CHAPTER XVI.

The Method of Teaching in Practice.

It was said before that the intellectual scope of the Jesuit system

is the general training of the mind; the means for obtaining this

end are the various exercises. In this chapter we shall treat the

exercises of the literary course, and this for several reasons.

_First_, because the study of languages and literature should form

the backbone of, at least, the secondary schools and of part of the

college course. _Secondly_, because the Ratio Studiorum treats the

exercises in languages and literature very minutely, whereas it makes

only a few suggestions concerning the exercises in mathematics and

natural sciences. _Thirdly_, because it is especially in the literary

studies that there exists a danger to neglect the exercises, as is, in

fact, the case in some modern systems. No one will doubt for a moment

that for the successful teaching of mathematics continual exercises

are absolutely necessary. In natural sciences, particularly in physics

and chemistry, the equivalent of the exercises are the experiments and

especially the laboratory work.[797] On teaching physics and chemistry

the Ratio has one very important remark, viz., the professor should not

treat them merely theoretically and mathematically, so that no time

is left for the experiments; nor should he, on the other hand, spend

so much time on the experiments that the teaching seems to be purely

experimental; but sufficient time should be devoted to the principles,

systems, theories, and hypotheses.[798] The object of all these

exercises, be they scientific or literary, must be clear from what

has been said in previous chapters, especially in the chapter on the

_Intellectual Scope_. There we compared the different branches of study

to the tools of the artisan or the dumb bells of one who takes a course

of physical training; the exercises are the practical handling of these

instruments, not by the teacher, but by the pupil. The teacher has to

show how they are to be handled, but then the pupil has to lay hold of

the intellectual tools and handle them himself. Thus, and thus only,

not by merely listening to the lectures of a teacher, will the youthful

mind be trained and acquire that readiness and nimbleness which is

the object of true education. The literary exercises laid down in the

Ratio Studiorum shall be treated under four headings: the “prelection”,

memory lessons, compositions, and contests.[799]

§ 1. The Prelection or Explanation of the Authors.

The typical form of Jesuit instruction is called _praelectio_.

This word is largely the equivalent of “lecturing” in the higher

faculties;[800] of “explanation” in the lower. In either case, however,

it is something specific.[801] For this reason the word may be used in

an English dress, as “prelection”. We are here not concerned with the

lecture in the higher faculties, but with the prelection or explanation

in the literary or classical course. This prelection is two-fold: one

is upon the authors, the other upon the precepts of rhetoric, poetry,

and style in the higher classes, of grammar, prosody, etc., in the

lower classes. The Ratio gives some useful hints as to teaching the

principles of rhetoric in connection with the reading of the authors.

Taking up a passage, let us say of Cicero, the professor will, in the

first place, make clear the sense of the text; secondly, analyze the

artistic structure; thirdly, explain the force and meaning of the

rhetorical precept contained in the passage; fourthly, adduce other

examples which are similar in thought or expression, especially famous

and striking ones; cite other orators or poets, whether in the classics

or the vernacular, in which the same principles are employed; lastly,

weigh the words singly, comment upon the propriety of their use, their

rhythm, variety, beauty. The comparison of Latin and Greek authors with

those of the vernacular, that treat of similar subjects, was especially

recommended by the Jesuits in Germany, in 1830.[802]

The method of explaining authors is sketched admirably in the 27th

of the common rules. The first thing the professor is told to do is

to read the whole passage through, unless it be too long. There is a

very good reason for this. It makes an impression on the ear of the

pupils, and accustoms them to the rhythm of the language. Again, the

reading is calculated, better than the rules of prosody, to impress on

them the correct quantity of Latin syllables. Remember that the boys

are understood to be employing Latin words a year, two years, before

they learn the prosody; they are surely not supposed to be pronouncing

incorrectly all that time. How, then, do they acquire accuracy in

this important detail? Simply by imitating their professor. He reads

every lesson for them before explaining; they read every lesson before

translating, when they repeat next day. The rules of prosody afterwards

only complete the work. Jouvancy observes that the teacher should

accustom the pupils from the very beginning to distinct and articulate

reading[803]; the same holds good of the recitations. From the first

lesson in Latin and Greek the teachers should insist on the correct

quantity, particularly of the final syllables (_os_, _es_, _is_, etc.).

If in the lowest classes the students acquire a faulty pronunciation,

they will never get rid of it in later years. Some modern teachers go

to an extreme in insisting too much on quantity and other points. This

is affectation. Years ago many colleges used the English pronunciation

of Latin: _pueri_ = pyueray, etc.; others follow more or less the

(European) continental system; of late the high schools and most

colleges have adopted the ancient or Roman pronunciation: _Cicero_ =

_Kikero_, etc. This is not the place to enter on a discussion about

the relative value of the different systems. The opinions of leading

educators differ considerably.[804]

The reading of the text is not merely intended for correctness of

pronunciation; the passage should be so read that the sense may

fully appear, and that the sentiment may be rendered expressively.

Inflection, tone, quality of voice, all the elements of elocution

applicable to reading should be carefully attended to, and represented

faithfully. A distinguished Jesuit professor even went so far as to

employ gesture in this part of his prelection. What is easier in an

oration than to put that spirit into the reading which shows the pupils

that they are not examining a dead series of words, but a living

organism with life and feeling in it, that they are studying the actual

expression of real human feelings? One would not be too venturesome in

asserting that the reading of the passage well done is the very best

introduction to the matter studied. Of course, the repetition of this

excellent reading should be exacted immediately, as often as possible;

the next day at all events. It will prove the easiest and surest means

of teaching elocution. The Rule does not say _legat_, nor _recitet_,

but _pronunciet_; _legat_ or _recitet_ would be satisfied by any

reading, monotonous or not; _pronunciet_ necessarily implies delivery,

the attempt at elocutionary finish.

The delivery of the passage well done--and, when possible, exacted

immediately,--the professor proceeds to sketch the _argumentum_, or

gist of the passage. This he does briefly. Father Jouvancy, in his Odes

of Horace, gives us examples of _argumenta_ which are all that could be

desired; other instances, found in the _Ratio Docendi_, will be given

below. Of course, the professor gives the argument mostly from his

notes, and he usually, or often, dictates it,--a reason for his writing

it out at home. It should be brief, pithy, striking, and clear, and

given in Latin in the higher classes, in the vernacular in the lower

classes.

Then, when the passage is connected with the preceding, the professor

has to set forth the nature of the connection; this refers especially

to points of history, and, in general, to such references as come under

the head of _eruditio_. It will seldom be necessary when, as often

occurs in the lower grades, the passage for prelection is the whole of

a short story. In Freshman class and Sophomore, on the contrary, it may

require some time to explain this connection.

The professor next passes on to consider each sentence by itself. He

explains each one, shows the grammatical or rhetorical connection or

dependence of its successive members and phrases, and, in general,

clears up any obscurities or difficulties which the words contain. If

the explanation is in the vernacular,[805] he is careful to keep at

first, as far as possible, the order of the Latin words, to accustom

the ear to the _numerus_ of that language. If this cannot be done,

then he first translates nearly word for word, almost regardless of

vernacular excellence, then afterwards returns and gives a version,

with all attention to the elegancies of diction. This last translation

must be a model of the vernacular, the very best the professor can do.

Jouvancy says that all translations and dictations in the vernacular

must be in strict accord with the most exact rules of the language, and

free from any defect.[806] The Ratio of 1832, in the eighteenth rule

for the teachers, insists on the same.

By all odds the better way for the teacher, as Jouvancy has said, is

to elaborate his version for himself. It is a risky thing to rely on

printed translations; many of them, especially the “Handy Library

Translations” and the like, are frequently done in awkward and

slovenly English. Further, as now-a-days the pupils have easy access

to libraries, they will soon detect what sort of translation the

teacher uses. In consequence the professor will lose a great part of

his authority, the first element of which is esteem for the teacher’s

learning. Besides, as soon as the students have discovered the source

of the teacher’s translation, the careless and lazy ones will no longer

pay any attention in class. Of course, the most conscientious and

painstaking teacher has sometimes to have recourse to translations. But

he should procure the most scholarly translations, and use them with

discretion.

