additions, and showed that the revision of 1832 was
not considered final. But this general change is slight as compared
with the many important changes, which were made in the different
provinces. The four volumes of Father Pachtler’s work exhibit a
considerable number of adaptations made in the provinces of Germany
in the old Society. As an instance of such a change we must consider
the systematic teaching of geography and history, which was gradually
introduced in the 17th century, although it was not expressly
prescribed by the Ratio.[523] Greater in number and more far-reaching
were the changes made in the new Society.
In this regard the demands and suggestions for a revision of the old
Ratio Studiorum, sent to Rome before 1832, are highly instructive.
There we read: “As the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer suited
for our age, it should not be introduced into our schools.... Natural
sciences were formerly taught as part of philosophy; but in order to
conform with the exigencies of our times, all these sciences must
be taught separately.... Ethics are not to be treated according to
the commentaries on Aristotle, but according to the best modern
works.... The elements of Euclid do not suffice now-a-days, but in our
age we must teach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, conic sections,
differential and integral calculus, and the scientific applications
of all parts of mathematics.... In the lower classes special care
must now be had of the mother-tongue; the pupils must be diligently
exercised in the use of their native language, and must be acquainted
with the best authors in the vernacular.... In our times it will not
suffice to explain the principles of rhetoric according to the precepts
of Aristotle and Cicero, but according to modern authors; besides,
now-a-days it is necessary to give instruction in aesthetics.... In
the lower classes we must now teach history, geography, as well as
mathematics; in the higher classes also archaeology.”[524] These
demands were attended to in the Revised Ratio. This may suffice to show
that the Jesuits do not shut their eyes to the needs and exigencies of
the times. In 1830 the General of the Society wrote to the superiors
of the different provinces that they should not fail to call attention
to the commendable practices of other schools in their countries; they
should also be careful to mention, whether certain things were to be
introduced in their respective places, even if they were contrary to
the common customs of the schools of the Order.[525]
The Society has never denied that vast progress has been made in
all branches of learning, especially in natural sciences, history,
and philology. It does not wish a return of the conditions of former
centuries, but gladly makes use of the advantages afforded by modern
science, in order to qualify the pupils for the necessities of our
times. If one compares the curricula of Jesuit schools in America,
England, France, Belgium, Austria, and other countries, he will find
the greatest variety. He will discover that it is a groundless charge
against the Jesuits, that they cling with blind stubbornness to every
detail of their Ratio. No, as far as it is compatible with thorough
education, they have adapted their teaching to the customs of the
respective countries in which they are laboring. As was said before,
these changes and modifications are not added to the printed Ratio
as amendments or bylaws; this is not necessary, since, as was stated
above, the Ratio itself admits the necessity of having “different
regulations as regards studies, according to the different conditions
of time and place.” The changes and modifications are laid down in the
customs and directives for the different Provinces or Missions. Now,
the writers outside of the Society are, as a rule, utterly ignorant of
the particular regulations of the various provinces; hence, they are
easily led into the same mistake which a foreigner, coming to the State
of New York, would make if he imagined there existed no law except
the Constitution of the United States. As the General, and to a great
extent the Provincial Superiors, by the Constitution of the Order, are
empowered to make all changes which they deem necessary, it cannot be
said that the Ratio Studiorum is so difficult to reform.
But it may be objected here, that what remains is no longer the Ratio
Studiorum. This is not correct. All the essential points remain; it is
only important to know what is essential. The assailants of the Ratio
usually suppose that it is the preponderance given to certain subjects,
especially the classics, or the order and succession in which the
different subjects are taught. Others again seem to find the essentials
of the Ratio in minor details, concerning the manner in which the
subjects are taught. We admit that it would be altogether impracticable
to carry out the prescriptions of the Ratio in their entirety. Thus
the Latin idiom can no longer be insisted on as the language of
conversational intercourse among the students, as was done in the 17th
century, nor is it possible to use it as the medium of instruction in
all the lectures. Neither is it possible to devote the same number of
hours to the classics, as much time and labor is requisite for the
study of modern literature, mathematics, and the sciences. We admit
further that some details of the Ratio, for instance the system of
_decuriones_ (boy supervisors and assistants of the teacher), certain
solemnities at the distribution of prizes, the use of the grammar of
Alvarez, etc., are really antiquated. But they are exactly those points
which have been abandoned long ago, and which have never been regarded
as essential.
The present General of the Society, Father Martin, who, if any one,
is unquestionably warranted to speak authoritatively on this subject,
declared on January 1, 1893: “There are men who think that the Ratio
Studiorum was good formerly, but that it is no longer so in our
times. He who maintains this position does not understand the Ratio
Studiorum; he looks only at the _matter_, not at the _form_ [the
_spirit_] of the system.... But the matter is not the essential feature
of this system.”[526] Neither is the order, the sequence, in which
the different branches are taught. The subject matter as well as the
order is in many countries prescribed by the governments. Although this
prescribed order may not always be the best, still it can be adopted,
as the order is not the characteristic feature of the system of the
Society.
