Training of the Jesuit Teacher.
It is generally admitted that even at present the Jesuits exercise
considerable influence in the world. What is the secret of their hold
on Catholics? What the source from which their power springs? The real
secret of the Jesuits’ influence is to be found in their training. Dr.
Freytag in his review of Father Duhr’s work on the Ratio Studiorum
remarked: “After the perusal of this learned work, one will understand
that only highly talented young men can join that Order; for what is
demanded of them [in the line of studies] is extraordinary.”[726]
We have to see how far this training of a Jesuit is a satisfactory
preparation for his work as teacher in high schools and colleges, how
far it tends to make the Jesuit teacher--in the words of the Hon. G.
C. Brodrick--“a man of self-sacrifice,” and whether it gives him a
“solid knowledge of his subject and the art of teaching, through close
attendance from a master of experience.”
The first requisite is, that the original material, the candidate for
the Order, is good. The statue, however deftly carved, will not be a
success if the marble has serious defects. Therefore, such only are to
be admitted into the ranks of the Society, as are capable of receiving
the Jesuit ‘form,’ only those who show a capacity for imbibing its
spirit and submitting to its discipline.[727] The Constitutions of
the Society are quite explicit on this point. They say that the
person having the power of admission “should not be turned by any
consideration from that which he shall judge most conducive in the Lord
to the _service of God_ in the Society; to promote which he should
not be too eager to grant admission.”[728] The Provincial Superior
is further exhorted “to watch that his subjects are not too anxious
(_ne nimii sint_) to attract people to the Society, but by their
virtues they should endeavor to lead all to Christ.”[729] The teachers
in particular are told “even in private conversations to inculcate
piety, but without attracting any one to the Order.”[730] Now what
qualities does the Society require of those applying for admission?
The Constitutions want men endowed with the highest gifts of nature.
In order that they may be able to benefit their fellow creatures, the
candidates of the Society should be endowed with the following gifts:
as regards their _intellect_, they should possess good judgment, sound
doctrine, or the talent to acquire it. As to _character_, they must be
studious of all virtue and spiritual perfection, calm, steadfast and
strenuous in what they undertake for God’s service, and burning with
zeal for the salvation of souls. In _externals_, facility of language,
so needful for the intercourse with fellow men; besides, the applicant
should possess good health and strength to undergo the labors of the
Institute.[731]
Such is the material of the future Jesuit; no mean material indeed.
How does the Society carry out the modelling of the young members?
How does she--to confine ourselves to the question of training
teachers--train them to become efficient instructors and educators?
To understand this better, it will be good to follow a young Jesuit
through the course of his training. Take a young man, a student of a
college, perhaps of a university. May be, he has been educated in a
Jesuit college, he has seen the Jesuits working for education, has
heard them preaching and lecturing, he feels attracted by their work:
he wants to become one of them. Perhaps he has never seen a Jesuit,
but he has heard of them, has read of the great achievements of the
famous missionaries of the Order, beginning from St. Francis Xavier
down to our days; he has come across a book written by a Jesuit, he
hears how much they have done in the defense of Christianity, above all
how they are hated and persecuted by the enemies of the Church: the
ideal inspirations of his heart grow stronger, and he inquires where
he can find these men so much spoken of. It is a fact that during the
_Kulturkampf_ in Germany, the German Province of the Society almost
doubled its numbers. Many students, who had never seen a Jesuit,
left the gymnasium or university to join the exiles, just because of
the singular hatred of which the outlawed Order was the object. They
concluded that a body of men thus singled out, must possess something
extraordinary, something especially praiseworthy, as they could not
believe that the calumnies spread by the enemies of the Jesuits could
have any foundation. The student, frequently the brightest of his
class, travels to the nearest place, perhaps to a foreign country,
where he finds a house or a college of the Order.[732] He is introduced
to the Superior, to whom he expresses his desire of joining the ranks
of the sons of St. Ignatius. He is strictly examined as to his studies,
his character, the motives which led him to apply for admission to
the Society, and above all, whether any one, especially a Jesuit, has
influenced him to take this step, which latter fact would be considered
an impediment to his admission. The hardships of the religious life,
the long course of studies prescribed by the Society, the sacrifices
to be undergone, the obedience to be rendered, all this is explained
to him. But suppose these representations do not deter him, then after
a careful examination conducted by several Jesuits, if the student is
thought to possess sufficient talent, and a good moral disposition, he
is received as a novice of the Society.
Perhaps the young candidate expected soon to be sent to the missions,
or to be employed in teaching or writing, but the Society holds to the
old principle that he who is to teach, is first to learn. Above all, he
has to learn the most necessary science, expressed by the old _Nosce
teipsum_: “Know thyself,” and that not in a merely speculative, but
in a severely practical manner. By this intense self-knowledge, the
young religious is enabled to understand the characters of others and
to deal with them successfully. During the first two years, in strict
seclusion from the world, he learns that self-knowledge, self-control,
and “self-sacrifice,” which are necessary to the future missionary,
and no less so, to the future teacher. It is a religious, a spiritual
training which the future educator receives first as the foundation
of all other training. Education and reform must begin at home. The
teacher is to instruct his pupils in the principles of true and solid
morality. If he does not possess and practise these principles himself,
he will be a corrupter of youth instead of a father and friend, “a
blind leader of the blind, and both shall fall into the pit,” as the
Divine Teacher expresses it. If without practising these principles
he endeavors to teach them, he is a hypocrite; his deeds will belie
his words, and the eyes of the young are sharp and their perception is
keen; they will soon discover the discord between the teacher’s action
and his precepts, and the former will have a more powerful influence
on them, than the latter, as the Latin adage has it: _Verba movent,
exempla trahunt_. Even the pagan rhetorician Quintilian insists on this
point: _Ipse (magister) nec habeat vitia, nec ferat_: “The teacher
should neither have nor tolerate faults.”[733] The teacher is daily for
hours with his pupils, speaking to them, moving before them, his every
word, his every gesture, his every smile is watched by a set of keen
critics. All this must imperceptibly exercise a deep influence on the
youthful mind. How perfect, therefore, ought the teacher to be, how
faultless, how exemplary! But this moral perfection cannot be acquired
except by severe self-control, by rigorous self-discipline, the
acquirement of which forms the great end of the religious noviceship.
It was St. Ignatius' oft-repeated maxim, not only: _Nosce te ipsum_,
but, _Vince te ipsum_: “Conquer thyself.” This is the way of training
men, characters, of whom there is greater need than of scholars.
In frequent meditations on the end of man, on the life of the Divine
Master, the young religious beholds the true dignity of man, the true
“sanctity of the individual,” which consists in his relation to God,
his Creator. These truths brought home to the religious by daily
reflection will inspire him with that genuine zeal, that pure love of
man, which is ready to undergo any hardship, to spend time, talent,
health, and life, in order to make his neighbor’s soul good and noble
on earth and happy throughout eternity. To the practical study of
the character, of the life, of the words and actions of the Divine
Master, not only the novice, but every Jesuit, devotes an hour every
day in his morning meditation. In this school he learns to deal with
pupils, seeing with what patience, kindness and love Christ dealt
with little ones and with His disciples whose “slowness of grasp and
understanding” (Luke 24, 25) would have been too much for any teacher,
except him who was so “meek and humble of heart” (Matt. 11, 29). From
Christ, the poor, and the friend of the lowly, he learns to “slight
no one, to care as much for the progress of the poor pupils as of the
rich,” as his rule enjoins him.[734] From Christ, who sacrificed the
most tender relations on earth to the will and service of God, in
order to be “about his father’s business” (Luke 2, 49), the future
teacher must learn how to control the affections of his heart, so as
not to show any partiality, any special love to particular pupils. All
these qualities and virtues, so necessary for the teacher, the young
religious endeavors to acquire during the time of his preparation. The
new school of educators may sneer at this “asceticism,” still we know
that godliness, although not sufficient for everything, is nevertheless
profitable for everything,[735] especially so for education.
