Syllabus of School Authors.
§ 1. General Remarks.
The Ratio Studiorum divides the literary curriculum into five classes.
Father Jouvancy speaks of six,[639] adding that the sixth is sometimes
combined with the fifth. Father Kropf in 1736, in his programme, has
six. Most Jesuit colleges in this country have six classes in the
literary course, to which are added two years of philosophy with higher
mathematics, natural sciences and economics. These eight classes
correspond to the high school and the college course. The four lower
or grammar classes are equivalent to the high school, whereas the
four higher classes: Humanities (Freshman), Rhetoric (Sophomore),
Junior and Senior Philosophy, correspond to the American college,
with one essential difference, “that the work of the Jesuit college
is not professional study, but general culture and preparation for
professional study.”[640]
When in the following pages we speak of the study of the authors,
it is understood that a systematic study of grammar has preceded and
partly accompanies the reading of the authors. Of late there is a
tendency to begin reading too early, almost from the beginning, and to
study the whole grammar inductively. Such reading cannot be fruitful.
Let us hear two German schoolmen on this question. Director Jäger of
Cologne said in the 41st Conference of the German Philologians and
Educators (Munich, 1891): “The reading of the authors should remain
the principal object of the classical training, but it must be an
intelligent reading, reading that is understood because of solid
grammatical training imparted previously. Only thus can the study
of a language become a means of scientific knowledge. Therefore,
sufficient time must be devoted to the grammatical training.” Professor
Seeliger makes the following very timely observations: “One point in
the linguistic training must not be lost sight of: namely, that the
understanding of the authors must be solid; but a solid appreciation
of the authors can be built only on the foundation of a knowledge of
grammar. Teachers now-a-days try too much to keep this end out of sight
for fear of public opinion; some weakly yield to the _Zeitgeist_ and
hush it up altogether, to proclaim the more loudly that the reading of
the authors is the only object of classical instruction. But I think
grammatical discipline is very salutary, even for the youth of the
present age, indeed, a remedy against many dangers of our time. And any
one of us teachers who conscientiously endeavors to make instruction
effective should fearlessly profess to be a _grammaticus_, and act
according to this profession.”[641]
The Ratio Studiorum prescribes the authors to be studied in the
various classes, and in Jouvancy’s commentary and similar documents,
other authors are mentioned which may be read alongside or instead
of those enumerated by the Ratio. As we have seen, the matter and
the order in which the different subjects are to be taught are not
essential to the Ratio. Consequently it is not necessary to follow
strictly the given list. If in any point the Ratio can and must be
adapted to the times, it is in the choice of authors. Therefore,
those which are generally read in other classical institutions of the
country, should be preferred and taught according to the spirit and
method of the Ratio. In fact, all authors read in the modern classical
schools are mentioned in the Ratio or by Jouvancy.
In different ages we find different tastes and opinions. We must
not, therefore, be surprised to find authors recommended as school
books which do not suit our taste. We give here a list of authors as
contained in different documents of the Society.[642] When the Ratio
enumerates many authors for one and the same class, it is understood
that the choice was left to provincial or local superiors.
FIRST GRAMMAR CLASS (first high school class). _Latin:_ easy selections
from Cicero, if possible in separate editions; Fables of Phaedrus,
Lives of Nepos.
SECOND GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ Ratio Studiorum: the same as preceding.
Jouvancy: somewhat more difficult letters of Cicero, Virgil’s Bucolics,
selections from Ovid and other poets.--_Greek:_ Fables of Aesop.
THIRD GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ Ratio Studiorum: Letters of Cicero,
Caesar’s Commentaries, easy poems of Ovid. Jouvancy: Cicero’s _Somnium
Scipionis_, Virgil’s Georgics, especially books I and IV. Ovid’s
Metamorphoses.--_Greek:_ Fables of Aesop; the Tablet of Cebes; select
dialogues of Lucian.
FOURTH GRAMMAR CLASS. _Latin:_ more important letters of Cicero; _De
Senectute_, _De Amicitia_ etc.; select elegies and epistles of Ovid, or
selections from Tibullus, Catullus, Propertius, and Virgil’s Eclogues;
or the fourth book of Virgil’s Georgics, the fifth and seventh book of
the Aeneid etc.--Jouvancy: Caesar, Cicero’s _De Officiis_.--_Greek:_
St. Chrysostom (select Homilies), Xenophon.--Jouvancy: Orations of
Isocrates.
HUMANITIES (Freshman). _Latin:_ Cicero, especially ethical writings and
easier orations. Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Curtius etc.; of the poets,
above all Virgil (Aeneid); Odes of Horace, etc.--_Greek:_ Orations
of Isocrates, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, Epistles of Plato,[643] and
Synesius, selections from Plutarch; of the poets: Homer, Phocylides,
Theognis etc. Nadal prescribes besides: Aristophanes.
RHETORIC (Sophomore). _Latin:_ Rhetorical works and orations of
Cicero; Quintilian; historians. Jouvancy: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius
etc.; poets (not specified by the Ratio); Jouvancy: Seneca, Juvenal
etc.--_Greek:_ Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod,
Pindar etc.; also St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and St.
Chrysostom.--Jouvancy: Sophocles or Euripides.--Nadal prescribes
Demosthenes, Thucydides, the tragedians, Pindar, and “all the more
important and more difficult authors.”[644]
From this last statement, and in fact from the whole list, it appears
that all the important authors were included in the Jesuit plan,
and that those who made the sweeping assertion that “the greatest
Greek authors were all excluded from the Jesuit schools,”[645] have
not looked at the documents of the Society. All the most important
authors were explicitly prescribed. It is evident that not all the
authors which are mentioned could be read. The different provinces of
the Society drew up lists, or catalogues of authors, which varied in
different years. Thus in the Province of Upper Germany in 1602-1604 a
_catalogus perpetuus_ was drawn up, i. e. a list of authors to be read
every four or five years. We subjoin the list of the books for Rhetoric
class.[646]
A. D. 1604: Cicero, _Orator ad Brutum_; orations, vol. II.
The Annals of Tacitus. The Tragedies of Seneca.--The
Philippics of Demosthenes. The ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι of Hesiod.