There can be no objection to the teacher’s reading the translation

from his paper; by which means he will be ensured against slips and

sins against idiom, such as otherwise can hardly be avoided. If he

chooses, after his own version, he may read a printed translation,

which is especially useful in the case of such works as Butcher and

Lang’s Homer.

Notes and remarks are now to be given. Many professors prefer the

alternative suggested in the Rule, of putting these in here and there,

where they belong, in the course of the explanation. This plan, and

that of presenting all the remarks together at the end, have both their

own advantages. The former is more in keeping with unity, the latter

affords a good opportunity of going over the passage again, and gives

the pupils an occasion to make a little review of what has been done so

far. Repetition is always good: it impresses and enforces. It is for

this reason that the second rule of the several classes orders that

immediately after the prelection a short repetition be “exacted” of the

students. While the matter is still fresh, this can be done more easily

and will have a more lasting effect.

The notes given should be made brief and striking and should be

carefully worded. _Littera scripta manet._ The Grammar classes are not

to write unless bidden. This evidently supposes that the higher classes

may write when they choose. They are considered to have acquired

discretion enough to guide them in their choice of what to note down

from the professor’s explanation. The lower grades are not to do this

for themselves, because, as Father Hughes[807] says, “it happens now

and then that, with much labor, waste of time and to no good purpose

whatever, the boys take down and preserve with diligence a set of notes

which have not been thought out very judiciously nor been arranged

very carefully, notes simply trivial, common, badly patched together,

sometimes worse than worthless, and these notes they commit to paper in

wretched handwriting, full of mistakes and errors. Therefore let the

dictation be only of a few points and those extremely select.”

The _Trial Ratio_ of 1586 bids the professor and the Prefect look over

the students’ note books occasionally.[808] This examination ensures

the notes being written neatly and in order. It must not be forgotten

that one great advantage of notes in general is the habit of system

which they tend to foster; hence they must be diligently seen to. The

teacher leads the way, as in every other detail of class work, by being

orderly himself; he exacts the same care of his pupils.

The Ratio strongly recommends careful _preparation_ on the part of the

professor. He is not to give the prelection _ex tempore_, but after

careful thought and even writing. What a splendid thing it would be

if every teacher could so thoroughly make himself _ready_ as to go to

class with nothing but the text of the author and give his prelection,

reading, argument, explanation, version, notes, dictation and all

without so much as looking on his book before the boys! This would be

the perfection of preparation and has been attained in the Society, old

and new, but would possibly require too much time of professors of but

a few years’ teaching. At any rate, the one who wishes to be successful

in his work and do it faithfully, will not only have taken the pains to

have studied carefully beforehand--the long vacation is the best time

to do this--the book or oration which he is to explain, but will never

come to class without having prepared, at the very least, some notes

put in order as he designs to give them to the pupils.

These notes may be more or less _in extenso_: if the professor has

sufficient fluency in expressing himself, they can be simple jottings,

mere hints of what he is to say, and in what place. He will also have

carefully fixed such points as he means to dictate. It will seldom be

necessary for one to write out the entire prelection word for word.

Such a practice would be good at times, no doubt, by way of exercising

oneself in neatness and accuracy, and in style; but ordinarily mere

notes will suffice. What will they consist of? That will depend

largely on the passage under discussion. Now they will include a

bit of history, the narration of which is called for by the passage

for prelection; now geography; at other times archaeology; oftener

grammatical or rhetorical precepts will enter, and similar passages

from other authors, ancient and modern, may be quoted. When possible,

these notes should embrace such moral hints as may be brought in

naturally. The teacher will depend to a great extent on such occasional

hints for his moral influence on his pupils.

A prelection written one year, even if the same author is read, will

rarely do another if not modified. The circumstances of the class

will have changed. A prelection has this in common with an oration,

that it must suit the present audience. Contemporary events, to

which reference is at times in order, will differ. These and other

circumstances will naturally make the prelection matter different,

even on the same passage. Each lesson should, therefore, be prepared

for each class especially. This is the chief work which a teacher has

to attend to during his free hours each day. It is rarely good to make

this preparation a week ahead of time; unless the professor reviews

and adapts his notes shortly before delivering them. It is evident

that to prepare a prelection in this manner is a serious thing, a work

by no means trifling; but easy or not, it must be gone through. It

supposes that the professor spends his hours free from class in honest

preparation.

_Repetition_ has been called the _mater studiorum_, and in truth, few

points are of more vital importance. The Ratio insists on repetition

throughout the course, but particularly in the lowest classes. Without

constant, steady, persistent drilling on the same matter in the

beginning of the student’s career, no solid foundation for the future

literary edifice can be hoped for. Perhaps it is owing to inadvertence

to this necessity that in some instances the fruit does not correspond

to the labor of the professor. It has been well said that young

teachers think mainly of stimulating their pupils’ minds, and so

neglect the repetition needed for accuracy.[809]

The 25th rule enjoins explicitly two distinct repetitions, one of

yesterday’s lesson, the other of the lesson just explained. A short

repetition should immediately follow the prelection. This is of great

importance; it shows the professor whether his meaning has been

well grasped by the pupils, and, moreover, brings home to their yet

untrained minds the salient points of the previous explanation. This

particular repetition should not be omitted in the lower classes.

It does not require much time, ordinarily a very few minutes will

suffice. The chief result to be gained is that the pupils should

really understated what has just been said. In this it differs from

the repetition of the lesson which was explained on the preceding day;

for the principal end of this exercise is so to fix the matter in the

boys’ minds that it may really become their own. The more advanced

students may be called to give the short repetition at the end of

the prelection, whereas the duller, or perhaps the more indolent

ones should be asked especially for the fuller repetition of the

lesson of the previous day. But never should the teacher follow the

order in which the pupils are seated, or the alphabetical order of

the names. Jouvancy thinks that the teacher, before going to school,

should go over the names of the boys and reflect whom he is to call up

for repetition.[810] Every one should have his turn, but duller and

indolent ones should be called more frequently, as they need it most.

The 26th rule establishes an excellent principle, namely “to repeat on

Saturday everything that was seen during the week.” Monday or any other

_fixed_ day will do as well. By _everything_ is understood a thorough

and careful review of the more important parts of the matter taught,

especially the rules of grammar, precepts of style and rhetoric.

Jouvancy has drawn up several _schemata_ or specimens of a prelection

on Cicero, Virgil and Phaedrus as adapted to different classes.[811]

We give the substance of two. Be it remarked, however, that the same

order need not and cannot be followed strictly in all details in every

prelection. They are specimens exhibiting a general rule, which is to

be applied with discretion. Professor Willmann has well observed: “As

all similar _schemata_ also Jouvancy’s _canon explanationis_ is useful

if applied properly, whereas if it is carried through pedantically in

all subjects and with stereotyped regularity, it makes instructions

mechanical.”[812]

A. _Explanation of a Passage from Cicero in Rhetoric (Sophomore)._ Take

the exordium of Cicero’s second _Philippic_ from _Quonam meo fato_ to

_Cui priusquam_. We distinguish five parts in the explanation.

I. _Argumentum._ (Willmann: “In this part Jouvancy recommends

a paraphrase of the contents, whose place is now taken by the

translation.”)--When Cicero had delivered his first _Philippic_, Mark

Anthony attacked him vehemently. To this attack Cicero replied in this

oration, the second _Philippic_, showing that Anthony’s invectives were

groundless, and that Anthony himself, because of his crimes, deserved

the severest reproaches.

We explain the exordium of the oration in which Cicero declares that

he has incurred the enmity of many; but that Anthony’s animosity was

unfair and less called for, than that of his other adversaries, as

he had never offended him as much as by a single word. But Anthony

believes he could demonstrate his enmity to the Republic by being an

opponent of Cicero.