The first two years of the life of the young Jesuit are principally
devoted to this religious and moral training. However, his future life
work is not lost sight of even during this time. Many exercises and
practices of the novitiate have a direct bearing on his scientific
preparation. As a rule, the students are admitted only after they have
finished their classical course, in Germany and Austria for instance
after completing the gymnasium, which is a classical course of nine
years; in this country, after Sophomore class, which amounts to four
years academic or high school work and two years of college properly
so-called. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, not a few
enter after having finished a course of philosophy or after having
taken special courses at a university, in addition to their classical
studies, while sometimes students are admitted who have not completed
the whole college course. During the first two years, novices have
frequent oratorical exercises, they receive theoretical instructions on
explaining Christian doctrine, and still more frequently--in accordance
with the fundamental maxim of the Society, that practice and exercise
are most important means of training--they have to give catechetical
instructions. This exercise is an excellent preparation for explaining
any subject in a simple and intelligent manner, a thing most valuable
for instructors in lower classes. Their conversations throughout a
great part of the day are to be carried on in Latin. Besides, there are
several hours a week devoted to regular schools in Latin, Greek, and
the mother tongue; thus the knowledge of languages is at least kept
alive, if not perfected.
After the two years novitiate, the young Jesuits have to repeat
the classical studies for one, two or three years--the time varies
according to the studies made previous to admission to the Society.
Special attention is paid to the precepts of aesthetics, poetics, and
rhetoric, and to various practical applications of these precepts.
Then follows a three years’ course of philosophy, mathematics and
natural sciences, especially physics, chemistry, biology, physiology,
astronomy and geology. The system pursued is entirely different from
that followed at our universities, where the student listens to the
lectures of the professor, takes down notes and studies them at home,
and then goes up for examination at the end of the year. Not so with
the Jesuits. The lectures of the professor are not the only, perhaps
not even the most important part in the philosophical and scientific
training. Characteristic and most essential are again the exercises,
foremost among them the _disputations_, for which three or four times
a week a full hour is set apart. In what do they consist? One of the
students has to study carefully a thesis previously treated in the
lectures, in order to expound and defend it against the objections
which are being prepared in the meantime by two other students. On
the appointed day the _defender_ takes his place at a special desk in
front of the class, opposite him the two _objectors_. The defender
states his proposition, explains its meaning, and the opinions of the
adversaries, ancient and modern, then gives proofs for it, in strictly
syllogistic form, all this in Latin. After a quarter of an hour, the
first objector attacks the proposition, or a part of it, or an argument
adduced in its proof, all this again in syllogisms. The defender
repeats the objection, then answers in a few words to _major_, _minor_
and _conclusion_, by conceding, denying, or distinguishing the various
parts of the objector’s syllogism. The opponent urges his objection, by
offering a new subsumptive syllogism to the defender’s solution. After
a quarter of an hour the second objector does the same for fifteen
minutes. During the last quarter, either the professor, or any student
present, may offer objections against the defender’s proposition.
These disputations are regular intellectual tournaments, the objectors
trying to show the weak points of the thesis, the defender striving to
maintain his proposition. “This system of testing the soundness of the
doctrine taught, continued as it is throughout the theological studies,
which come at a later period of the young Jesuit’s career, provides
those who pass through it with a complete defense against difficulties
which otherwise are likely to puzzle the Catholic controversialist. It
is a splendid means of sifting truth from falsehood. Many of those who
take part in it are men of ability and well versed in the objections
that can be urged against the Catholic teaching. Such men conduct their
attack not as a mere matter of form, but with vigor and ingenuity....
Sometimes the objector will urge his difficulties with such a semblance
of conviction as even to mislead some of those present.... So far
from any check being put on the liberty of the students, they are
encouraged to press home every sort of objection, however searching
and fundamental, however bold and profane (e. g. against the existence
of God, free will, immortality of the soul, Divinity of Christ, the
Catholic Church etc.), that can be raised to the Catholic doctrine.
In every class are found to be men, who are not to be put off with an
evasion, and a professor who was to attempt to substitute authority
for reason, would very soon find out his mistake. This perfect liberty
of disputation is one of the many happy results of the possession of
perfect and unfailing truth.”[736]
Every six or eight weeks, all the more important theses discussed
during the preceding time, are defended in the monthly disputations,
at which all the different classes of the institution and all
the professors of the faculty are present. Sometimes more solemn
disputations are held, to which frequently professors from other
institutions are invited, and any one is free to offer objections
which the defender has to solve. There can be no doubt that this
method has many great advantages. First of all, it forces the student
to study his proposition most thoroughly; for he is not aware what
objections shall be made. Therefore, both defenders and objectors have
to prepare most carefully, to examine closely the proposition on all
sides, to know its exact meaning, to understand the arguments, and to
discover its weak points. The professor, of course, is present, sees
that strict syllogistic form is kept, and in case the defender is
unable to solve the difficulties, has to give the final decision. At
the same time it forces the professor to be most careful and accurate
in the opinion he holds, and especially in the arguments which he
proposes, as fullest liberty is given in attacking every point, and as
the students, frequently mature men and highly gifted, try their very
best to show any weak point in the argumentation of the text book, or
in the professor’s propositions. Professor Paulsen observes on the
disputations of the medieval schoolmen, of which the disputations of
the Jesuit schools are a modification: “As regards the disputations,
it may be said that the Middle Ages were hardly mistaken. They were
undoubtedly fitted to produce a great readiness of knowledge and a
marvellous skill in grasping arguments.”[737]
It has frequently been asserted that this uniform training of the
Jesuits crushes out all individuality. Professor Paulsen says: “Great
individualities do not appear in the history of the Order,” and
Cardinal Newman writes: “What a great idea, to use Guizot’s expression,
is the Society of Jesus! what a creation of genius in its organization;
but so well adapted is the institution to its object that for that very
reason it can afford to crush individualities, however gifted; so much
so, that, in spite of the rare talents of its members, it has even
become an objection to it in the mouth of its enemies, that it has not
produced a thinker like Scotus or Malebranche!”[738]
Does uniform training necessarily result in uniformity of character?