Now, may it not be said that modern conditions merely forced the
Society and its General to this broad interpretation of the Ratio,
to make, as President Eliot would express it, some further “trifling
concessions”? By no means. The utterances of Father Martin are neither
novel nor alien to the Ratio or the Constitutions of the Society,
as is shown by a comparison with the quotations we gave before from
these two documents. One point is made clear, _viz._, that the Ratio
admits of a very broad interpretation, and leaves especially ample
room for innovations as regards various branches of study. If it is
useful and advisable to teach a new branch: economics, civics, local
history, biology, or Spanish, or any other subject, there is no
difficulty on the part of the Ratio Studiorum. If the Jesuits exclude
certain branches from their curriculum, it is not because they are not
mentioned in the Ratio, but because they consider these branches of
less educational value; if they uphold certain other branches, as the
classics, it is because they expect the most from them for the training
of their pupils; if they defend the successive teaching of different
branches in preference to the simultaneous treatment of a multitude
of unconnected subjects, they act according to approved pedagogical
principles; if they do not admit the extravagant electivism of some
modern school-reformers, it is because they consider it injurious to
solid education, not because it is opposed to their system. We venture
to say, they could adopt electivism to a very great extent, without
entirely abandoning the fundamental principles of their Ratio. We
shall speak of these principles in the next chapter. Suffice it to
quote here the words of a writer in a first class literary review in
Europe on the Ratio: “The regulations and principles of that system of
studies, viewed in the light of modern exigencies, need not shun any
comparison, and the pedagogical wisdom contained therein is in no way
antiquated.”[527]
Although the teaching of the Jesuits has not remained unchanged for
centuries, it is true, on the other hand, that the Society was never
rash in adopting new methods. The Jesuits did not experiment with
every new-fangled theory, with every pedagogical “fad”, no matter how
loudly praised and held up as _the_ system of our age. Herein they
acted wisely. For, first of all, there may be several systems, equally
good, and the Jesuits possessed a system of their own, which had been
approved by a remarkable success in former centuries. And that in
recent times the teaching of the Society has not been unsuccessful, is
sufficiently proved by what we said in the preceding chapter.
Whilst the efficiency of her old and approved system justifies the
conservative spirit of the Society in educational matters, another
striking proof of its wisdom in this respect is furnished by the fate
of the modern school reforms themselves. No sooner has one startled
the world, than it is followed and overthrown by a newer, later, more
modern system. To each of them may be applied the words of St. Peter
to Saphira, which a German philosopher used with reference to modern
philosophical theories: “Behold the feet of them who have buried
thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out.”[528]
We have an instance in Germany. In 1892, a new plan of studies was
introduced in Prussia, and at about the same time in the other states
of Germany.[529] The classical studies lost a great number of hours.
Although this plan was introduced at the urgent wish of the young
Emperor and through his “energetic personal interference,”[530] it
met with great opposition on the part of the majority of teachers.
No party was satisfied. The strict advocates of the ancient classics
complained of the reduction in the classical instruction. The friends
of the scientific schools were not satisfied with the concessions made
them.[531] On all sides the cry was heard: “Reform the Reform of 1892.”
In 1895 the Ministry of Instruction allowed the directors of the
gymnasia to add, in the three higher classes, one hour a week, which
should be devoted to the old grammatical and stylistic exercises.[532]
Still more complaints were heard in the following years. In 1899
even Professor Virchow, one of the most determined opponents of the
gymnasium in its old form, admitted that the graduates after the reform
manifested a notable decline in grammatical and logical training.
It was found necessary to convoke a new conference, which met in
Berlin, June 1900. Here some of the ablest schoolmen were outspoken
in demanding a partial return to the system existing before 1892. Dr.
Matthias, the referee of the Ministry, stated that all official reports
and the most experienced men of the Kingdom complained about the
serious decline of Latin scholarship which had manifested itself after
1892. The cause of this decline he suspected to be the excessive use
of inductive methods, so much encouraged by the reform. Efforts were
to be made to check this decline; above all it was necessary to secure
again greater grammatical knowledge, and it seemed better to introduce
again some of the old methods, especially frequent translations from
the German into Latin and speaking Latin.[533] He thus recommended
what the most zealous of the reformers had ridiculed as antiquated.