A. D. 1605: Cicero, _Partitiones Oratoriae_; orations, vol.
III. Livy, I. decade. Juvenal--The Olynthiacs of
Demosthenes. Homer, Iliad, books I and II.
A. D. 1606: Cicero, _De Oratore_, three books; orations, vol.
I. Livy, III. decade. Statius, Thebaid.--Isocrates,
Panegyric. Euripides, Hecuba.
A. D. 1607: Cicero, _De Optimo Genere Oratorum_; orations,
vol. II. Tacitus, _Historiae_. Claudian and
Herodian.--Aristotle, Rhetoric. Sophocles.
A. D. 1608: Cicero, _Partitiones Oratoriae_; orations, vol.
III. Statius, _Sylvae_.--Xenophon, Cyropaedia. Homer,
Odyssey, I and II.
In the Province of the Rhine in Rhetoric class were read:
A. D. 1629: Cicero, _Partitiones_; orations, vol. I. _De
Claris Oratoribus_. Horace, Odes, b. III. Seneca,
_Hercules furens_. Livy, I. decade.--Demosthenes,
Olynthiacs. Chrysostom, _De Sacerdotio_, b. IV. Homer,
Iliad, b. IV. Greek epigrams.
A. D. 1630: Cicero, orations, vol. IV. _De Inventione_;
_Orator_. Horace, b. IV. and Epodes. Livy, III. decade.
Seneca, Thyestes.--Homer, Iliad, b. V. etc.
These lists represent a considerable amount of reading from the best
authors. Modern writers object to some of the authors recommended by
the Ratio. However, to avoid unfairness, it should not be forgotten
that the opinions held in former ages about certain authors were
different from those current at present. The same objections can
be made against Protestant school plans of former centuries. Thus
Melanchthon, as well as the Jesuits, considered the smaller poems
formerly attributed to Homer, v. g. the Batrachomyomachia, as a
fit school classic. Also Hesiod, Aratus, Plutarch, and Lucian are
recommended by Melanchthon.[647]
Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, the _Disticha Catonis_, Aurelius
Victor, Eutropius, Lucan, Pliny, Prudentius, Publilius, Sedulius,
Seneca, Severus, Vellejus, Aelian, Aesop, Cebes, Hesiod, Lucian,
Phocylides, Plutarch, Pythagoras, Theognis etc., were read in the
Protestant schools of Brunswick and other countries.[648] Besides, in
these schools the works of the Neo-Latinists, as Buchanan, Castalio,
Eobanus Hessus, Erasmus, Lotichius, Sabinus, Sleidanus and others,
were read more extensively than in the Jesuit schools, which confined
themselves almost exclusively to the ancient classics. As the ancient
authors possess a far superior educational value, the choice of the
Jesuits betokens great pedagogical wisdom.
It is evident that authors like Theognis, Phocylides, etc. are not read
in modern Jesuit schools. In fact the Jesuits have, in the choice of
authors, suited their schools to the times.
It may also be questioned whether it is advisable to read selections
from Cicero’s letters in the lowest classes, as they can be given only
piecemeal; they furnish an excellent subject for higher classes, after
the students have become acquainted with Roman history. For the lowest
class good connected pieces, short stories from history, mythology
etc., as found in Latin Readers, will serve the purpose better than
Cicero’s letters. In the next class the Lives of Nepos may be taken
up, followed by the study of Caesar’s Commentaries in the third. Such
a plan was suggested by the German province as early as 1830. In the
propositions sent to Rome in that year it was said that Cicero’s
letters, with very few exceptions, require a considerable knowledge of
Roman history and should be replaced by select historical passages etc.
from the writings of the same author.[649]
Father Jouvancy, in several chapters of his _Ratio Discendi_, gives
brief notes on the most important Latin and Greek authors and their
characteristics, “to show,” as he says, “in what order they should be
read and what fruit may be derived from their study.”[650] A few of
his remarks, as is to be expected, cannot stand in the light of modern
philological and historical criticism. However, for the greater part
his observations are most judicious and correct. We shall embody the
substance of these chapters of Jouvancy in the following notes on the
authors, supplementing them from the splendid _History of Universal
Literature_ of Father Baumgartner,[651] and comparing them with the
opinions of other prominent scholars.[652]
§ 2. Latin Prose Writers.
CICERO is first and preeminently prescribed by the Ratio for every
grade. And rightly so, if we except the lowest classes. For he
is the master of the Latin language and the best representative
of ancient culture, indeed, as regards Latin oratory, the only
representative.[653] In former times, particularly during the
Renaissance, Cicero was overestimated; now, after the sweeping
condemnations of Drumann, Froude, and Mommsen, it has become the
fashion to treat him with contempt. Cicero finds a more sympathetic,
and we think more just, treatment at the hands of the great Cardinal
Newman, in his _Personal and Literary Character of Cicero_,[654] where
the life of this gifted Roman, his works, and his style are admirably
described. Cicero’s style is so splendid and masterly that the
greatest of the Romans, Caesar, could not help admiring his inventive
powers, which, as Newman says, “constitute him the greatest master of
composition that the world has seen.” Of late years a healthy reaction
has set in against the vagaries of such radical critics as Mommsen and
Froude. Quite recently Professor von Wilamowitz of the University of
Berlin, stated emphatically: “In spite of Mommsen, Cicero must remain
the centre of Latin instruction.”[655]
Which works of Cicero are to be read? The Ratio Studiorum and other
documents mention his epistles, orations, philosophical and rhetorical
works. Some specimens of all these should be studied.
I. Of his _orations_ the following deserve especially to be read.[656]
1. _Verrinae_ I, IV, V; in the fourth, _De Signis_, the marvellous
grouping of the material is highly instructive. 2. _De Imperio
Cn. Pompei_ (_De Lege Manilia_), has a most lucid disposition. 3.
_In Catilinam_, especially the first and third exhibit a splendid
eloquence. 4. _Pro Milone_, distinguished by masterly argumentation. 5.
One or other of the _Philippicae_ (the second seems to be the best).
6. _Pro Ligario_. 7. _Pro Marcello_. 8. _Pro Archia Poeta_ (contains a
magnificent passage on the Liberal Arts).--Cicero’s invectives (against
Catiline and Anthony) are sometimes wanting in gravity, and are too
declamatory; his laudatory orations, on the other hand, are among his
happiest efforts. But all abound in descriptions full of life and
nature, and his skill in amplification is unsurpassed.