Certainly not. If all those trained had the same disposition, the same
nature to be worked upon, perhaps it would. Does the same nourishment
given to a number of children produce the same result, the same
complexion, the same color of hair, the same seize? Why should mental
food? Does the same training in a military academy produce a perfect
likeness in all? The military system of the “Great Powers” gives the
most uniform training in the world. Does it crush out individuality of
the generals and officers in tactics and strategy? Jesuit pupils will
be surprised at being told that their teachers have all the same mould
of character and are destitute of individuality. But no one smiles more
at the above mentioned assertion than Jesuit Superiors, whose hardest
task it is to unite all the different characters in one common effort,
without interfering too much with their individuality. They know too
well that the crushing out of the individuality would mean the crushing
of energy and of self-activity so much insisted on by St. Ignatius in
his _Spiritual Exercises_. It was St. Ignatius who told those who have
charge of the spiritual training of the members of the Order: “It is
most dangerous to endeavor to force all on the same path to perfection;
he who attempts this does not know how different and how manifold the
gifts of the Holy Ghost are.”[739]
If one studies the works of the great writers of the Society,
he will be struck by the variety and difference of opinions held
by professors and writers of the same period, v. g. Suarez and
Vasquez.[740] It is amusing to read how one attacks and refutes
the other, speaking of “the opinions of a certain modern author
which cannot be maintained at all” etc. Cardinal Newman says in his
_Historical Sketches_: “It is plain that the body is not over-zealous
about its theological traditions, or it certainly would not suffer
Suarez to controvert with Molina, Viva with Vasquez, Passaglia with
Petavius, and Faure with Suarez, de Lugo and Valentia. In this
intellectual freedom its members justly glory; inasmuch as they have
set their affections, not on the opinions of the Schools, but on the
souls of men.”[741] Professor Paulsen seems to have forgotten his own
statement: “Greatest possible power of the individual is preserved
without derangement of the organism of the Order, spontaneous activity
and perfect submission of the will, contrasts almost irreconcilable,
seem to have been harmoniously united in a higher degree by the
Society, than by any other body.”[742] A recent English writer,[743]
speaking of the “crushing of individuality practised by the Jesuits,”
seems to trace it to the pernicious influence of the spirit of the
Latin races. The Latins “keep men in leading strings;” “liberty to
Latins means license;” “true Latins cannot understand the principle
of personality.” The Spaniards, in particular, are regarded with
special horror. The Roman Curia is said to have adopted the system
used by the Spaniards, “who could not endure discussion or publicity;
centralization was the ideal; routine the practice,” and so on.
“The Jesuit system of blind obedience was founded to bring about
the absolutism of authority;” this “makes them akin (strange though
it may seem) to that Puritan strain so often found in those doing
or desirous of doing great things.” This is strange indeed, but far
stranger are the absurdities and contradictions into which prejudiced
men are led. The Jesuits are said to be deprived of personality and
individuality, and in the same breath it is sometimes asserted that
everywhere they know how to adapt themselves to the most different
circumstances: In England, America, Germany, Spain, France, Russia,
China, Japan, Paraguay, Abyssinia. It is said the General wants a man
for some secret mission. He opens his list and there he finds a man
especially fitted to influence the court of St. Petersburg, or the
Padisha in Constantinople; then one who knows so well how to ingratiate
himself with Cromwell as to become his friend, dine at his table, play
chess with him;[744] then one who is fitted for guiding his Celestial
Majesty in Pekin; here one to rouse the starving peasants of Ireland
to enthusiasm for their ‘Romish’ faith, then one who by all sorts
of devices tames the savages of Paraguay; one who disputes with the
bonzes in Japan, or becomes a Brahmin in India, as the famous Robert
de Nobili; there is one who is best suited to conquer the refractory
Professors at the University in Louvain, and the Doctors of the
Sorbonne, then another who wins the confidence of the townspeople and
villagers in Switzerland, the Tyrol, and Germany--in short men for
every possible mission.[745] Such are the opinions of the adversaries
of the Society. But is not the greatest variety of characters needed
for all these employments? And yet, they are supposed to be deprived of
individuality! Or is that _unpersonal_ trait which is _infused_ into
every Jesuit so universal that all other individualities are contained
in it, as the scholastic philosophers express it, _eminenter_, in a
subtle and mysterious form? Is every Jesuit a sort of Proteus, who
could change himself into a lion, a serpent, a pard, a boar, a tree,
a fountain? A wonderful system of training, indeed, for which the
diplomats of our modern courts might envy the Jesuits. To be serious,
that depriving of personality, attributed to the Jesuit system, is
nothing but one of the numerous Jesuit myths.
We have left our young Jesuit in his philosophical course. But what
becomes in the meantime of the study of the classical languages? It
is not neglected during the course of philosophy, at least the Ratio
Studiorum provides special means to foster and promote this important
branch of study. The lectures in mathematics and natural sciences
are given in the mother tongue, but the lectures and disputations in
philosophy are all conducted in Latin, so that the young Jesuit is in
the habit of speaking Latin and may speak it with ease and fluency. It
is true, the Latin of these disputations and lectures is not exactly
Ciceronian, still it is by no means as barbarous as the opponents of
this system represent it. Some of the Latin text books on philosophy
are written in accurate Latin.[746] It is not, however, this custom
of speaking Latin which we wished to adduce as a provision of the
Ratio Studiorum, to advance the study of Latin during the course of
philosophy. But we find in the Ratio, among the rules for the Prefect
of the higher studies, the following clause: “He shall give every
student of philosophy a classical author and admonish him not to omit
reading it at certain hours.”[747]
In this manner six or seven years of training have been spent in the
Society in addition to about the same number of years devoted to higher
studies previous to the admission into the Order; thus, before the
Jesuit begins his work as teacher, twelve years, on the average, have
been spent in studies after the completion of the elementary or public
school course. The Jesuit teacher is then employed in the academical
or high school department. His training compares favorably to that
of the high school teachers in this country, at least as far as the
length of time is concerned. In Massachusetts (1897) one per cent of
high school teachers were graduates of scientific schools, thirteen
per cent of normal schools, sixty-six per cent of colleges, twenty
per cent unclassified.--In the State of New York (1898) there were
thirty-two per cent college graduates, thirty-nine per cent normal
school graduates, nineteen per cent high school graduates, ten per
cent had other training.[748] Thus the average of higher studies is
certainly not more than eight years, against the twelve years of the
Jesuit teacher.
It may be asked how far the Jesuit’s studies are preparatory to
his work as teacher? The repetition of the classics in the two
years “Juniorate” previous to the study of philosophy, is not only
considered as part of the general culture, but is especially viewed as
a preparation for the Jesuits’ work as teachers. Quick has correctly
said that the Juvenats or Juniorates were the training schools where
the young Jesuit learned the method of teaching.[749] That this was
the aim of this course is apparent from what the General Visconti
said: “Immediately after their novitiate they [the young Jesuits]
must have the most accomplished professors of Rhetoric [by which word
is understood general philological knowledge], men, who not only are
altogether eminent in this faculty, but who know how to teach and make
everything smooth for the scholars; men of eminent talent and the
widest experience in the art; who are not merely to form good scholars,
but to train good masters.”[750]
But there are other most important regulations concerning the direct
training for teaching. Towards the end of the philosophical course,
before going to the colleges, there should be an immediate preparation
for those who in the near future are to enter on the momentous career
of teaching boys. The outline of the Ratio Studiorum of 1586 demands
the following course:[751] “It would be most profitable for the
schools, if those who are about to be preceptors were privately taken
in hand by some one of great experience, and for two months or more
were practised by him in the method of reading, teaching, correcting,
writing, and managing a class. If teachers have not learned these
things beforehand, they are forced to learn them afterwards at the
expense of their scholars; and then they will acquire proficiency
only when they have already lost in reputation; and perchance they
will never unlearn a bad habit. Sometimes such a habit is neither
very serious nor incorrigible, if taken at the beginning; but if the
habit is not corrected at the outset, it comes to pass that a man,
who otherwise would have been most useful, becomes well-nigh useless.