Professor Kübler and Professor Harnack were not less outspoken on this
point. The latter said that writing Latin was to be insisted on, and
that the discarding of this exercise in 1892 was a mistake.[534] The
result of these discussions was a strengthening of the Latin course, by
adding one hour weekly from the third class on, therefore an increase
of seven hours Latin weekly in the whole gymnasium. The new “School
Order” of 1901 demanded most emphatically a thorough grammatical
training. Books for translating from German into Latin, which in 1892
had been done away with almost entirely, were again introduced into all
the classes.[535] By these regulations, the Prussian Ministry, taught
by the experience of nine years, and convinced by the arguments of the
foremost schoolmen of the Kingdom, acknowledged that the “reform” of
1892, in several important points had been a mistake, a deterioration.
It was thus proved that some of the much decried old methods were,
after all, the best and safest.
Within the last decade a novel experiment has been made in Germany,
that of the “Pioneer Schools” or “Reform Gymnasia.” These schools
are to be the common foundation of all higher schools: _Gymnasium_
(classical), _Real-Gymnasium_ (Latin scientific), _Real-Schule_
(scientific). During the first three years one modern language is
taught, French in the schools of the _Frankfort-type_, English in
those of the _Altona-type_. In the fourth year the schools separate.
Latin is begun in the _Gymnasium_ and _Real-Gymnasium_, English in the
_Real-Schule_. In the sixth year the _Gymnasium_ introduces Greek,
the _Real-Gymnasium_ English.[536] Whilst a great number of educators
vigorously oppose this system--some say “the experiment should never
have been allowed”--the most advanced “reformers of the universe”
expect great things of it; to them it is “the school of the future.” Be
it remarked, as a curious fact, that this modern system is not new at
all, but a mere revival of the system of Comenius (1592-1671).[537] The
future has to show whether this system is practicable or not. So far
its value has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Our own country furnishes significant phenomena,--similar to those
witnessed in Germany. People had been told that our educational
system was well nigh perfect. American children, at the age of ten
or twelve years, now learn things of which in former generations men
of twenty-five knew little or nothing, be it physiology, biology,
hygiene, civics or what not. And all this they learn without exertion
and coercion; for, agreeably to the free spirit of the country, the
young citizens are to be given, as early as possible, full liberty
of choosing those branches which suit their good pleasure, or, as
our moderns express it, their natural abilities. Indeed, what system
can be more perfect? Now on a sudden people are rudely awakened from
their pleasant dreams by most distinguished men, who tell the people
that there is something wrong, some say “radically wrong,” in our
educational system. Not a few of these critics begin to point out
that one of the fundamental defects of American schools is the very
thing which was vaunted as our greatest educational achievement: the
elective system in secondary schools. Others discover the greatest
danger in the hasty experimenting, in the rash acceptation of novelties
so common in our modern schools.[538] “There is too much agitation,
unceasing change, and consequent uncertainty in the operations of our
American schools. There is too much _individualism_ in laying plans and
arranging courses and in methods of teaching, too burning a desire to
say something new or to do something novel for the sake of prominence
in the teaching body. Of course it will be said that this has brought
us where we are. But we might be quite as well off if we were not
exactly where we are.”[539]
Within the last month (October 1902) severe strictures were made on
some of the very latest educational “improvements,” and that not by
Jesuits, nor by professional philologians, who stubbornly defend their
long-cherished classics, but by such as may eminently be called men
of affairs. The _Electrical World_ spoke of President Eliot’s efforts
to lift the American college to the plane of a foreign university.
“The chief effect has been to push the college into the existing
dilemma. It is crowded from above by the necessity for more time in
the professional schools, and for a nether millstone it finds the
secondary school that its own hands have fashioned. And truth to tell,
_the college is losing heart_. It has virtually surrendered its last
year to professional electives, but _the sacrifice has not served
its purpose_. The latest suggestion from no less eminent a source
than that of Professor Butler, of Columbia, is for a two-year college
course, leading to post-graduate training, and a parallel four-year
course for such as may desire it. We hope this experiment may not be
tried, for its success would mean the disintegration of the college
as it has been, and the introduction of nothing to take its place....
If the American college is still to remain a part of our educational
system, _it must stand by its old ideals and neither retreat nor
compromise_.... If the college would do the greatest possible service
to education it should sharpen its ax, not to decapitate itself
according to the present program, but to hew out of its curriculum the
courses that demand a diffuse preparation in the secondary schools,
and out of these latter the time-wasting requirements.”[540] The
utterances of another man deserve to be quoted in this connection,
I mean Mr. Cleveland, the former President of the United States.
On October 25, 1902, at the inauguration of the new President of
Princeton University, he earnestly warned against “false educational
notions,” “a new-born impatience which demands a swifter educational
current and is content with a shallower depth.” Mr. Cleveland declared
“_Princeton’s conservatism is one of her chief virtues_, and that we of
Princeton are still willing to declare our belief that we are better
able to determine than those coming to us for education, what is their
most advantageous course of instruction, and surely every phase of
our history justifies this belief.”[541] It is hardly necessary to
point out what “false educational notions” are hinted at. From these
criticisms of the latest “school reforms” we are justified in drawing
the following inferences:
First, not all school changes and innovations are real improvements.