II. _Philosophical writings:_
1. The finest part is his _Somnium Scipionis_, on the immortality of
the soul, (in his _De Republica_, which cannot well be read on account
of the many gaps in the text).[657] 2. _Cato Major_, or _De Senectute_,
is clear and easy, and is better than _Laelius: De Amicitia_.[658]
3. _De Officiis_ is well fitted for the highest classes. 4. The
_Disputationes Tusculanae_, especially lib. 1, form good and relatively
easy reading.[659]
III. _Rhetorical Works_. _De Oratore, Orator ad Brutum_ etc., are read
in Rhetoric class (Sophomore).
IV. The _Letters_ of Cicero form the most valuable, as well as the
largest, collection of letters (870 pieces) we possess of any of the
ancients. They are the most important source for the history of this
remarkable period. In a very pleasant manner the writer exposes all his
good and weak points: his honest, although short-sighted patriotism,
his affectionate heart, his fickleness, inconstancy and vanity. Drumann
and Mommsen, who take his naive confessions in a wrong light, are too
severe on Cicero. Professor Mommsen is altogether biased against Cicero
in favor of his hero Caesar. Mr. T. Rice Holmes has well said with
reference to Mommsen: “Historical imagination is a great quality, but
it should not be allowed to run riot.”[660]
These letters are an excellent subject for study in the middle or
higher classes. A selection can easily be made so as to illustrate
Cicero’s stormy career from 62-43 B. C., as well as to reflect the
whole history of that period fraught with events, which were to change
the world’s history. For this purpose the following selection used to
be read in a Jesuit college of this country: _Ad Fam_. V, 1; V, 2; _Ad
Att_. II, 22; _Ad Fam_. XIV, 4; _Ad Att._ IV, 1; _Ad Fam_. VII, 1; XIV,
4; _Ad Att._ VII, 11; _Ad Fam._ XVI, 12; _Ad Att_. VIII, 3 (Cicero’s
opinion of Pompey and Caesar); _Ad Att_. IX, 18 (a highly interesting
description of Cicero’s interview with Caesar); _Ad Att._ XII, 18; _Ad
Fam_. IV, 5 and 6; _Ad Att_. XIV, 12; _Ad Fam_. XI, 27 and 28; XI, 1;
IX, 14; XII, 4; X, 28, _etc._[661]
The translation of Cicero should be exquisite and polished, as is the
noble and refined diction of the original.[662]
CAESAR. Of the character of this “greatest of the Romans,” Mommsen
has given a splendid delineation in his _Roman History_, although this
sketch is overdrawn and entertaining rather than convincing. We have
here to do with Caesar only as historian, particularly as the writer
of the _Commentaries_ on the Gallic War. For simple straightforward
historical style these commentaries remain up to this day, an
unsurpassed model.[663] Caesar’s style is remarkable for clearness,
ease, perfect equality of expression, and a simplicity bordering on
severity. There is something of the _imperator_ or the _dictator_
in his very language. He commands style and language as he does his
legions. After the first difficulties are overcome, the reading ought
to be quick, as that of all histories and epics in general. Continual
references are to be made to the maps. Drawings and plans, illustrating
the descriptions of battles and sieges, will arouse interest and
facilitate the understanding of the text. The translation of this
author, quite different from that of Cicero, should be plain and
forcible, like the original itself. From the historical standpoint it
must not be overlooked that Caesar’s Commentaries are not an unbiased
historical work, but one written for a political purpose, _viz._,
the justification of his proceedings in Gaul. The great general was
also a skilled strategist in writing, a master in the art of grouping
events, so as to represent his measures as justified without losing the
appearance of strict historic objectivity. In particular the speeches
are frequently clever partisan writings. From the ethical point of view
it will be also necessary to indicate occasionally the brutality of
this great imperialist in dealing with the Gallic and German tribes.
Roman military antiquities should be studied in connection with the
reading of the Commentaries,[664] while the civil, political and social
antiquities are best treated in connection with the study of Cicero. So
it was done in the Jesuit schools under the name of “general erudition.”
LIVY’s great history of Rome is not a critical work, but a popular
narrative, written with the warmth of an enthusiastic patriot. His
Latin is not as elegant and grand as Cicero’s, but is, as Jouvancy
says, “forcible and dignified.”[665] In a period of moral decadence
he upheld the old _virtus Romana_, which had made Rome the queen of
the world. Of special beauty are the speeches which Livy makes his
heroes deliver in important moments. They form part and parcel of his
narrative and dramatically exhibit the inner feelings of the principal
personages. Books I and II should be read; but above all XXI and XXII,
the glowing account of the second Punic War, especially Hannibal’s
daring exploit in crossing the Alps.--Care must be taken to analyze his
periods and to render them into shorter English sentences.
SALLUST, in his _Bellum Jugurthinum_ and _Conjuratio Catilinae_, of
which latter event he was a contemporary, gives an insight into the
political machinations and the corruptions of Roman society. His style
is carefully formed after that of Thucydides, and is distinguished for
vigor and conciseness, but becomes sometimes sententious and abrupt.
He is also censured for archaic expressions, and on the whole, lacks
graceful ease and smoothness. The delineations of character, (e. g. of
Catiline, Jugurtha, Marius), have always been considered masterpieces.
Jouvancy rightly says: “Sallust exhibits an abundance of material and a
wealth of ideas.”
TACITUS is the greatest historian of Rome, if not of antiquity.[666]
He was a stern Roman of the old stamp, an enthusiastic admirer of the
_virtus Romana_, which in his time had almost totally vanished. But the
sad condition of his time made him gloomy, pessimistic, and one-sided.
“Tacitus and Juvenal paint the deathbed of pagan Rome; they have no
eyes to see the growth of new Rome, with its universal citizenship, its
universal Church (first of the Emperors, afterwards of Christ).... The
Empire outraged the old republican tradition, that the provincial was
naturally inferior to the Roman: but this, which is the greatest crime
in the eyes of Tacitus, is precisely what constitutes its importance
in the history of the world.”[667] Tacitus’ sympathetic description of
the simple and incorrupt manners of the Germans, in his _Germania_,
was intended to set the Roman corruptions in a more glaring light, and
is evidently too much idealized. In psychological depth, warmth of
feeling, and vigor of expression, Tacitus surpasses even Thucydides.