There is no describing how much amiss preceptors take it, if they are
corrected, when they have already adopted a fixed method of teaching;
and what continual disagreement ensues on that score with the Prefect
of Studies. To obviate this evil, in the case of our professors, let
the Prefect in the chief college, whence our professors of Humanities
and Grammar are usually taken, remind the Rector and Provincial,
about three months before the next scholastic year begins, that, if
the Province needs new professors for the following term, they should
select some one eminently versed in the art of managing classes,
whether he be at the time actually a professor or a student of theology
or philosophy; and to him the future masters are to go daily for
an hour,[752] to be prepared by him for their new ministry, giving
prelections in turn, writing, dictating, correcting, and discharging
the other duties of a good teacher.”[753] Professor Ziegler, commenting
on this regulation, says: “To the Jesuits must be given the credit of
first having done something for the pedagogical preparation of the
future teachers in higher schools; and of having paved the way for the
_Probe-_ und _Seminarjahr_ of our days.”[754]
Another regulation laid down in the Ratio of 1599, as a duty of the
Provincial,[755] is of the greatest importance: “In order to preserve
the knowledge of classical literature, and to keep up a Seminary of
teachers, he shall try to have in his Province at least two or three
men distinguished in these branches. This he shall accomplish, if,
from time to time, he takes care that some of them who have a special
talent and inclination for these studies, and are sufficiently trained
in other branches, devote themselves exclusively to this vocation, so
that, through their efforts and industry, a stock of good teachers is
formed.”
In order to give the young teachers, who were to be trained in this
Seminary, a reliable guide, the general assembly of the Society, in
1696-97, passed a decree that, “besides the rules whereby the masters
of literature are directed in the manner of teaching, they should be
provided with an Instruction and proper Method of Learning, and so be
guided in their private studies even while they are teaching.”[756]
Father Joseph de Jouvancy (Latinized Juvencius), one of the greatest
authorities on education of his age, was ordered to revise, and adapt
to the requirements of this decree, a work which he had published
five years previously. This book, after a careful examination by a
special commission, appeared in 1703, as the authorized handbook for
the teachers of the Society, under the title: _Magistris scholarum
inferiorum Societatis Jesu de ratione discendi et docendi_.[757] The
General Visconti in 1752 wished the little book to be in the hands of
all Jesuit teachers.[758] The little work has been styled a pedagogical
gem, and it was highly praised by Rollin and Voltaire.[759] Dr. Ernst
von Sallwürk said of it a few years ago that its importance reaches far
beyond the Jesuit schools. “We may consider it a reliable source for
information of what Jesuit pedagogy at his time aimed at and achieved.
Besides, this book is one of the most prominent works on college
pedagogy (_Gymnasial-Pädagogik_).”[760] In the following chapters we
shall frequently refer to this excellent work of Father Jouvancy.
The account we have given so far of the training of the Jesuit
teacher furnishes an answer to the charge, which is brought forward now
and then, that the Jesuit teachers were too young. No matter how things
stood in the Old Society, at present, according to the above data,
the average age of the Jesuit teacher when he begins teaching cannot
be less than twenty-four years. Besides, every college, according to
the Ratio Studiorum, ought to possess a number of _magistri perpetui_,
permanent teachers, i. e. of men who spend their whole lives in
teaching. This is clearly stated in the rules of the Provincial: “He
shall procure as many as possible permanent teachers of grammar and
rhetoric. This he shall effect if, at the end of the casuistic or
theological studies, some men who are thought to fulfil the duties of
the Society better in this ministry than in any other, are resolutely
(_strenue_) destined for it, and admonished to devote themselves
wholly to so salutary a work, to the greater glory of God.”[761]
Father Sacchini devotes the fourth part of his _Protrepticon_ to
encouraging the members of the Society first, to offer themselves to
the arduous but noble work of education: “The education of youth for
many reasons deserves to be preferred by a zealous Jesuit to all the
other ministries of the Order.” He quotes the words of Pope Paul III.,
in the Bull of the confirmation of the Society: “They [the members of
the Society] shall have expressly recommended to them the instruction
of boys and ignorant people.... For it is most necessary that the
General and his council diligently watch over the management of this
business; seeing that the edifice of faith cannot be raised in our
neighbors without a foundation, and there may be danger among ourselves
lest, as each is more learned, he may endeavor to evade this duty
[of instructing the young], as at first sight perhaps less engaging:
whilst in fact none is more productive, either of edification to our
neighbors or of the practice of the duties of charity and humility
to ourselves.”[762] Father Sacchini says that this volunteering and
application for the work of education, far from being in any way
opposed to obedience, on the contrary, is the most beautiful flower and
perfection of that virtue, which St. Ignatius recommended when saying,
one should not wait for the Superior’s _command_, but should anticipate
his very suggestions and silent wishes.
In the second place Father Sacchini exhorts the teacher to devote
generously his whole life to this great work. Some writers on the
history of education have stated that the Jesuits, after having been
admitted to Priest’s Orders, did not teach the grammar classes, but
gave only the higher instruction.[763] Compayré goes so far as to
assert that “in their establishments for secondary instruction they
entrust the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their Order,
and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher classes.”[764]
This is utterly false. Lay teachers are only employed when the
insufficiency in the number of Jesuits makes it necessary; or for
certain branches, as commercial branches, or in professional courses,
as in the faculties for Law and Medicine, preparatory schools for Army
and Navy, in short, wherever lay experts are needed. The history of
Jesuit schools, old and new, refutes the statement of Compayré and
other writers. Many priests have taught the lower classes for many
years, some for their whole lives. Besides, if priests did not teach
these classes, the regulations of the Ratio about “permanent teachers,”
the earnest appeals of Sacchini and other Jesuit writers, would be
altogether meaningless.
Father Sacchini, in order to encourage the Jesuits to devote their
whole lives to this noble work, enumerates the various emoluments
accruing from this perseverance to the teacher himself, as it gives him
facility, interest, and experience in his work. He further points out
the advantages of this stability for the pupils and for the Society.
He cites in this connection the words of _Ecclesiasticus_[765]: “Be
steadfast in the covenant, and be conversant therein, and grow old in
thy work. Trust in God and stay in thy place.” The Greek text has,
instead of “place”, πόνος, _i. e._ “hard work, toil, drudgery,” a word
admirably suited to express the toilsome labor of education. Therefore:
“stay in thy place, bear patiently the toil and drudgery necessarily
connected with teaching,” is the advice given to the teacher of the
Society. In fact, numerous Jesuits have heeded this advice, and have
spent thirty, forty, fifty, and more years in college work. Not to
speak of times long gone by, or of foreign countries, we mention the
following fact. In 1888, died at Spring Hill College, near Mobile,
Alabama, Father Yenni, author of a Latin and a Greek grammar, who for
fifty years had been teaching boys, and, at his special request, always
in the lowest classes.