Secondly, a great deal of sound pedagogy was contained in the old
systems, which was rashly and wantonly abandoned by many modern school
reformers. Thirdly, the Jesuits acted prudently in not accepting in
their totality these new methods which, to a great extent, are but
haphazard experiments.
The Society believes in a sound _evolution_ in educational matters, but
is averse to a precipitous _revolution_. Those who recently have called
the educational system of the Society antiquated or absurd, because
it repudiates their own pet theories, have acted very rashly, all the
more so that these very theories have been condemned by many competent
judges. The man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones at
other people.
In every important movement, the ardent desire of progress must be
tempered and controlled by a goodly amount of conservatism. Otherwise
the _rerum novarum studiosi_ will sacrifice much of what is of
fundamental importance. At the time of the famous Gaume controversy
in France about the classical studies, an English Catholic writer
characterized the attitude of the Jesuits in the following words:
“Though essentially conservative, that remarkable Society has never
held itself so far behind the current of Catholic thought, as to lose
its influence over it; nor has it placed itself so much in the advance,
as to become an object of general observation. It has, as a rule,
firmly, cautiously, and with a practical wisdom, manifested to so great
an extent by no other order in the Church, kept pace with the general
movement, and influenced its direction; and when it has not been able,
through the unmanageable nature of the elements with which it has had
to do, to lead, it has had the sagacity to bide its time and follow. It
is this instinct which, though it may to ‘carnal men’ savor of human
prudence, to men who see things through a spiritual eye, manifests the
workings of a governing Providence through one of the most able human
instruments which has ever undertaken God’s work upon the earth.”[542]
The extent and limit of the Society’s progressiveness and conservatism
in educational matters, has been clearly enunciated by Father Roothaan,
General of the Society, in 1832: “The adaptation of the Ratio Studiorum
means that we consult the necessities of the age so far as not in
the least to sacrifice the solid and correct education of youth.”
Accordingly, the Society will ever adapt its system in all and to all
that is conducive to the great end of its educational labors: the
thorough _intellectual_ and _moral_ training of its pupils.
FOOTNOTES:
[519] Genelli, _Life of St. Ignatius_, part II, ch. VII.
[520] Part IV, ch. VII. The translation is that of the Protestant
translator (London, 1838).
[521] _Rules of the Provincial_, 39.
[522] Oswald, S. J., _Cómmentarius_, no. 204, _nota_.
[523] See above ch. IV, pp. 125-129.
[524] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 392-444.
[525] _Ib._, p. 407.
[526] The _Woodstock Letters_, vol. XXII (1893), p. 106.--Quoted also
by Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_, p. 258, n. 3.
[527] _Oesterreichisches Litteraturblatt_, Vienna, 1897, No. 4.
[528] _Acts_ 5, 9.
[529] A very good account of this reform is given by Dr. Russell,
_German Higher Schools_, ch. XX. See also _Educational Review_,
September, 1900. The best and most comprehensive sketch of the “Berlin
Conference of 1890” is contained in the _Report of the Commissioner of
Education_, 1889-90, vol. I, pp. 343-398, by Charles Herbert Thurston
of Cornell University.
[530] _Report of the Comm. of Ed._, _l. c._, p. 363.
[531] _Rep. of Com. of Ed._, _l. c._, p. 398.
[532] Messer, _Die Reformbewegung_, p. 155.
[533] _Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höhern Unterrichts_, Berlin,
June 1900, p. 128.
[534] _Ib._, p. 294.
[535] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höhern Schulen in Preussen_,
1901. pp. 28-30.--Messer, _l. c._, p. 157.
[536] See Russell, _German Higher Schools_, ch. XX.--Viereck, in
_Educational Review_, Sept. 1900.
[537] “No less a person than Comenius, the father of our new
philosophical education, outlines in his _Great Didactic_ a system
which in its principal features agrees with that now in vogue in our
pioneer schools.” _Educational Review_, Sept. 1900, p. 173.
[538] “In America we are unfortunately too prone to view with favor
any new idea, educational or other, and to embark precipitately in
experiments which involve serious consequences.” Professor Bennett of
Cornell University, in _The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary School_,
p. 80.
[539] President Draper of the university of Illinois. _Educational
Review_, May 1902, p. 457.
[540] _Electrical World_, October 25, 1902.
[541] From the _Evening Bulletin_, Philadelphia, October 25, 1902.
(Italics are ours, also those of preceding quotation.)
[542] _Dublin Review_, 1866, vol. VII, (p. 208): “The Gaume
controversy on Classical Studies,” by R. B. V.--I think the writer is
Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., later on Archbishop of Sydney, Australia.