II. _Explanatio._ (Willmann: “Linguistic and logical.”) _Quonam meo

fato._ This may have a double meaning; either: to what misfortune shall

I say that I have been born; to what destiny of mine is it owing, by

what fate of mine does it come to pass, that on me alone light all

the arrows with which our enemies try to harm the country; or: what a

happy and enviable lot that all who attack the Republic believe they

must become my enemies. Either meaning is apt to gain the good will

of the audience.--_His annis viginti_, i. e. from the beginning of

his consulship, the year 690 A. U. C.--_Nec vero etc._ Cicero points

to men like Catiline, Clodius, Piso, etc.... _Tuam a me alienationem

commendationem tibi ad impios cives fore putavisti._ Construe:

_Putavisti alienationem tuam a me fore tibi commendationem [gloriae]

ad impios_; literally: You thought your alienation from me would be a

recommendation for you to the wicked, i. e.: You thought to gain in

the estimation of the destructionists, if you turned away from me and

became my enemy.

III. _Rhetorica._ Attention is called to all that pertains to rhetoric

in the highest class, to poetry in the next, to grammar, syntax in the

other classes. For the class of Rhetoric this explanation may run as

follows: This is the _exordium_ of an excellent oration. The exordium

or introduction has to prepare the audience for the coming speech. It

has to gain their good will, and to make them attentive and docile.

Let us see how Cicero complies with these three requirements of the

exordium.

_Good will_ may be gained in three ways. _First_, by showing that

the speaker is possessed of a respectable character. _Secondly_, by

manifesting interest for his hearers’ welfare. _Thirdly_, by cleverly

predisposing them against his adversaries. The first Cicero effects by

pointing to his character to which all feeling of revenge is alien,

to his previous career, and to the flattering testimony of the senate

with regard to his consulship.--The second he effects by stating that

all enemies of the Republic had ever become his personal enemies.--The

third, by imputing to Anthony a passionate character, hatred against

his country, and intimate friendship with the very dregs of the

population.

The orator gains _attention_ by telling how important the point at

issue is: how the enemies of the country have become his enemies, etc.

He makes his hearers _docile_ by briefly stating what he is going to

speak about: little in his own defense, much against Anthony.

Fine exordiums of other orations may be mentioned, and also the faults

which are easily made in the introduction. The rhetorical figure of

_subjectio_: _Quid putem_, its force and use, may be explained.

IV. _Eruditio_ (“General learning;” Willmann translates it

appropriately by “antiquarian and subject-explanation, _antiquarische,

also Sacherklärung_.”) In the beginning occurs the word _fato_. Explain

what the pagans understood by this and what we Christians have to think

of it.--_His viginti annis._ Say (or better: ask) in what year Cicero

was born, when he was made consul, when he died.--_Bellum indixerit._

Explain how the Romans used to declare war. (The solemnities of the

_Fetiales_).--The word _maledictum_ affords an opportunity to show the

difference between _maledictum_, _convicium_ and _contumelia_.--_Mihi

poenarum plus_ etc. A few words may be said on revenge, how little it

becomes a noble character. For this end copious material may be taken

from the 13th Satire of Juvenal and from the _Adagia_ of Erasmus.

Illustrations may also be taken from the treasure of Christian doctrine

and Church History.

V. _Latinitas._ (Willmann: “The gain for vocabulary and phraseology, in

short the proper technics of the pupils.”).

_Bellum mihi indixerit_, add a few other meanings of this verb.

Mention the _indictiva funera_, i. e. funerals which were publicly

announced.--_Perhorrescere_, give a few examples illustrating the force

and meaning of compound words.

_Verbo violatus_, similarly: _corpus violare vulnere, ebur ostro;

fidem, foedus, jura sacra violare_.

The second specimen is on Virgil’s Aeneid XII, 425-440. At its

close Jouvancy adds: “In the second highest class, called Poetry or

Humanities (Freshman), the same order is observed except that here more

attention is paid to poetics. The strictly rhetorical part should be

sparingly dealt with. In the highest Grammar class, grammar and beauty

of expression claim more attention. In the two lowest classes the

difference is still more striking. Here the teacher has to sail along

the coast and only seldom may he venture out into the sea (of longer

explanations). He must beware of the reefs along the shore, i. e. he

must not become disgusted at, nor neglect, what they call trifles. To

explain even one little fable will require great skill and is a sign of

considerable talent.”

The third specimen is the explanation of a little fable of Phaedrus

in the lowest Grammar class. The fable is: “_Personam tragicam forte

vulpes viderat: O quanta species, inquit, cerebrum non habet._” The

teacher explains in the vernacular.

I. _Contents_ of the Fable.

II. _Explanation_: _Vulpes_, a fox; _viderat_ (translate), _forte_

(translate); _personam_. _Persona_ now means “person,” but originally

meant a “mask,” as used in carnival masquerades, and at mask-balls;

(_per_--through; _sonare_, sound, speak; speak through); _tragicam_,

as it was used by the players in Greek and Roman tragedies. Similarly

explain all the other words, _and not once only, but twice or three

times, if necessary_.

III. _Grammar._ Give declension, gender of nouns and adjectives;

conjugation, tense, mood etc. of every verb. This should be done

as much as possible by putting questions to the pupils. _Vulpes_

is a noun of the third declension; like...?--_Proles_, _clades_,

etc. mention such as are known already to the pupils. Then give the

rules of declension, gender. _Viderat_, is a verb. What form? Third

person singular Pluperfect Active. Present tense? _video._--Like?

_doceo...._ Perfect: _Vidi._ Conjugate: _Vidi_, _vidisti_,

etc.--Why third person?--_Forte_: is an adverb. Adverbs are words

which....--_Personam._ What case?--Why accusative? Because it is the

direct object of _viderat_.[813]--_Tragicam_, why not _tragicum_, or

_tragica_? Explain the rule....

IV. _General Erudition._ Could not a short description of the cunning

fox be given? Or could not a litte story be told? Or the adage: _cum

vulpe vulpinandum_, be explained?

_Tragicam._ A short easy explanation of tragedy might be

given.--_Cerebrum._ The Latin words for other parts of the head should

be added.

V. _Latinity._ Show the order of words and let the pupils imitate it in

other sentences, e. g. _Fratrem tuum nuper videram_, which is better

than _Fratrem tuum videram nuper_.

A short theme may be written in Latin: _Fratrem tuum nuper videram. O

quanta eruditio, dixi, mercedem non habet._

VI. _Morals._ The teacher may show that prudence and common sense are

preferable to other natural possessions. A short story illustrating

this may be told, which could be translated into Latin and repeated by

one of the better pupils.

For the sake of comparison we add a _schema_ drawn mostly from the

writings of Nägelsbach and Willmann. A careful examination will prove

that it is not so different from that of Jouvancy, as might appear at

first sight.

I. _Preparation._--1. The passage which is to be prepared by the

pupils for the following day, is assigned in class. The teacher gives

extensive hints on difficult points, on which the pupils otherwise

might lose too much time. (In the lower and middle classes the whole

text should be translated. See p. 478.)

2. At home the pupil tries to find out the meaning of the whole text.

Dots on the margin should mark the passages which he could not make out.

3. In class the text is read by a student.

II. _Translation._--1. The boy who has read the text translates, the

teacher and the other pupils correct the translation.

2. Explanations, linguistic and logical, are given to understand the

text fully.

3. A correct and fluent translation is repeated by a boy with the help

of the teacher and other boys.--The translation has to be different

according to the authors: plain in Caesar and Xenophon; simple and

direct in Homer; elaborate and dignified in Virgil and Cicero, etc.

III. _Handling of the Text._

1. _Explanation_ of contents. (_Realerklärung._ _Explanatio_ and

_eruditio_ of Jouvancy.)

2. Pointing out of _ethical momenta_ (_quae ad mores spectant_.

Jouvancy).

3. _Technics_ of rhetoric, poetry and style. (_Rhetorica_ of Jouvancy.)

4. _Latinity_ etc.: vocabulary, phrases, grammatical rules.

(_Latinitas._ Jouvancy.)

IV. _Repetition._--1. Let the student translate and explain the text.

2. Frequently let the pupil, instead of a strict translation, give the

contents in Latin, in a simple clear style.

3. Always see whether everything is understood.

4. Put questions of such a kind as force the boys to group and view

things in a new manner. Thus they are led to reflect on the subject at

home. This advice is also given by the Jesuit Kropf in his _Ratio et

Via_ (ch. V, art. 9): “The repetition ought to be conducted partly in

the form of an examination etc.”