The Ratio speaks more explicitly of the training of the teachers
for the literary curriculum; it is understood that those who have
to teach mathematics, sciences, etc., receive a special training in
their respective branches. Other documents of the Society state this
principle in the clearest terms. In the memorandum of Father Clavius,
written more than three hundred years ago, it is said: “In order to
have always in the Society able teachers of these sciences, some who
are especially fitted for this task should be selected and trained,
in a private course, in the various mathematical branches.”[766] In
another document we read: “The best way, perhaps, is that those who are
chosen for this office [teaching mathematics] should, after the course
of philosophy, study for a _whole year_ the branches which they will
have to teach.”[767] This special course, in addition to the general
training in mathematics received in the course of philosophy, was
certainly a sufficient preparation for the amount of mathematics which
was taught in former centuries.
It is evident, then, that both the general and special training of the
Jesuit teacher were well attended to before he was sent out to teach.
Several weeks before the beginning of a new scholastic year, the
young Jesuit arrives at the college which is to be the first field
of his educational labors. After some time, during which the Rector
of the college and the Prefect of Studies have formed acquaintance
with the new-comer, a certain class is assigned to him for the next
year. It is according to the spirit, not only of the Ratio Studiorum,
but of the whole Institute of the Society, that great care be taken
that the positions in colleges, as well as elsewhere, are assigned
according to the talent, the knowledge and the practical abilities of
the individuals. To quote only a few regulations of the Institute, the
Constitutions declare: “Every one should be trained according to his
age, talent, and inclinations,” of course always considering “where the
common good can be advanced best.”[768] The Provincial is told “to take
care that those who have a special inclination for a certain branch
of study, in which they can distinguish themselves, spend more time
in this branch,”[769]--certainly for no other reason than that they
should use this knowledge for teaching, or if circumstances require,
writing on this special subject. Specialization is, accordingly, no new
invention of modern times, but was recognized as important centuries
ago, but a specialization which presupposes the solid foundation of
general culture. Unless this be done, the educational structure becomes
“top-heavy”; “time, money, and labor are put on the superstructure at
the expense of the foundation,” as an American writer complains of
modern educational systems.[770] The specialties to be provided for
by the selection and fostering of special talents, are, in the terms
of the second last general assembly of the Order (in 1883), “ancient
languages, philosophy, ethnology, history, higher mathematics, and all
the natural sciences.”[771] The Institute emphasizes the necessity of
selecting the teachers according to their abilities: “In universities
and colleges learned and able professors are to be appointed,”[772]
and the Provincial Superior is exhorted “to consider in due time what
teachers are to be taken for the single branches, and look out for
those that seem best fitted, who are learned, studious, and assiduous
(_docti_, _diligentes_, _assidui_), and intent upon the progress of
the pupils.”[773] Now, there is scarcely any studiousness or assiduity
possible, unless a man takes a natural interest in the subject which he
has to study or teach. True, the Jesuit is told by his Institute to do
everything from a supernatural motive; still in the special field of
studies “great success is hardly possible if one possesses no natural
liking for such work,” as a distinguished living Jesuit used to tell
the younger members of the Order.
Different documents of the Society state the same principle most
emphatically. We have heard that those men were to be appointed as
teachers of mathematics, who were especially fitted for this task, and
who felt an inclination and a liking for this branch.[774] A second
document says: “Those should be chosen who, all other things being
equal, are superior to all others in talent, diligence, inclination
for these subjects, and in the method of teaching.... For it happens
sometimes that some, proficient enough in other branches, are not
mathematicians, be it for want of study or of natural talent for this
branch.”[775] The same principle was, of course, applied to other
subjects. Father Nadal had laid it down as a general rule of the
Prefect of Studies, to see that all the younger members of the Society
receive a solid general training, and that special talents should be
diligently cultivated. “He must take pains to discover what talent our
young men have, and endeavor to advance them accordingly. If one is
fitted for the study of rhetoric, see that he is given a longer and
more accurate training in the humanistic studies and oratory. The same
care must be taken if one is thought to have a talent for poetics,
for Greek, for philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of
the Church, the Councils, and Canon Law. On the other hand, if one
seems not to be fitted for a certain branch of study, he should not be
detained therein longer than is necessary for acquiring an ordinary
knowledge.”[776]
Thus it is clear that the Constitutions of the Society and the
documents directly concerning the studies, from the very beginning,
insisted on the necessity of assigning each teacher’s work according
to his natural abilities. The General of the Society, Father Visconti,
inculcated this principle later on, saying that “special care should be
taken to assign the classes to the teachers according to their talent,
knowledge and practical skill.”[777] This must be emphasized much more
in our days. For in the sixteenth century, the subjects taught in
colleges were fewer, and it was not so difficult to appoint teachers.
But in our times, other branches must be taught. This cannot be done
effectively by the same man who teaches languages and literature. There
are exceedingly few men who can excel in many branches, or can be good
teachers in several of them.
Here, however, there is another danger which must be avoided: that
of splitting up too much the work of teaching in the same class. This
is most injurious to education properly so-called, especially in the
lower and middle classes. One teacher should have a prominent position
in the class; he should be _the_ teacher, and, in the first place,
_the educator_ of his pupils. For this reason he should teach as many
subjects as possible in his class--provided he masters them--, all
those branches which are more closely connected, as Latin, Greek, also
English, in short, languages and literature. With Latin and Greek it is
natural to combine also Roman and Greek history. Medieval and modern
history may be taught by a special teacher. Mathematics and natural
sciences go well together and can easily be taught by the same teacher.
In a word, the Society wishes to have _class_ teachers preferably
to _branch_ teachers. As is well known, the class system is, to a
certain extent, prevalent in Germany. For some time the branch system
had been favored, but experience proved that the old class system was
unquestionably better. So the “New School Order” for Prussia, 1901,
strongly recommends the strengthening of the influence of the class
teacher as distinct from the branch teacher, in order to secure, above
all, better education. “The splitting up of the teaching in the lower
and middle classes among too many teachers, as well as frequent changes
of teachers, are considered an obstacle to any enduring educational
influence. To put a stop, as far as possible, to these evils, the
provincial school authorities are strictly bound to see to it that a
professor proposed as a _class teacher_ be suitable for the position,
_and that he teach in his class as many subjects as possible_, so far
as his scholastic attainments and practical experience allow it.”[778]
The advantages of this system for education need not be demonstrated.
It is the only system which gives the teacher a thorough knowledge of
the pupil and influence on the formation of his character.[779]
There is another practice of Jesuit colleges which had for its
end the strengthening of the educational influence of the teacher.