His style is dignified, manly, studiously devoid of everything feminine
and merely ornamental; it is so brief and concise, as to be often
obscure. Jouvancy says most appropriately: “His sentiments are striking
and profound, so that only deep reflection can fathom them, and mere
reading is not sufficient.”[668] For these reasons his _Annales_ and
_Historiae_ are the proper reading only for the highest classes and for
mature men.
Of other Latin prose authors not much need be said. CORNELIUS NEPOS’
_Biographies of Great Generals_, written in a simple style, form easy
and instructive reading for the lowest classes.--During the Middle
Ages, as well as in the first centuries of the Christian era, one of
the favorite authors was SENECA. The reason is obvious. No philosopher
of antiquity has approached the Christian view of life as closely as
Seneca, so that a legend sprang up that the Roman had become acquainted
with St. Paul and Christianity. Tertullian says: _Seneca saepe noster_,
and Augustine, Jerome, and Lactantius appeal to his testimony. His
letters contain the loftiest moral sentiments,--in sharp contrast with
the author’s life--; “whole letters, with few changes, might have been
delivered in the pulpit by Bourdaloue and Massillon.”[669] However, it
is questionable whether Seneca’s works are suitable reading for young
pupils. A distinguished critic says: “Seneca is not to be read. His
every sentence must have a sharp point, a striking antithesis. This is
no wholesome food for boys.”[670] Jouvancy seems to say the same, when
he speaks of the “abruptness and ruggedness of Seneca’s style.”
§ 3. Latin Poets.
PHAEDRUS wrote several books of fables, partly translations, partly
imitations of the famous fables of _Aesop_. The gracefulness,
precision, elegance, and simplicity of style, make the fables of
Phaedrus excellent reading to start with in lower classes. Besides, his
sound moral precepts afford other pedagogical advantages.
OVID is the most gifted of Roman poets, more brilliant than Virgil,
unsurpassed in his power of describing and “painting,” and in his
ease and fluency of versification. Father Jouvancy, in a few words,
expresses the best judgment that can be passed on this writer: “Would
that he were as chaste and pure as he is elegant and pleasing.” This is
only too true. Therefore, his works must be read with great caution.
There are some of his productions of whose existence young students
should be ignorant. The _Amores, Ars Amandi, Remedia Amoris_, cannot be
condemned in too strong terms. The poet himself confesses: “_Nil nisi
lascivi per me discuntur amores._” Critics, who cannot be suspected of
squeamishness or religious prejudice, have severely censured the erotic
poems of Ovid, as “gems of frivolousness, handbooks of lasciviousness,
which on young readers must produce the effects of sweet poison that
enters into the very marrow.”[671] In some parts of the second and
third book of the _Ars Amandi_, the poet burns a firework, the stench
of which leaves no doubt as to where we are. The poison is all the
more dangerous as it is offered sweetened with the virgin honey of
genuine poetic diction.[672] But even the _Metamorphoses_ contain many
seductive passages, for which reason only selections should be in the
hands of the pupils.
The _Metamorphoses_ are the most important work for class reading.
There is, on the whole, not very much depth of feeling or thought,
but myth after myth is related, in a marvellous variety of detailed
description, in a most fascinating style, and in a truly Homeric
naiveté. Indeed Ovid has little of the stern Roman character; he has
more of the gay, imaginative Greek. As regards his style, the elegance
and unlabored ease of his versification is unrivalled. He says himself
of his facility in writing verses: _Et quod temptabam dicere, versus
erat._[673] The brilliancy of his imagination, the liveliness of his
wit, the wonderful art of bringing every scene distinctly before the
eye, whether he describes the palace of the Sun-God or the cottage of
Philemon, have been universally admired. If properly treated, Ovid will
please and delight boys. Above all, the account of the primeval chaos
and creation should be read. It is, as Father Baumgartner says, “clear
and grand and forms the noblest and most beautiful cosmogony which
classical antiquity and the pagan Orient have handed down.”[674] Then
should be read the four ages of the world, the war with the giants, the
deluge, Phaeton (perhaps the most splendid and highly poetical of his
efforts), Niobe, and the lovely idyl Philemon and Baucis.
The translation of Ovid should be easy and fluent. The students should
be encouraged to translate Ovid into English verse. The study of Greek
and Oriental mythology can easily be connected with the study of the
Metamorphoses. Father Jouvancy, in an appendix to his edition of select
stories from the Metamorphoses, gives a short, but useful account of
the various deities.
Nägelsbach thinks it foolish to torment boys of fourteen or fifteen
years with the _Tristia_ or _Epistolae ex Ponto_, as a youthful mind
could not take interest in those perpetual lamentations. A few pieces,
however, may be read with advantage, v. g. the departure from Rome, or
the poet’s autobiography (_Ep. ex Ponto_ IV, 10), etc.
VIRGIL is “the Prince of Latin poets” (Jouvancy), “the greatest poet
of the Augustan age, the most celebrated imitator of Homer, the master
and model of Dante,[675] the favorite of Augustus and Maecenas, the
friend, whom Horace calls ‘the half of my soul’,[676] and the _anima
candida_, the stainless soul, the ‘Virgin poet’, as he was styled in
Naples.”[677] His language is not as easy and as fluent as that of
Ovid, but is grand, noble and stately; but in his ideas and lofty
sentiments, Virgil is infinitely superior to Ovid.
In modern times Virgil has been severely censured--for not being
Homer. Indeed, he is inferior to Homer in many, in very many points.
But let it not be forgotten that his epic is an entirely different
species of poetry. It belongs to the _artistic_ or _literary_ epic,
whereas Homer’s is _primitive_ epic. Hence it would be unfair to judge
both according to the same standard. Virgil is an imitator of Homer,
and did not come up to his master. For this the critics censure him,
but they should remember the words of Voltaire: “Homer has made Virgil,
they say; if this be true, it is undoubtedly his finest work.”[678]
In his _Eclogues_ or _Pastorals_ Virgil imitates the Greek idyls
of Theocritus. But he is not as varied, lively and natural--at the
same time not as coarse--as his Greek model. Theocritus’ Idyls are
genuine Pastorals, full of rural simplicity of thought and unadorned
style, whereas Virgil’s Pastorals are rather political allegories. For
a full appreciation they require much learning, and hence they are
less fitted for younger boys. The first, however, and above all the
celebrated fourth Eclogue, should be read. On account of this fourth
Eclogue, the poet was considered as a prophet during the Middle Ages.