A few remarks about the prelection must be added:

1. _After the whole work has been studied_, a retrospective view is

to be taken; the work is to be estimated as a whole, with its leading

ideas; as a masterpiece of art; as a product of a certain age or

school, from the aesthetical, philosophical, and historical point of

view. This should be done especially in higher classes;--but _ne quid

nimis_, and everything, in the words of the _Ratio_: “sparingly and

according to the capacity of the pupils.”

2. _Longer explanations_ should not interrupt the translation, but

should be put off to the end; occasionally, however, they might be

given earlier in the prelection, if the text without the explanation

would be hardly understood.

3. The first preparation done by the pupils at home ought not to be the

principal part of the work; the principal part consists in the handling

of the text in class.

This principle of the prelection of the Ratio Studiorum is also

advocated by an able English schoolman. Sir Joshua Fitch says in his

_Lectures on Teaching_, that home work should be “supplementary rather

than preparatory.” It should have a bearing on the school teaching

of the previous day, “the best part of it is supplementary, and the

chief value of home lessons, also of written exercises, is to give

definiteness to lessons already learned (in class), and to thrust

them home into the memory rather than to break new grounds.”[814]

And Professor Bain of Aberdeen University writes: “I hold to this

principle, in a still severer view of it--namely, that the teacher

should not ask the pupil to do anything that he himself has not led

up to,--has not clearly paved the way for. The pupils should not be

called upon for any species of work that may not have been fully

explained beforehand--that their own faculties, co-operating with each

one’s known attainments, are not perfectly competent to execute. A

learner should not be asked even to show off what he can do, outside

the teaching of the class.”[815] Dr. Stanley Hall said recently[816]:

“As to the dead languages, if they are to be taught, Latin should

be begun not later than ten or eleven, and Greek never later than

twelve or thirteen. Here both object and method are very different.

These languages are taught through English, and the one-hand circuit

should have much more prominence. Word matching and translation are

the goal. The chief reason why the German boy of fifteen or sixteen

in _Unter-Secunda_ does so easily here what seems to us prodigious,

is because he is taught to study; and the teacher’s chief business in

class is not to hear recitations, but to study with the boys. One of

the best of these teachers told me that the boy should never see a

dictionary or even a vocabulary, but the teacher must be a ‘pony’. The

pupil should never be brought face to face with an unknown sentence,

but everything must be carefully translated for him; he must note

all the unknown words from the teacher’s lips, and all the special

grammatical points, so that home study and the first part of the next

lesson will be merely repetitions of what the teacher has told and

done.”

The statement that this is the practice of the German schools, needs

considerable modification. It may be partly so at present, but it

certainly was not common before 1890. On the contrary, in German

higher schools, throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century,

it was generally insisted on that the students should prepare the

translations without any or much help from the teacher. In fact, most

professors[817] assigned some chapters in the author which were to be

prepared for the next lesson without giving as much as a hint about a

difficult passage. The next day a fairly good translation was expected,

and by many teachers exacted rather rigorously. It was said that this

system stimulated self-activity and independent thought; and more than

once the opposite system, as followed by the Jesuits, was condemned,

because, as it was asserted, it did not develop independence and the

spirit of research. But did the results of the German system come up

to expectations? The less diligent pupils had recourse to all sorts of

“ponies”,--in fact, the less talented were often practically forced to

use other helps, as it was impossible for them to give a translation

of many passages. In this way a spirit of dishonesty was fostered.

The more scrupulous and eager students lost much time on difficult

passages, often without finding a satisfactory translation. All this

time might have been spared by a few remarks of the teacher, pointing

to the solution of the difficulty. Above all, too much time was wasted

unprofitably by thumbing the dictionary. No wonder that at length

serious complaints were made. Besides the six hours spent in class, the

average student had to devote at least four hours to hard home work, if

he wanted to do all his tasks conscientiously.

Of late years there is a decided change of opinion among educators,

and this change is, to a great extent, a return to principles which

were always followed in the Jesuit system. Thus writes Professor

Schiller, Director of the Pedagogical Seminary in Giessen, one of

the most celebrated German educators: “In the middle classes the

preparation of the new translation is to be done in class, and even

in the higher grades this can be done usefully.” Further, “the more

difficult passages, and those which contain many unknown words, should

be explained beforehand.”[818] In general “new material is added only

in class; the object of home work is to strengthen, practise and apply,

what has been given by the class instruction.”[819] The new Prussian

School Order of 1901 has laid down the general rule, that “directions

for the preparation of new and difficult passages are to be given

in all classes; even in the higher grades the preparation of a new

author is, for some time, to be done entirely in class.”[820] Is not

this a striking justification of the wise conservatism of the Jesuit

system? After a century of severe criticism and condemnation, it is

thought necessary to return to what is essentially the Jesuit method

of preparing the authors. And this return has been made in the country

that prides itself on its school system.

According to the Jesuit method the teacher studies with the pupils, and

thus shows them how to study. We need now no longer defend the Ratio

against the charge frequently raised in former years, that it does too

much, in fact everything for the pupil. It does not do everything;

neither does it overtax the pupil’s abilities. It follows the wise

middle course, which will effect a solid training without giving

reasonable cause to complaints of overwork.

However, some preparation of the new text, on the part of the pupil, is

useful and stimulates self-activity, especially in the upper grades.

It is prescribed for the higher studies by the Ratio which enjoins the

students of the Society “to be diligent in _praevidendis lectionibus_,”

i. e. in preparing the new lesson of the day.[821]

Before concluding the discussion on the prelection, I quote a passage

from the _Woodstock Letters_ (1898). The question had been put: _Has

the method of prelection advocated by the Ratio, especially the plan

of translating the author for the student, been used in any of our

American Colleges not belonging to the Society? If so, with what

success?_--On October 31, 1898, the Editor of the Letters, the Reverend

Samuel Hanna Frisbee, S. J., a graduate of Yale (1861), and a pupil of

the matchless scholar, Professor Hadley, answered as follows:

“The professor who used the method of the Ratio, and especially the

prelection, was Arthur Hadley, well known as the author of _Hadley’s

Greek Grammar_. He was professor of Greek for many years at Yale and

was known as a fine Greek scholar. Though he was _the_ professor of

Greek--there were several tutors in Greek--and far the best Greek

scholar in the university, he was appointed to teach the Freshmen

during the first term, from the middle of September to Christmas. It

was thought best they should have an experienced teacher, one who

would train them thoroughly and thus give them a good start. During

the rest of the scholastic year he taught Greek to the Junior class.

What concerns us at present is the method he adopted for training

these Freshmen. It was as follows, and from its description you can

easily judge how much it resembled the method of the Ratio.

“The author to be read was Homer’s Iliad, and in our year, 1857,

the fourteenth book of the Iliad was the book assigned. The

students used to say that some book after the first six was chosen,

because Anthon’s copious notes to these six books amounted to a

translation. The real reason which was given to us at the time I have

forgotten, but it was doubtless because this book is one of the most

characteristic of the Iliad. Whatever was the reason, the Freshmen

of our year were told that the fourteenth book was to be read. The

class--numbering 120--was divided into three divisions. The first

division went into Greek for the first hour, 7 A. M., the second

division at 11, and the third at 5 P. M. Professor Hadley had thus

three hours of class daily, but to each division he explained the

same matter.

“We came to class, then, with the fourteenth book of Homer, and to

our amazement, Prof. Hadley asked no recitation--for we had been

already told to prepare some lines of this 14th book--but, after

giving a short history of Homer, and of the places which claimed him

as their son, he carefully read through the first five lines, reading

according to the accent, and then scanning them. Then he gave a

literal translation of these five lines, and coming back to the first

word he parsed it, gave the different dialectic forms of it and, if

it was a geographical word, he explained where it was to be found on

the map, and if the name of a person, he gave a short account of his

life. This occupied a half hour and then the class was dismissed.