According to the Ratio Studiorum, it was customary that the teacher
should not always remain in the same grade, except the professors of
the two highest literary classes, of Humanities and Rhetoric, where
more erudition is required. But the young teacher should begin with
the lowest class, then year after year advance with the better part
of his pupils to the next higher grade, at least for three or four
years. Thus the students have not to pass so often from one master,
and consequently from one kind of management, to the other; master and
pupil understand each other, and if the teacher is a good religious and
a fairly efficient teacher, he will have won the esteem, the affection,
and the confidence of the pupils, all which gives him inestimable
advantages for the real and thorough education of his charges. On the
other hand, frequent changes interfere considerably with the training
of the pupils. As early as 1583, Father Oliver Manare, visiting the
colleges of the German provinces by the General’s authority, laid it
down as a directive that “frequent changes were burdensome to the
students, because they were forced to accommodate themselves often to
new teachers and prefects.”[780]
If, for want of a sufficient number of men, some of the regulations
laid down for the training of the teacher, were, perhaps, not
everywhere and always complied with, the Ratio Studiorum is not to
be censured on that account, nor the Society as such, as by wise
legislation she endeavored to obviate any such shortcomings.[781]
Moreover, the uniformity of the previous training of the Jesuit
teachers, as well as the uniform system of teaching in the colleges
of the same province, has the effect that, although teachers are
changed, there is no change in the method of teaching. Besides, is not
every institution, secular or ecclesiastical, however well organized,
open to such or similar temporary defects? Exceptional shortcomings
must naturally be expected in any system, as there is nothing on
earth altogether perfect and ideal. Deficiencies in individual Jesuit
teachers, or in single colleges, do not prove anything against the
system, no more than the inefficient administration of one Governor
or President proves the worthlessness of the constitution of a State
or the Republic. Our contention is only that excellent teachers are
trained if the regulations of the Jesuit system are followed.
The young teacher has received his appointment, let us say for one of
the high school classes, to teach Latin and Greek. He knows his grammar
well, he has in the course of years read many classical authors. Is
anything still wanting? Indeed very much: an intimate acquaintance with
the authors, facility in handling their languages, skill in explaining
the grammar and the authors. All this he has to acquire by a system of
_continued self-training_, under the direction of the Rector or Prefect
of Studies. Above all he must study the classic authors themselves.
Second-hand knowledge will not suffice for the teacher. Reading over
the regulations of the Society in former centuries concerning the
preparation of the teachers,[782] one must be surprised to see what
an amount of reading was required of the young teacher, in Latin,
Greek, and history. Thus the teacher of the second lowest Grammar class
(_Media Grammatica_) had to study, besides the authors he explained in
class, _all_ the philosophical writings of Cicero (the epistles he had
read the year before), and some of the orations of the same author;
the poets Claudian, Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, Martial, the first
ten books of Livy, Justin, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus,
and the whole of Caesar. In Greek, Aelian, Aesop, and Xenophon’s
Cyropaedia. Various books on style, poetry, and rhetoric.[783] The
teacher of the third class was to study all the orations of Cicero
with a commentary; Horace, Seneca, and other poets; some more books
of Livy, Curtius, Sallust; the Philippics of Demosthenes.--Every
minute was to be utilized in order to master these authors. Catalogues
of books on philology and antiquities were printed from which the
young teacher might find assistance in studying and explaining the
authors.[784] The young teacher has to look not so much for pedagogical
theories, as for practical knowledge. He is to read carefully the
authors, closely observe peculiarities of their style, accurately
translate and intelligently expound their meaning. It is exactly the
system, according to which Professor Hermann of Leipsic trained his
philologians. This practical method of self-activity and self-training
we find explained in the first part of Jouvancy’s commentary on the
Ratio Studiorum, in _The Method of Learning_.
As the object of this training is to form practical teachers, not a
word is said about higher criticism and the like; but Father Jouvancy
urges the teacher to acquire in the first place a thorough mastery of
three languages: Greek, Latin, and the vernacular. The means of gaining
this mastery are plentiful reading of the best authors, and practising
compositions of various kinds: letters, orations, essays.
The second part of the learning proper to the master of literature
consists, according to Jouvancy, in the thorough knowledge of certain
sciences. “The erudition of a master is not confined to mere command of
languages; it must rise higher to the understanding of some sciences
which it is usual to impart to youth in the classical schools. Such
are rhetoric, poetry, history, chronology, geography, philology.”[785]
As regards history, it is superfluous to speak of its usefulness for a
higher education. History is, indeed, a _magistra vitae_, a teacher and
mirror of life, a school of practical wisdom. Of particular importance
for the teacher is the thorough knowledge of the history of Greece and
Rome. A scholarly appreciation of the classics is impossible without an
intimate acquaintance with the history: political, social, religious,
and literary, of these nations.
Here we must say a few words on the teacher’s attitude towards
ancient history. The religious teacher’s viewpoint of history is
radically different from that of the agnostic. To the religious teacher
historical events are not merely the products of natural agencies. He
sees rather in history, to use the words of the Jesuit Kropf, “the
wonderful manifestation of God’s power and a revelation of the wisdom
of a Divine Providence.”[786] History, in this sense, is a record of
the development of mankind under the providential guidance of God; or,
more precisely, a record of the systematic training and improvement
of the human race by divinely appointed means as a preparation for
the birth of Christ, that God might, through the coming of His Son,
secure from man a spontaneous homage, a worship worthy of Himself.
The coming of Christ, in this view, gives a definite character to
history, and the periods both before and after that event--the greatest
in history--constitute its two grand divisions,[787] the one the
preparation for the coming of Christ, the other the spread and struggle
of Christ’s kingdom, to the final triumph on the day of Judgment.
Christ, therefore, is the central figure of all history, “the stone
which was rejected by the builders, which is become the head of the
corner.”[788]
From this standpoint, then, the Jesuit masters will study and teach
the history of Greece and Rome. Of this viewpoint he will not lose
sight when reading and explaining the classic authors. It need not
be feared that this view will prevent the teacher from doing full
justice to these two great nations. On the contrary. In the Greeks he
will acknowledge those brilliant gifts of nature which made them the
foremost promoters of human art, human knowledge, and human culture.
In the history of Rome he will admire that wonderful talent for ruling
the world, and that system of jurisprudence which exercised so potent
an influence on the formation of later codes of laws. However, the
Christian view of history will prevent the teacher from sharing that
one-sided admiration of antiquity which was so disastrous among the
humanists during the Renaissance, and which is found sometimes in the
ranks of professional philologists. The Greeks were indeed a race
endowed with exceptional gifts of body and mind. However, we need not
and cannot shut our eyes to their many moral defects, especially to
that frightful kind of immorality which has received its name from the
Greeks, and which manifests itself even in the finest pieces of their
literature.
Nor is the Christian teacher’s attitude towards imperial Rome very
different. At the time when Christ appeared on earth, Rome under
Augustus had risen to the zenith of her glory, and the poets sang that
the golden age had returned on earth. But under a glittering surface
lay hidden the misery of slavery, universal corruption, scepticism
and despair. In the midst of this darkness appeared the “Light to the
revelation of the Gentiles.”[789] Yet the darkness did not surrender
without a fierce struggle, the greatest which the world has ever
seen. The history of this struggle between Christ and Caesar, between
Christianity and paganism, between faith and infidelity, is the keynote
of the first three centuries, nay more, of the nineteen hundred years
which have since elapsed.
The Christian historian, although objecting to Gibbon’s explanation
of the spread of Christianity from merely natural causes,[790] admits
that, apart from the intrinsic worth and positive character of
Christianity as a divinely revealed religion, external circumstances
also contributed to the rapid propagation of the religion of Christ.