The mysterious prediction of the son, with whose birth--as the Sybils
foretold--, the golden age was to return, naturally reminds us of the
prophetic passages of Isaias. Virgil evidently refers to the son of a
noble Roman, most probably of Asinius Pollio; but it is highly probable
that he borrowed the idea and some details from Old Testament writings,
whose contents, especially the expectation of a Redeemer, had become
known through the Jews in the dispersion.[679] Pope’s _Messiah, a
Sacred Eclogue_, should be read in connection with this fourth Eclogue
of Virgil.
The four books of the _Georgics_ are the best didactic production in
Roman literature. They have been styled poetical essays on the dignity
of labor, as set against the warlike glory, that was the popular theme
of the day. This is Virgil’s most characteristic work, which breathes
the genuine air of Italy. The language is magnificent, superior to that
of the Aeneid. The work abounds in beautiful descriptions and contains
charming episodes. It is not advisable to read the whole work, as the
student will not be satisfied with such a topic. Select passages,
however, may be studied in class, especially from book II, and book IV
(the life of the bees: their little state, character, pursuits, and
wars).
Virgil’s greatest work, the _Aeneid_, is in many points an imitation
of both _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_; but in its spirit it is a national
poem in the best sense of the word, “a reflection and an echo of all
the grandeur of the history of Rome,”[680] a _prophetia post factum_.
By a most ingenious device, the poet succeeded in exhibiting, and,
as it were, foreshadowing the greatness of historical Rome in its
legendary history. How bold and successful, for instance, is it to
connect the legendary ancestor of the Roman rulers with Dido, the
foundress of Carthage. Her imprecation: “_Exoriare aliquis nostris ex
ossibus ultor_,” is the most clever and most poetical conception of
the Punic wars. Then take the sixth book, where Aeneas, in a grand
vision, sees all the future splendor and glory of Rome, and show
in Homer’s poems, or in any other work, a passage of nobler, more
majestic and more poetical character. It is true, the hero of the
poem, Aeneas, does not inspire the reader. He lacks the fiery passion
and impetuous vigor of Achilles, the chivalrous spirit of Hector, the
inventiveness and cunning of Odysseus. But he is more than all that: he
is the chosen instrument of Divine Providence for bringing about the
greatest achievement in human history: “the settlement of that race in
Italy, from which were to spring the founders of Rome.” Only narrow
prejudice, therefore, can depreciate Virgil’s immortal work. Rightly
has a Jesuit said: “This grand picture warmed with strong national and
religious enthusiasm, elevated by the consciousness of Roman majesty
and dignity, illumined by the light of a higher world, outweighs many a
beautiful passage of the _Iliad_. This is not merely frosty imitation,
not studied artifice, this is poetry, as it can well forth only from
the inspired heart of a true poet. This noble idealism and genuine
enthusiasm is the soul and the life-inspiring principle of the whole
poem.”[681]
I think it is Nägelsbach who says, that every classical scholar should
study carefully all the works of Virgil. For the pupils, of course,
selections must suffice. But, as far as possible, these selections
should give a view of the whole poem. The I. book, the II. (compare
Lessing’s Laokoon), the V., and above all the VI., should not be
omitted. In reading the sixth book, references to Dante’s _Inferno_
should be given throughout. The translation of Virgil is no easy task;
it ought to be noble and dignified.
HORACE is the great lyric poet of Rome. His _Epistles_ and _Satires_,
carefully selected, make good reading for Freshman Class, his
_Odes_ for Sophomore. There is a great variety in his poems. All
show good sense, clear judgment, extraordinary taste and elegance.
His descriptions of nature are true, portrait-like, vivid and very
effective. With the greatest candor he opens his heart to his friends,
without disguising his weaknesses. His shorter poems are light,
graceful and tender. The patriotic Odes are very different. They show
the poet’s aim at effecting some large social or political purpose
and consequently rise to a grander and more dignified tone. Although
reckoning himself among the followers of Epicurus (_Epicuri de grege
porcum_), he rises above the coarser tenets of that school, and many of
his sayings contain much practical wisdom. He is, as Lord Lytton says,
the most “quotable” of authors.[682] He is not easy of translation.
The comedies of PLAUTUS and TERENCE, as Jouvancy says, are written
in pure Latin, but contain many impure things, for which reason they
should be studied in expurgated editions. This point is strongly
insisted on by the Ratio Studiorum.
§ 4. Greek Prose Writers.
Before speaking of the Greek authors, it may be well to make a few
observations of fundamental import. There is a difference between
the study of Greek and of Latin, which seems to be well expressed
in the “Prussian School Order” of 1892 and 1901. There we find as
the object of studying Latin: “The understanding of the principal
authors and logical training;” as the object of the study of Greek:
“The understanding of the principal classical authors.” A similar
distinction was made centuries ago by the Jesuits. As early as 1669
Father Fabri wrote: “To write and to speak Greek is not necessary. An
educated man must, according to the adage, speak Latin, understand
Greek, and read Hebrew. _Latine loquatur, Graece intelligat, Hebraice
legat._”[683] It is evident that the study of Greek contributes also
to the logical training of the mind, but it ought not to be sought so
directly as in Latin. The Latin language with its rigorous syntax seems
to be better fitted for that purpose. It is different with Greek. In
a former chapter,[684] we mentioned that Latin grammar was eminently
logic, and its study a course of applied logic. “Greek on the other
hand, might almost be called a course of aesthetics, by means of which
we learn to distinguish a thousand gradations of meaning which our
barbarous languages will not allow us to accentuate.”[685] However,
the principal object of the study of Greek is the reading of the Greek
classics. “The Greeks are for us not _one_ of the civilized nations of
antiquity, but _the_ civilized nation (_das Kulturvolk_), which has
given us the models for all kinds of literary productions.”[686] And
Father Baumgartner observes: “The intellectual culture of the Greeks
became a power which not only survived their political decadence,
but for all coming centuries exercised a decisive influence on the
development of the world’s culture.”[687]
In order to attain this object of the study of Greek, the reading
of authors should be begun as soon as possible. Etymology should be
limited to the essentials occurring in the authors which form the
staple reading in colleges. The old grammars contain many forms which
never or quite exceptionally are met with in the course of reading.