The next day a half hour was spent in recitation. One was called up

to scan, another to translate, and several to parse the different

words, nothing being asked which had not been explained the preceding

day. Then the second half hour was taken up by the professor who

translated five more lines, parsing and explaining each word. It is

an old Yale custom to repeat each day the lesson of the preceding

day, so that we really had ten lines to translate and parse, five

which some students had already recited in class. This second

translation was recommended to be more elegant than the first which

was literal, and only the important words were asked for parsing,

etc. This manner of teaching was continued all the term--three

months--only five lines of new matter being translated and explained

each day. Besides we were made to review thoroughly the important

parts of the grammar. A small book of a few pages containing the

declensions, conjugations and a few rules, was given to each student,

and it was repeated till it was known by heart. The students used to

call it ‘Hadley’s Primer.’

“As the results of this method, those who studied--for you know only

about ten per cent of the students are really studying in earnest,

the honor men--acquired such a facility in reading Homer that they

could read the rest of the Iliad with comparative ease, while the

moderate students had no difficulty in preparing the lesson assigned

during the second term, which was fifty lines daily in another book

of the Iliad, the eighteenth, if I mistake not. Then we took up

Herodotus, at the rate of two pages a day, after an introduction

about the author and his book. This was also accompanied on some

days of the week by recitations from an excellent book on Greek

History--Wheeler’s if I mistake not.

“Professor Hadley was the only one in the University to follow the

method of the prelection of the Ratio, but he followed it most

thoroughly. He was regarded in his time as one of the very best

professors in the University, and he merited this reputation.”

It remains for us to investigate _how much_ is to be read. The first

question which presents itself is: Should the reading of the classics

be slow or quick, _stationary_ or _cursory_? It has been said that in

stationary reading the boys _read_ little, in cursory they _learn_

little or nothing. What, then, is to be done?

It all depends _first_, on the _text_, whether difficult or easy;

_secondly_, on the _character_ of the book. Epics and historical

works, as a rule, should be read more rapidly, because they are in

themselves slowly progressing, whereas lyrics and drama should be

dwelled upon.--The Ratio Studiorum of 1599 expresses quite clearly the

principle enunciated by schoolmen of the nineteenth century. The 28th

rule says: “The historical books [and epic poetry is of a historical

character] should be read more rapidly (_celerius excurrendus_).”

_Thirdly_, in every case it depends on the pupils’ knowledge, capacity,

practice and age. But above all these two principles should not be

forgotten: _in medio est virtus_, and _non multa, sed multum_.

_How much, then, is to be read in one prelection?_[822] In many modern

institutions, in fact in most of them, the students are to read and

translate whole pages of the classics for a single lesson. The Ratio

calls for a thorough study of a few lines. In the 6th rule for the

lowest class, the old Ratio says four lines should be explained in one

lesson, for the next class seven lines--of course the teacher should

not stop in the middle of the phrase. In the Revised Ratio no number

of lines is mentioned. If we keep in mind that in these classes the

pupils are gradually to be initiated into the reading of authors there

is nothing surprising about this small number of lines. They are to be

explained to perfection, learned by heart for the following day and

to be employed for an imitation theme. For the higher grades the old

Ratio did not state the exact number of lines, neither does the Revised

Ratio. Still, on reading the rules for the prelection it becomes

evident that fifty or sixty lines cannot be studied so thoroughly in

one hour. But are ten lines all that must be read in class? Is this

to be understood as the full demand of the Ratio? “At the rate of ten

lines a day it would require fourteen months to translate Cicero’s

oration _Pro Milone_, so that to finish even the single speech within

a year many parts of it must be run over more or less rapidly. At

this rate of ten lines a day, it would require more than five years

to translate the _Aeneid_, and twelve years to translate the _Iliad_,

or two years longer than the siege of Troy lasted. The Ratio cannot,

therefore, wish to bind the student and professor down to these few

lines.”[823] It wishes merely to show the student how to read and study

the classics, how to do thorough work. Many more lines are to be read

in a lesson, but the few should serve as the model. The _schemata_ of

Father Jouvancy do not want more. Nor is it to be inferred that all the

lines are to be explained with the same thoroughness and at the same

length. This would be impossible.

Moreover, we are led to the same conclusion from the programmes of

some of the celebrated colleges of the old Society. They prove with

certainty that the thorough study of a limited number of lines was not

considered sufficient to make a student a classical scholar. In the

history of the college of La Flèche,[824] we find programmes of the

astounding work done by the students. Perhaps the plan of the Ratio has

never been carried out more thoroughly than it was at this college,

which for a long time was a rival of the great University of Paris.

Here, too, one of the best commentators of the Ratio, Father Jouvancy,

taught and wrote. When, therefore, we see the students of this college,

studying hundreds of pages of the classics in one year, we must

grant that such a method comes within the scope of the Ratio.[825]

For the rest, it remains unintelligible how any real benefit can be

derived from the reading of hundreds of lines in one hour. Jouvancy

well observes, the teacher should remember that the minds of young

pupils are like vessels with a narrow orifice. If you pour water in

great quantity upon them, it quickly runs off; if you pour it upon

them slowly, they will be filled in a shorter time. Recently German

schoolmen speak to the same effect: “We must limit the amount of

reading matter and work on less material, but must try to make capital

out of it by a thorough and exhaustive treatment. Only in this way

can the ‘intellectual growth’ be expected. Limitation is the first

principle of our art. A clear understanding of the classical authors

must be obtained by labor (_das Verständniss ist zu erarbeiten_). For

this reason the modern tendency of increasing the amount of reading

excessively must be combated.”[826] This holds good of English reading

as well as of Latin and Greek.

One part of the prelection is called “eruditio”. We heard that

Professor Willmann translated it, and rightly so, by “antiquarian

explanation.” For some time past there was a tendency, particularly

in German schools, to devote too much time to the explanation of

antiquarian allusions, a method which was detrimental to the linguistic

and literary study of the authors. Last year a writer[827] said that

it was about time to recover again the real authors, Virgil, Horace,

etc., who were almost lost in a mass of archaeological, historical,

and critical details. In fact, the “Homeric Question” absorbed the

interests of some teachers to such a degree that the grand poems

themselves were nearly lost sight of. Antiquities should not be taught

in high schools and colleges _ex professo_, for this belongs to the

university, but incidentally, as some antiquarian subject occurs in

the reading. Thus, while reading Caesar, Roman military antiquities

are explained: the legion, weapons, military roads, etc. Xenophon’s

Anabasis affords an opportunity for giving details on Greek and Persian

warfare. Cicero’s various works will call for explanations of the Roman

constitution, courts, elections, of the different offices of Consul,

Praetor, Tribune, Aedile, Pontifex; for descriptions of the forum,

villas, family life, etc. Plato’s Dialogues demand a fair knowledge

of Athenian life and manners; Homer’s epics can be made interesting

by details of the life and customs of the heroic age of the Greeks,

which may be compared with similar traits found in the epics of other

nations: the Anglo-Saxon _Beowulf_ and the German _Nibelungenlied_ (a

good translation should be read).

The practical method of teaching antiquities in Jesuit schools

we learn from Jouvancy. Thus speaking of the word _fatum_, which

occurs in a sentence, he says: explain the meaning which this word

had with the ancients, and what we Christians have to think of it.

_Bellum indixerit._ Explain the manner in which the Romans declared

war. This is described in Rosinus,[828] Abram,[829] and Cantel,[830]

etc.--Speaking of an explanation of Virgil’s Aeneid XII, 425-440,

Jouvancy says: “In the fourth place, as to erudition: _Major egit

Deus_: Explain which gods were called _Dii majores_ or _majorum

gentium_, which _minorum gentium_.--When you come to the word

_clypeus_, describe the different kinds of shield, show the difference

between _parma_, _pelta_, _scutum_, etc., and explain how the soldiers

formed the _testudo_, etc.”--Speaking of the ninth chapter of Cicero’s

_De Senectute_, he wants some explanation of the Roman warship and

navy, descriptions of how the votes were taken in the senate, etc.

Another very instructive document shows how much was comprised under

the term “general erudition.” In 1710, the text book of the third class

(_suprema grammatica_) of the College of Aix in France was Cicero’s

_De Senectute_. The pupils had to answer the following questions: Who

and what was Cicero? What is the subject of his book on _Old Age_?