He discovers that the coming of the _Desired of Nations_ had been
prepared directly, through “the Law and the Prophets,” among the
chosen people of Israel, _indirectly_ also among the Gentiles. This
indirect preparation was first a negative one; the ancient world had
to realize the limitation of the natural powers; it had to experience
that all progress in philosophy, art and politics could neither quiet
the mind nor satisfy the heart, and was utterly unable to save either
the individual or the family, the state or society.[791] But there
was also a more positive preparation of the Gentile world. The Greek
methods of philosophy, especially those of Plato and Aristotle, in
spite of their many shortcomings, became efficient means with which
the early champions of the Church successfully combated the errors
and absurdities of paganism and logically defended the doctrines of
Revelation. Thus Plato, in the words of Clement of Alexandria, was a
παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν, a teacher who prepared the way for Christ.
Origen, Eusebius and St. Augustine see a special providence of God in
the conquest of the world by the Roman Empire. It is this tracing of
God’s working in history which Father Kropf suggested to the teacher,
and it is in this light that he has to study the history and literature
of Greece and Rome.
With ancient history and the classics, the teacher has to connect
the study of antiquities. Those who have heard it said again and
again that the Jesuit system aims at nothing but “mere formalism, at
cleverness in speaking and disputing,” will naturally ask in surprise,
whether the Jesuits had any place for these subjects in their course
of instruction. However, a mere glance at the Ratio, the commentary of
Jouvancy and other sources will convince any one that the teaching of
antiquities is even prescribed in the colleges of the Society. Under
the name of _eruditio_, i. e. general erudition or general learning,
the study of antiquities forms an essential part of the explanation of
the authors. The professor of Rhetoric (Sophomore) is told that “one of
the three principal points of this grade consists in general erudition.
This is to be drawn from the history of the nations and their culture,
from the best authors and from every field of learning; but it is to
be imparted sparingly and according to the capacity of the pupils.”
The fifteenth rule of the professor says that “for the advancement of
erudition, sometimes, instead of reading the historical author, other
subjects might be treated, e. g. hieroglyphics, and symbolic signs,
epitaphs,[792] the Roman or Athenian Senate, the military systems of
the Romans and Greeks, the costumes, gardens, banquets, triumphs,
sibyls, etc., in short--as the Revised Ratio has it--archaeology. The
first rule of the professor of Humanities mentions the same.” But that
it was intended for all classes, though naturally not to the same
extent, is evident from Jouvancy’s treatise “On the Explanation of
Authors,” which we shall give in substance in the next chapter. There
it will also be explained why antiquities, according to the Ratio,
should be imparted “sparingly.”
If antiquities are to be taught in Jesuit colleges, the teacher
must carefully study them. This is done partly in the two years of
philological studies which follow the novitiate. One of the great
teachers of the first century of the Society, Father Bonifacio, who
for more than forty years labored in the Spanish colleges, writes: “In
the philological seminaries, our young men, besides studying Latin,
Greek and Hebrew, should acquire an intimate knowledge of history and
classical antiquities.”[793] However, this archaeological learning
has to be acquired chiefly throughout the course of teaching. It will
always form a part of the preparation of the authors which are, at
the time, read in class. Father Jouvancy advises the young teacher to
devote especially the holidays to this study, which he calls a useful
and, at the same time, pleasant change.[794]
In the Old Society there existed special lists or catalogues of
various works, from which historical and antiquarian information could
best be obtained. Very interesting in this regard is the _Catalogue_ of
the province of Upper Germany of the year 1604.[795] In an introductory
remark it is stated that the list of philological helps is not made
for the old and experienced professors, but for the young masters,
for the beginners; and a great number of works is given that every
one might suit his own taste and select those authors whom he likes
best. The first part of the catalogue contains the best commentaries
on the classical authors. The second enumerates works on Roman Law,
which will help towards a better understanding of the writings of
Cicero. The third gives the titles of about sixty works on antiquities:
Roman and Greek games, triumphs, chronology, religion and sacrifices,
mythology, banquets, costumes, the army and navy, numismatics, measures
and weights, architecture, the triumphal arches, the circus, the
amphitheatre, topography, geography, etc.[796] Several works on these
subjects were written by Jesuits. It will appear, then, that although
antiquities were to be taught but sparingly, the information of the
teacher on these subjects was supposed to be thorough. Jouvancy, at the
end of his _Method of Learning_, reminds the young master that “he must
beware of superficiality; he must not be satisfied with a smattering
but should endeavor to master thoroughly, to exhaust, if possible, that
branch to which, by his natural gifts and God’s will, he is destined to
apply himself. Above all he must be constant in his studies and devote
all his time to earnest self-training. Should he trifle away his time,
he would seriously fail in his religious obligations; for God’s glory
and the honor of the Society demand of him as much progress in learning
as he can possibly attain, and one day God will ask of him a rigorous
account of his time and his work.”
This is the training which the Society gives its young teachers. It
is a solid and practical training, one, we think, fitted for forming
competent teachers.
FOOTNOTES:
[726] In the _Centralorgan für die Interessen des Realschulwesens_.
Berlin.
[727] See Father Clarke’s article in the _Nineteenth Century_, Aug.
1896.
[728] _Const. Soc. Jesu_, Pars I, cap. 1, 4.
[729] _Reg. Prov._, 33.
[730] _Reg. com._, 6.
[731] _Constitutions of the Society_, P. I. c. 2.
[732] The entrance into religious life and the happiness enjoyed in the
novitiate, is beautifully told by the German Jesuit Denis, translator
of Ossian’s poems, and by the French Jesuit Ravignan, famous for his
conferences at Notre Dame, Paris.
[733] _De Inst. Orat._, II, 2.
[734] _Reg. com. mag. schol. inf._, 50.
[735] I _Tim._ 4, 8.
[736] Father Clarke in the _Nineteenth Century_, August, 1896.
[737] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, vol. I, p. 38.
[738] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, III, p. 71.
[739] _Selectae S. Ignatii Sententiae_, VIII.
[740] However, these two theologians did not teach _together_ in the
same university, as is often said. See the dates given by Fathers
Frins, S. J., and Kneller, S. J., in the _Kirchen-Lexikon_, XI, 923,
and XII, 634.
[741] _Hist. Sketches_, vol. II, p. 369. Does not this great writer,
by so true a statement of facts, refute what, in another passage, he
quoted about crushing out individuality?
[742] See above p. 18.
[743] Father Taunton, _A History of the Jesuits in England_, 1901. See
_Month_, May 1901, p. 505.
[744] Taunton, _l. c._
[745] There was a time “when behind every Roman Catholic Court in
Europe there stood a Jesuit confessor, and a Jesuit emissary ascended
the back stairs of every Protestant palace.” _English Review_, vol. V,
1846, p. 65.
[746] “Monkish Latin” has become a byword from the days of the
humanists on to our age. The technical terms introduced by the
scholastics are, it is true, not found in the writings of the ancients.