To this class belong many rare forms of declension, comparison,
exceptional augments and reduplications, and, above all, numerous
irregular verbs. They should be left out, as has been done in the best
modern grammars.[688] The Jesuits always favored brief textbooks,
“_perquam breves_,” says a document in 1829.[689] This was in
accordance with their fundamental principle: _Pauca praecepta, multa
exempta, exercitatio plurima._
Greek syntax may at first not be taught systematically but
inductively, incidentally, as the rules are met with in reading.
Then the various rules are to be put together systematically.
Important rules (the use of Subjunctive and Optative, the position
of the article, and the like) should be learned with the practice of
the forms. The various conditional clauses, the meaning of tenses
(especially of the _Aorist_), and the use of the participles must be
well explained. These points are the whole Greek Syntax _in nuce_.[690]
The study of vocables should be a direct preparation for the future
reading of authors. Many vocables, found in exercise-books in vogue
during the last century, are altogether useless to this end. This
evil arose from the system of confining Greek reading for two years
to translating unconnected sentences. According to the spirit of the
Ratio, the reading of connected pieces, easy narratives and easy
authors, should be begun as soon as possible.
The best author to begin with is XENOPHON. For the sweetness and
graceful simplicity of his language he was styled the “Attic Bee.” In
former times his _Cyropaedia_ was the favorite book, also in Jesuit
colleges. But this work is not as easy, nor as interesting as the
_Anabasis_. The _Anabasis_, or _The Retreat of the Ten Thousand_, is
a book most fit for youth,[691] and a good preparation for Herodotus.
The speeches which are interwoven with the narrative prepare for the
reading of Demosthenes. The geographical and ethnographical details
about Asia Minor will prove useful for the study of the _Acts of the
Apostles_ (Travels of St. Paul) and of the Crusades. Books I-IV should
be read with maps, and with the plans of battles drawn on paper or
on the blackboard. If this is done, and the reading is not too slow,
the boys will take a real interest in the clear and simple narrative
of battles and marches through the countries of hostile tribes. Boys
delight in warfare and travels.--Whether the _Memorabilia_ should be
read is questionable, as a better picture of Socrates will afterwards
be given in Plato’s works. After the _Anabasis_ selections may be read
from the _Cyropaedia_ and the _Hellenica_.
HERODOTUS, the “Father of History”, as Cicero styles him, is a most
attractive author. He seems not to have been read in the colleges of
the Old Society. In modern times, in many plans of study, he receives
more attention; some selections may well be read, especially such
stories as have been taken into the literatures of all civilized
nations. In their original garb they will exercise a special charm on
account of their naive character.
THUCYDIDES, the “Father of Pragmatic and Political History,” wrote
the history of the first part of the Peloponnesian War. He ranks very
high as historian, being distinguished for critical spirit, accurate
research, and severe impartiality. His style is concise, often so
concise as to degenerate into obscurity. This conciseness and the depth
of thought make him a difficult author for young students. In the
highest class, choice passages may be read: v. g. the plague in Athens,
the funeral oration of Pericles. Demosthenes was an ardent admirer
of the harangues of Thucydides, and the two great Roman historians,
Sallust and Tacitus, have taken him for their model.
PLATO. Plato is recommended in the Ratio as one of the authors for
Rhetoric class; in modern Jesuit colleges Plato is mostly read in
Freshman class, for which he is an excellent author. In the words
of a Jesuit critic, “Greek philosophy is one of the choicest fruits
of Greek culture which, together with Greek poetry, history and
oratory, was destined to form the basis of the culture of the Western
nations.”[692] Plato, one of the greatest thinkers of all ages, vaguely
felt and presaged some of the grand religious and moral truths which
were to be clearly revealed by Christ. Thus he became the παιδαγωγὸς
εἰς Χριστόν. No philosopher, in fact no writer of antiquity, exerted
a greater influence on the early Christian writers. His many errors,
mixed with some Christian truth, gave rise to numerous heresies in the
earlier centuries, and misled even gigantic intellects like that of
Origen. On the other hand, as Father Baumgartner observes, “numerous
minds, searching after truth, have through his writings been raised
out of the depths of materialism to the purer heights of idealistic
speculations.”[693]
In Plato, there is, in the words of his disciple Aristotle, “a middle
species of diction, between prose and verse,” and Cicero said: “If
Jupiter were to speak in the Greek tongue, he would use the language
of Plato.”[694] Some of his dialogues are so sublime, so harmonious,
so rhythmical, that they may truly be styled poetical. There are not
many which, both for contents and style, can be read in colleges. Best
suited for this purpose are the Apology and Crito. The _Apology_, or
_Defense of Socrates_, the only work of Plato which is not in the form
of a dialogue, probably contains the substance of the answer Socrates
made to the insidious charges of his accusers. The tone is throughout
fearless, at times even defiant, the accused merely pleading that,
whatever he did, was done at the bidding of the divinity, who spoke
to him through a mysterious inner voice, and that all his doings were
directed towards improving the minds and morals of his fellow-citizens.
It is, on the whole, grand and elevating reading. A Jesuit professor
and distinguished critic, Father Stiglmayr, wrote recently: “What
a pity, if youths should no longer drink inspiration from such a
source!”[695]
In the _Crito_ we find Socrates in prison, during the interval between
his condemnation and death. Crito advises him to fly, Socrates refuses,
“as it was not allowed a good citizen to withdraw from proper authority
and violate the laws of the state.” The dialogue contains very fine
passages.
The _Phaedo_ is one of the most remarkable of Plato’s dialogues. It
relates a conversation held shortly before the death of Socrates, in
which the great Athenian undertakes to prove the immortality of the
soul. The last chapters narrate in a touching manner, how, when the
summons came, Socrates with much composure and tranquillity of mind,
drank the fatal cup, in the midst of his weeping friends. This dialogue
may be read, as Nägelsbach says, with a good class of students. It is
always advisable to read the _Apology_, then the _Crito_, and finally
the last chapters of the _Phaedo_. Thus the students will get a clear
picture of the whole life and the heroic death of the most remarkable
man of antiquity.