Why was Cato chosen as speaker on this topic? Which motives induced

Cicero to compose this work? Who was Atticus, and how did he obtain

this name? Who was Flaminius? What victory is recorded of him? Who

were Titon and Ariston? What does the legend say of the former? What

did the Stoics mean by saying that we must follow nature? What were

the consuls, praetors, aediles, and quaestors among the Romans? What

the tribunes of the people, and the augurs? What opinions were held

about omens? What was the _Lex Cincia_? By whom and on what occasion

was it made? What do you know about the war to which Cato urged the

Romans so persistently? What was the senate? What is the derivation

of the word? Who was Naevius? Relate what you know about his poems,

his exile, and his death. Who was Cyrus? Narrate the foundation of the

Persian kingdom, etc. What was the _Summus Pontifex_, the dictator, the

military tribune? Describe the legion. What did the Romans understand

by clients? What were the sentiments of the Romans about patriotism?

What do you know about Thermopylae, Tarentum, Capua, Mount Etna,

Picenum, Cisalpine Gaul? What was the Rostra? What do you know about

the Olympian games? etc., etc.[831]

It is clear, then, that the history of literature, the history of

manners, customs, and political institutions, biography, mythology,

and geography, found a place in the explanation of authors. This

field was so wide and so attractive that there was a great danger

lest the teachers, especially the younger, should spend too much time

in antiquarian details, to the detriment of the less interesting,

but more necessary linguistic and literary training of the pupils.

It is for this reason that both the Ratio and Jouvancy exhort the

teacher to give such explanations but “sparingly”. By this it is not

implied that the information should be meagre, but that it should be

moderate, not excessive. The preceding testimonies prove also how

unjustly Huber, Compayré, and others have asserted that the Jesuits

aim at mere literary dilettantism, cleverness of speech; that they

direct the pupil’s attention not to the thought but to form.[832]

This is what they call “Jesuitical formalism.” However, it is not

Jesuitical at all. The above-cited questions certainly were directed

towards the understanding of the thoughts of the authors. This

method of questioning the pupils about the contents, the ideas of a

literary work, was also eminently fitted to stimulate in the pupils

self-activity and independent thinking. For this reason Quick’s

judgment on the Jesuit system is not correct, when he says that it

“suppressed originality and independence of mind, love of truth

for its own sake, the power of reflecting and of forming correct

judgments.”[833] Should he, however, take independence of thought in

the sense now usually attached to it, as unrestrained rationalism

which places private judgment above the teaching of the Bible and the

whole deposit of Divine Revelation, then we admit that the Jesuits are

opposed to this independence of thought; for it is the proud spirit

of rebellion against God. Yet this is no longer an educational, but

rather a philosophical and theological question, and those authors have

unwarrantably dragged this discussion into their books on the history

of educational methods.

We stated before that the linguistic training must always remain a

more prominent part of the prelection than the antiquarian and other

information. Here, however, another mistake must be avoided, which

easily creeps into the teaching of the classics, a mistake which

was not uncommon in the German schools before the recent reforms,

namely, to make the authors the means of studying, repeating, or

“drilling” the rules of grammar, etymology, and syntax. This makes

the reading unpleasant, as every now and then a grammatical rule is

asked, paradigms are repeated, etc., so that the author merely becomes

subservient to the grammar, whereas the very contrary ought to be

the case, especially in the higher classes. This faulty practice is

altogether opposed to the Ratio, which assigns a special time every

day for repeating, studying, and drilling grammar or the precepts

of rhetoric and poetry.[834] The 27th rule of the teachers, which

lays down the method of explaining authors, does not even mention

among the various suggestions the asking of grammatical rules. Nor is

this grammatical drill contained in the _schemata_ of Jouvancy for

the higher classes among the five or six points to be observed in

the prelection of authors. There is one called _Latinitas_, but an

examination of what is said there shows that it is not a repetition

of grammar, but, as Professor Willmann says, it deals with the

technique of language, phraseology, etc. Jouvancy remarks that in

the _lower_ classes more attention is to be paid to grammar, which

at this stage is not yet mastered by the pupils. This is in perfect

accordance with the Ratio. The teacher of the lowest class is told

when repeating the lesson of the previous day, “_often_ to have

words declined, or conjugated, and to ask questions about grammar in

various directions.”[835] The teacher of the next following class

should _sometimes_ do the same.[836] This is a wise prescription, as

in the lowest classes the pupils are to be introduced slowly into the

reading of the authors, and the grammatical part must be treated more

extensively. But the corresponding rules of the third class no longer

mention this point. Certainly in the higher classes, particularly

Freshman and Sophomore, it is an abuse to make the classics the

vehicle of teaching grammar. An occasional question is, of course,

not excluded, on the contrary necessary, whenever it appears from the

student’s translation that he does not understand the etymology, or

the syntax of a phrase. But this is by no means the abuse to which we

referred.

This, then, is the prelection, the most important and most

characteristic point in the practical application of the Ratio

Studiorum. It is scarcely necessary to add that the Society needs no

apology for this part, nor has she any reason to attempt any change of

it.

As this manner of explaining authors is so much in accord with sound

reason, we cannot be surprised that the Ratio insists on following the

same system--of course, _mutatis mutandis_--in the teaching of the

mother-tongue. The authors in the mother-tongue should be explained

in nearly the same manner as the ancient writers.[837] The very same

principle is emphasized by some of the best teachers of English, as

for instance by Professor Bain. This writer distinguishes two methods

of teaching higher English. The one a systematic course, in which “an

exemplary lesson would consist in the statement and illustration of

some rhetorical point or rule of style--say, the figure of hyperbole,

the quality of simplicity, or the art of expounding by example. This,

however, I deem a superfluous lesson; it would be little better than

making an extract from a rhetorical treatise. There is another kind of

lesson which does not exclude the methodical teaching of rhetoric, but

co-operates with that in the most effectual way. It is the criticism of

authors, with a view to the exhibition of rhetorical merits and defects

as they turn up casually. An outline of rhetoric is almost essential to

the efficiency of this kind of lesson; yet with only an outline it may

successfully be carried out. It suffices to raise the questions most

proper to be considered in English teaching.”[838]

The second method which this writer advocates is that of the Ratio.

Professor Bain illustrates his principle by various examples from

leading authors: Macaulay, Samuel Bailey, Carlyle; and he develops

these examples exactly as Jouvancy did in the case of Cicero and

Virgil. The Scotch Professor finds fault with the “too much” of

explanation on archaic forms, sources of the play, etc., in the

modern editions of Shakespeare.[839] Is not this again the principle

of the Ratio which insists on such details being given _sparingly_?

Naturally the treatment of passages varies according to the character

of the book, that of a sketch from Irving must be quite different

from that of a play of Shakespeare, just as a chapter from Caesar or

Nepos is explained differently from an Ode of Horace, or a Chorus of

Sophocles. We may add a _schema_ for reading an English author.[840]

The principles are the same as those in the preceding _schemata_.

_How to read English authors, v. g. a drama of Shakespeare?_

1. Read first the whole piece, quickly, uncritically, to gain a

knowledge of its contents; or induce the pupils to do it at home, but

in this case examine whether they do so.--2. Explain then part after

part: all archaic words, difficult constructions, until everything is

understood.--3. Explain historical and literary allusions.--4. Explain

the plot, the tragic idea, the chief characters (in an oration, the

proposition and the argumentation).--5. Criticise the work as a whole.

Show its excellences and shortcomings.--6. Have choice passages learned

by heart, and delivered well. Besides, for each lesson make the pupils

write something on the lesson previously explained: let them give the

contents of a scene, write a synopsis, criticise a passage, or explain

a beautiful sentence. Otherwise there is a danger that some will not

even look at the author at home.

§ 2. Memory Lessons.

The nineteenth rule prescribes the regular recitation of memory

lessons. These frequent practices of the memory in Jesuit schools have

often been censured by modern writers.[841] But renowned teachers as

Dr. Arnold of Rugby,[842] in fact, all educators that are not mere

theorizers, strongly insist on the necessity of these exercises.