Still we cannot deny that the schoolmen had a right, for the sake of
greater brevity and precision, to form new words, from old roots,
in order to avoid the cumbrous circumlocutions of a Cicero. Many
modern scholars view the scholastic Latin much more favorably than
was customary a few decades ago. Thus Mr. Leach, who is anything but
friendly to the scholastics, says: “The medieval schoolmen sinned no
more against pure Latinity, than the modern scientific writer sins
against English undefiled, if such there be.” And Mr. Rashdall writes:
“Among the students of a University and among the clergy generally much
villainous Latin was no doubt talked, just as much villainous French is
or was encouraged by the rule of French-speaking in English Seminaries
for Young Ladies. But the Latin which was written by the theologian,
or historian ... was not as bad as is commonly supposed by those who
have only heard it abused. J. S. Mill has rightly praised the schoolmen
for their unrivalled capacity in the invention of technical terms. The
Latin language originally rigid, inflexible, poor in vocabulary, and
almost incapable of expressing a philosophical idea, became in the
hands of medieval thinkers, flexible, subtle, rich.” _Univers. of the
M. A._, vol. II, pp. 595-596. See also Paulsen, _l. c._, vol. I, pp.
45-48.
[747] _Reg. Praef. Stud._ 30.
[748] From _Education in the United States_, vol. I, p. 190.
[749] _Educational Reformers_, pp. 36-37.
[750] Pachtler, vol. III, pp. 130-131.--Hughes, p. 184.
[751] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 154.--See Hughes, p. 160.
[752] In the final _Ratio Stud._ of 1599, it was laid down as a duty of
the Rector to see that this was done, but the time was limited to three
hours a week. (_Reg. Rect._ 9.)
[753] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 154, no. 6.--Hughes, p. 160.--Duhr, p. 39.
[754] _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 111.
[755] _Reg. Prov._ 22.
[756] Pachtler, I, pp. 101-2.--Duhr, p. 40.--Hughes, p. 162.
[757] A German translation of this work, with introduction and notes,
by Robert Schwickerath, S. J., was published in 1898, in Herder’s
_Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik_, vol. X, pp. 207-322.--An
excellent sketch of the life and the works of this “model of a Jesuit
Professor” is contained in the _Études religieuses_, Paris, November
and December 1872.--The correct form of the name is _Jouvancy_, not
Jouvency, which latter originated from the Latinized Juvencius.
[758] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 132; IV, pp. 401, 435.
[759] See above page 163, note 332.
[760] In Schmid’s _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. IV, Abteilung I, pp.
460 and 538-543.
[761] _Reg. Prov._ 24.--By a very curious mistake some writers (as
Professor Müller in Schmid’s _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. III,
Abteilung I, page 41) represent these “permanent teachers” as a
separate and inferior grade in the Society, “who received only a
special drill in pedagogical courses and were not much esteemed.” And
yet the Ratio Studiorum, in the rule just quoted, states explicitly
that the members of the Society should be appointed as _magistri
perpetui_ after the completion of their _theological_ course. Therefore
the priests are meant.
[762] English transl. from _Constitutions of the Society of Jesus_,
London, 1838.
[763] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 36, note a.
[764] _History of Pedag._, p. 143.
[765] _Eccli._ 11, 21, 22.
[766] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 471.
[767] _Ibid._, p. 475.
[768] _Pars_ IV, _cap._ V, _Declar._ C.
[769] _Reg. Prov._ 55 (No. 55 of the Rules in the _Institute_, not of
the _Rat. Stud._).
[770] _Is our Educational System Top-heavy?_ By Elliott Flower, in the
_North American Review_, February 1898.
[771] See Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
[772] _Reg. Prov._ 47. (_Institute._)
[773] _Rat. St._, _Reg. Prov._ 4 and _Const._, _Pars_ IV, cap. VI, 6.
[774] “_Necessarium etiam videtur, ut praeceptor habeat inclinationem
quandam et propensionem ad has scientias praelegendas._” In the
treatise: _Modus quo disciplinae mathematicae in scholis Societatis
possent promoveri_. See _Monumenta Paedagogica_, p. 471.
[775] _De re mathematica instructio._ (_Mon. Paed._, p. 476.)
[776] _Ordo Studiorum_, in _Mon. Paed._, p. 133. It appears from the
whole context that by “talent” a “special” talent is meant. Be it added
that by “oratory” and “poetics” we have to understand all the studies
pursued in the two classes “Humanities” and “Rhetoric”.
[777] Pachtler, vol. III, p. 131.
[778] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, p. 75. See _Messenger_, New
York, Sept. 1901.
[779] On this subject there is a splendid article, written by Father
Pachtler in the year 1880, in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol.
XVIII, pp. 49-66.
[780] Pachtler I, 415.--Father Ledesma made the regulation that in the
beginning of the scholastic year substitutes should be appointed, who
had to be ready to step in if a teacher should, by sickness or some
other cause, be compelled to discontinue teaching. _Mon. Paed._, p.
144, 156.
[781] _Reg. Provinc._ 4, 22, 24, 28, 30, etc.
[782] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 175-235.
[783] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 203-204.
[784] See Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 12-19, where lists of such books,
recommended in the Old Society, are given.
[785] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. II.--It has been proved in chapter IV,
pp. 124-129, that history and geography were never neglected in the
colleges of the Society. In the mean time I found that the Protestant
writers of Schmid’s great _Geschichte der Erziehung_ (1884-1901), in
sharp contrast with the assertions of M. Compayré, candidly admit
the services rendered to history and geography by Jesuit schools
and scholars. Thus Dr. von Sallwürk says: “The study of history was
considerably advanced by Jesuit writers, but the colleges of the
University [of Paris] did not imitate the example of the Jesuits.”
_Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. IV, Abteilung I, p. 436. “The Fathers
Sirmond, Petavius, and Labbe have well deserved of historical studies
and of the teaching of history in the schools.... Geography was
henceforth zealously cultivated by the Jesuits.... Of great practical
importance were the labors of the remarkably diligent Father Buffier;
especially on geography and grammar he has written good books, in
which the traditional scholastic _tone_ is happily avoided.... His
_Philosophy and Practical Grammar_ was for a long time considered the
only useful grammar of the French language.... In the schools of the
Oratory we find geography as a branch of study; but to the Jesuits
must be allowed the merit of having taught this branch before the
Oratorians. In their College at Amiens was trained Nicolas Sanson, the
‘Father of Geography’.” _Ibid._, p. 456 and 466.
[786] _Ratio et Via_, chapter V, art. 9. (German translation p. 423.)
The new Prussian School Order of 1901 uses the same words in regard to
Church history, p. 16.
[787] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. I, p. 6.
[788] _Acts_ 4, 11.
[789] _Luke_ 2, 32.
[790] Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, ch. XV. See
Newman’s criticisms on these chapters in _Grammar of Assent_.
[791] Alzog, _Church History_, vol. I, pp. 127-135.
[792] In 1830 the German Jesuits declared these three points to be
antiquated. (Pachtler IV, 439.)
[793] Father Bonifacio’s pedagogical works lately appeared in a German
translation, together with those of Father Perpinian and Father
Possevin: in the _Bibliothek der kathol. Pädagogik_, vol. XI.--Herder,
Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1901.
[794] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. III, art. 2.
[795] Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 12-19.
[796] These works were in the 17th century of the same importance as
at present the standard works on antiquities, such as Guhl and Koner,
_Life of the Greeks and Romans_; Schömann, _The Antiquities of Greece_;
Mahaffy, _Social Life in Greece_; Ramsay, _Antiquities_; and the works
of Mommsen, Becker, Lang, Lanciani, Boissier, Friedländer, Marquardt
etc. They took also the place of our modern Classical Dictionaries and
of such great collections as Iwan von Müller’s valuable _Handbuch der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_.