DEMOSTHENES. Rhetorical talent was a gift common to all Greeks. The
splendid speeches in Homer’s poems are not accidental fictions, but the
expressions of old traditions, of national manners and peculiarities.
The diplomatic Agamemnon, the subtle Odysseus, the passionate Achilles,
the conciliatory Nestor are oratorical types which were renewed in the
life of the Greeks from generation to generation.[696] Greek oratory
reached its zenith in Demosthenes, the “prince of orators”. The Ratio
Studiorum assigns his masterly orations to the highest class of the
literary curriculum, which is, indeed, the proper place for this
author. One or other of the _Olynthiacs_ or _Philippics_ should be
studied, as was done early in Jesuit colleges. It may be questioned
whether it is possible to do justice to the oration _On the Crown_,
except with a very good class of pupils. This speech is not only
the masterpiece of Demosthenes, but is regarded as the most perfect
specimen that eloquence has ever produced.
A word must here be said on the reading of the GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.
Professor Bristol says that the present ignorance of the Greek New
Testament on the part of the people who have had a classical education
is little short of disgrace, and he wishes that it should be read an
hour a week.[697] This is exactly what was done in many colleges of the
Old Society, as may be seen from Father Kropf’s programme of 1736, in
which the reading of the _Greek Gospel_ (chiefly that of St. Luke), is
prescribed for every Saturday in the fourth and fifth classes, and the
_Acts of the Apostles_ for Rhetoric (Sophomore).[698]
§ 5. Greek Poets.
HOMER is “the Father of Poetry.” He was truly the “educator of Greece”
and influenced the literature of all coming ages as no other writer
ever has done. To dwell on his excellence, would merely be, as the
Greek adage has it, γλαῦκ’ εἰς ἈΘήνας. The _Odyssey_ and _Iliad_ should
be read so as to give the pupil a perfect view of the whole. There are
but few passages which cannot be read with boys. Homer is very naive
and outspoken, as, in general, ancient literature is more honest,
direct, and straightforward than modern literature, which often merely
suggests what is offensive. But this very suggestiveness makes modern
writings more insidious, as the mind is set thinking to find out what
is meant. Homer is never licentious; the song in the Odyssey which is
most objectionable is put into the mouth of another bard, and even in
this song there is no glorification of sin, no mistake as to what is
right or wrong. This straightforwardness in delicate matters must not
offend the mature reader, or he must also object to Holy Scripture. It
is evident that not all passages of Scripture are to be read by the
young, no more than many of the profane writers. As to Homer, Jouvancy
says very appositely: “A few comparisons which are somewhat low, and
other traces of primeval simplicity and of a _naiveté_ no longer known,
must not shock any one. Every sensible reader will also make allowances
for the lies and other crimes which the pagan writer imputes to his
gods.”[699] If single lines with rather objectionable contents occur,
the only way is to translate them correctly, but in careful and decent
expressions, which have to be thought out beforehand; to omit them
would almost surely lead some pupils to study them out at home. To
give a wrong translation is dishonest, and “the end does not justify
the means.” Besides, as all sorts of translations may be had from our
public libraries, and actually are in the hands of the students, such
a fraud would be detected and would surely undermine the confidence of
the pupils in their teacher. When the first passage is met with, the
teacher may call attention to the above mentioned characteristics of
ancient literature, sacred as well as profane. If a few prudent and
grave remarks of this kind are made, the pupils will not suffer any
harm from such reading.
We have said above that the epic dialect is to be studied inductively.
When the first difficulties are overcome, the pupils will begin to like
Homer, provided the teacher is what he ought to be. The introductions
of the Odyssey and Iliad, as also other passages from Greek and
Latin poetry, should be learned by heart. As of Virgil’s Aeneid, so
also of the Odyssey and Iliad, the whole cannot be studied. But care
should be taken that the selections are such as to give the pupils a
clear view of the whole work.[700] The translation of Homer must be
simple and natural. Anglo-Saxon words ought to prevail.[701] It has
been previously stated, and it is self-evident, that the teaching of
antiquities, descriptions of the life and manners of the heroic age,
should accompany the reading of Homer.[702]
It is not necessary to dwell on the GREEK TRAGEDIES, and their
importance for the higher classes of the literary curriculum. The Ratio
does not mention them in particular; but Sophocles and Euripides are
recommended by Jouvancy, and they were read in the colleges, as appears
from the catalogues given on previous pages.[703]--The amount of the
world’s best literature, with which the student in the Jesuit Colleges
was made acquainted, is certainly not insignificant.
FOOTNOTES:
[639] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. II, art. 7.
[640] Rev. F. Heiermann, S. J., in _Woodstock Letters_, 1897, p. 376:
“The Ratio Studiorum and the American College.”
[641] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1898, vol. II, p. 83.
[642] From various rules of the Ratio Studiorum, and Jouvancy, _Ratio
Docendi_, ch. II, art. 7.
[643] Now universally considered spurious, although even in the 19th
century scholars were not wanting who defended their genuineness, as
Grimm and Grote.
[644] _Monum. Paed._, p. 92.
[645] See above p. 8, note 11 .
[646] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 1-29.
[647] Hartfelder, _Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae_ vol.
VII of the _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica_. Berlin 1889, pp. 360-397.
[648] Koldewey, _Braunschweigische Schulordnungen_, vol. I and VIII of
the _Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, passim._
[649] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 442.
[650] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. I, art. I, § 2; art. 2, § 5; ch. II, art.
2, § 7, and art. 3, § 3.
[651] _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, especially vol. III, which deals
with the classical literature of Greece and Rome; on this work see
above p. 233-234.
[652] We quote chiefly from Nägelsbach, _Gymnasial-Pädagogik_ (3. ed.);
Dettweiler, _Didaktik und Methodik des Lateinischen_ and _Didaktik und
Methodik des Griechischen_; Willmann, _Didaktik als Bildungslehre_;
Anthon, _Class. Dictionary_.
[653] Dettweiler, _Did. des Lat._, p. 193.