Why should we exercise the memory of the pupils?[843] The answer to

this question in general is: because we must train the whole man. An

old adage has it: “_Tantum scimus quantum memoria retinemus._” Boyhood

is the best season for memory work, and also the time when that faculty

should be thoroughly drilled. Professor Schnell, quoted by Father

Kleutgen,[844] says: “The school of the second period of childhood (10

to 14) is before everything else a school of memory, and during it more

will and must be given to and absorbed by the memory than during any

other period of life.” And Father Pachtler[845] observes: “The lower

the class the more is exercise of the memory to be insisted on.” Again:

“The mental power which is first developed is the memory. It is the

strongest in boyhood and in the first years of youth, and decreases

gradually with the development of the body, until, in old age, it

is confined to the impressions produced in youth, and is remarkably

weak in retaining impressions fixedly. We must strike the iron whilst

it is hot, and so make use of boyhood for the acquisition of those

subjects which require the most memory, the learning of grammar and the

languages which are the foundation of a college career.”

If it is asked what should be learned by heart, it is not easy to give

an adequate answer. This much is certain that the more important rules

of grammar must be committed to memory; then choice passages from the

best authors in English and Latin, and a few from the Greek. Among the

finest _loci memoriales_ in Latin are the orations of Livy, v. g. that

of Hannibal to his soldiers, the _exordia_ of the orations of Cicero,

striking passages from Virgil, some odes of Horace, the account of the

“four ages” from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, etc. In Greek it will be well

to have the _exordia_ of the Odyssey and Iliad learned by heart; Greek

_gnomes_ are also χρυσᾶ ἔπη, truly “golden words”; they may serve to

fix easily certain important rules of syntax in the mind of the pupils.

At the same time, they well illustrate--as in fact the adages and

proverbs of every nation--the most common ethical and every day life

principles. To make clear what we mean, we may be allowed to quote a

few of these Greek gnomes; they should be compared with similar English

proverbs, if such exist, or with those of other nations, or with the

sayings of Scripture and great authors.

Ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται.

Ζήσεις βίον κράτιστον, ἂν θύμου κρατῇς.

Ἐν ταῖς ἀνάγκαις χρημάτων κρείττων φίλος.

(A friend in need, a friend indeed.)

Οὔτοι ποθ’ ἅψει τῶν ἀκρῶν ἄνευ πόνου.

(_Per aspera ad astra._--No pains no gains.)

Σοφίας φθονῆσαι μᾶλλον ἢ πλούτου καλόν.

Κακοῖς ὁμιλῶν καὐτὸς ἑκβήσει κακός.

Ἀρχὴν σοφίας νόμιζε τὸν θεοῦ φόβον.[846]

It is not necessary to give specimens from the English. In general,

such passages should be chosen whose contents are worth remembering,

be it from the ethical, aesthetical, poetical, or historical point of

view. The most beautiful and most elevating thoughts from the world’s

literature, treasured up in the memory, will also afford considerable

help for the writing of essays.

A few suggestions may be added about the _manner_ of learning by

heart. Passages from good authors are to be known word for word. The

same will ordinarily apply to the rules of grammar; the precepts of

rhetoric and of poetry may either be gotten in the same way, or the

sense simply may be exacted. The matter which is to be committed to

memory should be understood. It will be most useful to instruct the

pupils how to memorize. They should not try to learn the lesson as one

whole, but rather they should memorize one or two lines at a time, a

sentence, or a clause; then the second sentence or line of poetry.

After two are well known they should be repeated together. Then a third

sentence is learned and again united with those learned previously. The

principle of the old Romans: _Divide et impera_, will here be applied.

These suggestions may appear minute, and it may be objected that each

individual has a way of his own which is just right for him. However, a

little questioning of pupils will show that their method of memorizing

is very frequently erroneous, and that instruction on such matters will

be far from amiss. One great mistake of students is to try to learn by

heart when their minds are bothered and distracted. Memory work is best

done when body and mind are quiet; impressions then made are deeper

and will last. This is the fundamental secret of the various much

vaunted systems of memory which have been paraded about in different

times. Concentrate the mind, is their motto, and then you will memorize

with ease and tenaciously. Very few people, boys or not, have the

self-control to concentrate their minds when they are disturbed. This

is one of the reasons why it is best to learn by heart in the early

morning, before the thoughts and feelings of a new day crowd upon one.

Father Sacchini[847] recommends the pupil to go over his task when

walking or alone, the same principle, as is clear, being involved.

_When should the lessons be recited?_ By looking into the Ratio, in

the second rule for the several classes, we find that the beginning

of both sessions is set aside for the recitation of memory lessons.

On Saturday the lessons of the whole week are to be repeated. Father

Sacchini[848] speaks of monthly and yearly repetitions by heart. He

adds an exhortation to the professor never to omit the recitation of

memory lessons, and to exact them to the letter. It is hardly possible,

in this case, to hear everything from everybody, so the professor may

call on a few only, or ask but a part from each. It is very useful to

have, say a whole exordium, or an entire description, thus repeated.

Another such recitation is held when a whole speech or book has been

seen. This public recitation is to take place from the platform; it

might be made an item in the entertainments given one another by the

different classes. It is incomparably more advantageous to the pupil to

deliver thus by heart and declaim with the pomp and ceremony of public

elocution a masterpiece of literature which he has been taught through

and through, than to fit gestures and modulate his voice to some

half-understood and often inferior composition which he has not had the

time, nor the patience, nor the ability to make his own.

The habit of giving memory lines, for punishment, from passages which

the offender does not understand is to be seriously deprecated. If it

produces no other evil effect, it at least is a great loss of time,

seeing that the hours so spent might have been devoted to learning

something that would educate all the faculties.

It seems very important that the pupils should be directed to be

careful to give their memory lessons according to the sense and

feeling; in reciting poetry attention is to be paid to the quantities

and, above all, to the _caesuras_; then the lines will sound like

music. This is unquestionably the surest way of making good speakers,

and is far superior as an elocutionary practice to any weekly or less

frequent class of elocution. It is also for this reason of the utmost

importance that the professor should read the authors well, and see

that the pupils read according to the sense of the passage.

§ 3. Written Exercises.[849]

Themes, in the broadest sense, including imitation exercises and

free essays, are of the greatest importance. They force the pupils

to concentration of thought, and give them patience and facility in

writing. As we said before, it is most advisable, also in the teaching

of English, to make the students write at least some sentences every

day. A short Latin theme should be given almost daily, and a Greek

theme at least once a week. It is a good custom in many Jesuit colleges

in this country to give an English composition for Monday. If the

principle maintained by St. Ignatius in the “Spiritual Exercises”

is true, that one advances according to the amount of his own

self-exertion, not that of his director merely, then these provisions

for much and frequent written work were well made. It is not easy to

conceive, in the light of this rule, how any one can complain that in

the Jesuit system the pupil has nothing to do. He rather has everything

to do; the professor goes before him, indeed, and shows him how, but

then demands personal application, and that of not the lightest kind,

from the pupil who means to advance.[850]

The subject of Latin and Greek themes, whether they are a translation

of the teacher’s dictation or a free work of the pupils, should be

taken, as far as possible, from the authors read in class. Shorter

single sentences must be translated especially in the lower classes,

in order to apply and practise the rules of grammar. But the exercises

should as early as possible consist of connected pieces, descriptions,

narrations etc. and should contain the vocables of the Latin and Greek

authors read during that period; in short, the exercises should be

based on the authors read in class. During the greater part of the

last century there was an excessive use of so-called exercise-books,

consisting either of unconnected sentences, or of such connected pieces

as had no relation to the authors studied at the time. Of late years

this practice is condemned more and more, and we think rightly so. The

new “Prussian School Order” prescribes the former system.[851] And

recently an American writer could state that “the grammatical training

is now brought into more vital connection with the study of classic

literature. The writing of Latin verse is generally discarded. Prose

composition is receiving increased attention, and is now more imitative

in its character than formerly, being commonly based on the Latin and

Greek masterpiece which the class is studying at the same time.”[852]

Is this a new invention? It is exactly the method prescribed by the

Ratio. Thus the 30th of the Common Rules reads: “The theme should be

dictated not off-hand but after careful consideration and generally

from a written copy. It ought to be directed, as far as possible, to

the imitation of Cicero.” Two things are contained in this rule: First,

the teacher is to write out the dictation himself, not to take it

from an exercise book; secondly, the dictation is to be based on the

author studied at the time. Cicero is mentioned because he was formerly

the author read with preference. Besides, other rules say that the

dictation may follow other authors, especially historians.[853] The

rules for the teachers of the different classes enjoin that the same

method be followed.[854] Thus the professor of Humanities is told that

“it is often advantageous so to compose the theme that the whole may be

gathered here and there from passages already explained.”