[654] _Historical Sketches_, vol. I, pp. 239-300.
[655] Transactions of the Berlin Conference 1900, p. 207.--See also
Weisweiler, _Cicero als Schulschriftsteller_, and Zielinski, _Cicero im
Wandel der Jahrhunderte_, Leipsic, Teubner.
[656] Cf. Dettweiler, _l. c._, p. 193 sq.--Nägelsbach,
_Gymnasial-Pädagogik_, p. 123.
[657] There exist good separate editions of the _Somnium Scipionis_,
for instance, Reid’s (Pitt Press Series).
[658] In the introduction to his excellent commentary on the latter
work, Professor Seyffert says: “_De Senectute_ may be read in
Tertia (fourth class), _De Amicitia_ should not be taken up before
Upper-Secunda (sixth class).”
[659] See Dettweiler, p. 200.--On Cicero’s philosophy see also
Döllinger, _The Gentile and the Jew_, vol. II, p. 118 sq.
[660] _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, p. 755 (see also p. 803).
[661] On “Cicero’s Letters as Class Reading,” see the excellent article
of Dr. O. E. Schmidt in _Neue Jahrbücher_, vol. VIII, pp. 162-174. This
author wishes them to be read, after the orations against Catiline, _De
Senectute_, or _De Amicitia_ have been studied. He adds also a plan for
a new selection of the letters.
[662] See also various works on Cicero, by Middleton, Forsyth,
Trollope, Collins, Boissier, etc.
[663] Father Baumgartner, vol. III. p. 383.
[664] A magnificent and most helpful work for the study of the
Commentaries is T. Rice Holmes’ _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul._ London,
Macmillan, 1899.
[665] _Rat. Disc_., ch. 1, art. 2, § 5.
[666] See Father Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 531-538.
[667] Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 175.
[668] Father Baumgartner, _l. c._, vol. III, p. 534, speaks of the
“_markige, lapidare, ur-römische Stil des Tacitus_.”
[669] De Maistre, _Soirées de St. Pétersbourg_, IX.--On the spurious
_Letters of Seneca to St. Paul_, see Bardenhewer, _Gesch. der
altkirchl. Literatur_, vol. I (Herder, 1902), p. 470.
[670] Nägelsbach.
[671] O. Ribbeck, _Geschichte der römischen Dichtung_, vol. II, pp.
217, 265.
[672] Schanz, _Geschichte der römischen Literatur_, vol. II, p. 147;
see Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 466-488.
[673] _Tristia_ IV, 10, 26.
[674] Vol. III, p. 478.
[675] Dante, _Inferno_, I.: “_Lo mio maestro et lo mio autore._”
[676] _Odes_ I, 3: _animae dimidium meae_.
[677] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 415.
[678] _Homère a fait Virgile, dit-on; si cela est, c’est sans doute son
plus bel ouvrage._
[679] See _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_ etc., 1898,
vol. I, pp. 105-128: “Every unbiased mind must admit that Hellenistico
Jewish sources furnish the best explanation of this eclogue.” Cf.
Isaias 11, 6-8. Lactantius, _Div. Inst._, VII, 24, 11.--Josephus,
_Bell. Jud._, VI, 312.--Suetonius, _Vesp._, 4.
[680] Nägelsbach.
[681] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 436.
[682] See Father Baumgartner’s sympathetic sketch, vol. III, pp.
437-457.
[683] Fabri, _Euphyander_ (1669).--Chossat, _Les Jésuites à Avignon_,
p. 286.
[684] Chapter XII, _Classical Studies_, p. 347.
[685] Dr. Karl Hildebrand; see _The Month_, 1886, Feb., p. 167.
[686] Dettweiler, _Didaktik und Methodik des Griechischen_, p. 11.
[687] Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 5.
[688] Perhaps one of the best modern grammars is the _Small Greek
Grammar_ by Professor Kaegi, which has been recently translated into
English by J. Kleist, S. J. (Herder, St. Louis, 1902.)
[689] Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 404.
[690] “Also the epic dialect should not be studied systematically
before reading Homer, but incidentally, and afterwards systematized.”
(_Prussian School Order._)
[691] “_Ein rechtes Jugendbuch._” Dr. Dettweiler. See this author
on Xenophon, _Didaktik des Griechischen_, p. 29; also Willmann’s
_Didaktik_, vol. II, p. 519.
[692] Father Baumgartner, vol. III, page 268. Further references
see in Histories of Philosophy, v. g. by Zeller, Brandis, Ueberweg,
Windelband; Willmann, _Geschichte des Idealismus_. Döllinger, _The
Gentile and the Jew_, vol. I, pp. 304-332.
[693] Father Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 277.
[694] _Brutus_ 31; _Orator_ 20.
[695] A beautiful appreciation of the Apology is given by this
Professor in two articles in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. LXII,
1902.--Professor Bristol, in his _Teaching of Greek in the Secondary
School_, thinks the Apology not a suitable introduction to the study of
Plato. His arguments are not convincing.
[696] See Father Baumgartner, vol. III, p. 257.--As a confirmation of
this statement take the IX. book of the Iliad with its magnificent
speeches.
[697] _The Teaching of Greek in the Secondary School_, pp. 267-268.
[698] Kropf in Herder’s _Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol.
X, pp. 341-344.--See above pp. 123-124.
[699] _Ratio Disc._, ch. I, art. 1, § 2.--See also Nägelsbach’s
_Homeric Theology_.
[700] Professor Bristol, in his excellent work _The Teaching of Greek
in the Secondary School_, suggests that books IX-XII of the Odyssey
should be read first, then V, VI, VII, VIII, and part of book XIII.
I must confess that such an inversion seems not advisable. Why not
follow the author? I doubt also whether of book I. not more than the
first 79 verses should be read. The whole first book is interesting and
important for the correct appreciation of the whole.
[701] A good help for class translation is found in the prose
translation of the _Odyssey_ by Butcher and Lang; of the _Iliad_ by
Lang, Myers and Leaf.
[702] Works by Jebb, Gladstone, Mahaffy, Grote, Nägelsbach, etc.--A
splendid literary appreciation of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, see
Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 19-63.
[703] See pp. 373-374; see also Baumgartner, vol. III, pp. 133-244.