Indeed, this system affords many great advantages. The reading is made

useful for the writing, and the writing helps considerably for the

thorough understanding of what has been read. The students will have to

ponder over the author, to examine the words, the figures, the phrases,

and so they imbibe little by little the genius of the language. Thus

imitation-exercises are made useful and easy at the same time. The

dictionary need not be consulted for every expression, a custom which

entails much waste of time with relatively little fruit. We quoted Dr.

Stanley Hall’s words,[855] that “one of the best German teachers told

him that the boy should never see a dictionary or even a vocabulary,

but the teacher must be a ‘pony’.” This is the old principle of the

Ratio. The teacher is told that “after the dictation of the theme he

should straightway call for the reading of the theme. Then he should

explain anything that may be difficult, suggest words, phrases and

other helps.”[856] Is not here the teacher, what modern educators want

him to be in their ‘ideal school,’ the boy’s dictionary, vocabulary

and ‘pony’? But above all this practice produces unity in the various

exercises. It is needless to say that the same principle can be

followed with best success in the teaching of English. The compositions

ought to be based on the work studied in class.[857]

The imitation exercises should, however, not be a slavish imitation

of the author; there may be a great variety in these exercises. Father

Jouvancy gives some valuable hints on this subject.[858] “Translate,”

he writes, “a passage, say from Cicero, into the native tongue;

afterwards, without looking at Cicero, retranslate it into Latin. Then

compare your Latin with that of Cicero and correct yours wherever it

is necessary. Experience has proved that many have greatly benefited

by this excellent practice. Another time you may write out a sketch of

an argument or write down the train of thought found in the original

author, then work it out, clothe, as it were, this skeleton with flesh

and nerves. This being finished the new production is to be compared

with the original; not only will the difference appear but also many

improvements will be suggested. There is a third way of imitating

authors. Take a beautiful passage from an author, change the subject

matter into one similar or opposite. Then, following in the foot-steps

of the author, use, as far as possible, the same figures, periods,

connections, transitions. Thus in the oration against Piso, Cicero

shows that a seditious mob is not to be honored with the name of the

‘Roman people.’ In a similar manner it may be shown who really deserves

to be styled a Christian, a gentleman, a scholar.” Jouvancy justly

remarks that this method of self-training is the best substitute, if

another instructor and guide cannot be obtained. For the great authors

themselves become the teachers, guides and correctors of the student.

That such imitations may be masterpieces in themselves, is proved by

more than one instance. A great number of the works of Latin writers

are imitations of Greek types. And many fiery harangues of the speakers

of the French Revolution are fashioned after Cicero’s invectives

against Catiline and Anthony.[859]

Every one sees that this excellent method of imitating good authors can

be applied to the study of English with the greatest advantage.[860] He

who takes a descriptive passage from Washington Irving, or an argument

from Burke, Pitt, or Webster and works it out according to these rules

of Jouvancy, will surely improve his style--provided he keeps for a

long time to the same author. For changing from one author to another,

as a butterfly flits from flower to flower, like all desultory work,

will produce very little result.

The _correction_ of the written exercises is a very troublesome and

uninteresting work, the worst drudgery of the teacher’s daily life. But

it is, as the 21st rule says, of the greatest importance and therefore

to be done conscientiously. The Ratio advises the teacher to correct

the exercises in class, while the boys are writing or studying for

themselves. One boy after the other is called up to the teacher’s

desk, and his mistakes are pointed out to him; he may himself be asked

why it is wrong and correct it himself; particular instructions may

be given, a word of praise or of rebuke may be added. Such private

corrections afford many advantages. But much time may be lost to

teaching and for this reason the rule says “those themes which, owing

to the great number, cannot be corrected in class, should be corrected

at home.” Many teachers have the following system. They correct all

themes at home and return them to the students the following day,

with the mistakes marked. Then, if it is a dictation, a boy is called

up to translate, the other boys correct him, all comparing their own

translations. The pupils will see in most cases why their translations

are marked, if not, they should ask immediately, and the teacher may

ask other boys why such and such a translation is a mistake. A correct

copy should then be made, dictated by the teacher; in lower classes it

may be well to have it written by someone on the blackboard.

It is evident that great neatness is to be insisted on in the themes.

It is easier to keep paper neat and clean if the themes be exacted on

single sheets. But the boys will, as a rule, be more careful, if they

have copy books, which are to be used until they are filled. They do

not like to see many mistakes in their copy books. In the German and

Austrian gymnasia there exists an admirable system. Every exercise

in the copy-book has at the top the running number, opposite on the

margin the date. Corrections of the teachers and marks are made in red

ink: the pupils’ corrections are to be added at the end. Every month

one review in Latin and one in Greek, written in ink on single sheets

of the same size and kind, marked by the teacher, are to be handed in

to the Director of the institution, who at any time may also ask for

the copy-books of the class. The Government-Inspectors, who from time

to time visit the colleges, carefully examine the copy-books, thus

controlling the work of teachers and pupils alike. This system has

many and great advantages. It requires hard and conscientious work

on the part of the teacher especially, but is producing admirable

results. A similar system exists in some Jesuit colleges. During the

semi-annual examinations all the copy-books are exhibited in the class

room or wherever the examination is conducted, to be inspected by the

President, and the Prefect of Studies. It is very important that the

copy-books be returned as soon as possible, as the work done by the

pupils is still fresh in their mind. An exception to this rule must

necessarily be made in the case of English composition, especially

longer essays, the correction of which naturally requires more time.

This exercise of writing Latin and Greek themes, particularly free

Latin compositions, has within the last decades met with great

opposition. And yet, no exercise is more useful and more necessary if

a solid knowledge of these languages is to be obtained. The reading

of authors alone will not suffice. This is the conviction of the most

experienced schoolmen. Even Greek exercises must be written, that a

firmer hold may be obtained on the facts of accidence, of syntax, and

of idiom.[861] And without any practice in writing the understanding

of the classical authors will scarcely be more than superficial.[862]

Even the writing of Latin verse may not be so useless as some represent

it. Quite recently one of the most distinguished scholars of Germany,

Professor von Wilamowitz, of the Berlin University, made a strong plea

for this much decried exercise.[863] Similarly Dr. Ilberg of Leipsic,

who wrote last year: “The ‘antiquated’ art of writing Latin verses

does not deserve the contempt and the sneers with which it has been

treated. It is an exercise which requires not only knowledge of the

language, but also exertion of the imagination. The writing of Latin

verses belongs to those exercises which challenge the pupil to produce

something of his own, and which make him enjoy the pleasant sensation

of having achieved something.”[864] Hence Sir Joshua Fitch goes beyond

the bounds of moderation when he asserts that “enormous injury is done

to the rank and file of boys by this antiquated and soulless exercise;

which inevitably produces weariness and disgust, and sets a false and

ignoble ideal of scholarship before the pupils.”[865] There is in this

sweeping condemnation, as in most similar indictments of old customs, a

false supposition. We doubt whether any one considers the “manufacture

of Latin verses the ultimate test, the ideal and crown of scholarship.”

Still, it is one of the many means, although a very subordinate one,

of acquiring an accomplished and all around scholarship. Above all,

the writing of verses will help to appreciate more fully the classical

poets.

In this connection we must say a few words on another exercise, much

insisted on by the Ratio, viz. speaking Latin. Few points of the Ratio

have been more misrepresented and derided than this. But this without

good cause. Facility in speaking Latin is not the principal aim of the

Jesuit system. This follows from the tenor of the whole Ratio, and is

sufficiently proved by our former statement that branches of study

are merely the means to attain the one object of all instruction, the

cultivation of the mind. A language--so our modern educators say--is

learned much more quickly, if spoken; it becomes easy and familiar

and, in a way, natural. That the speaking of Latin is, after all, not

so absurd, may be seen from the fact that some of the ablest scholars

of the nineteenth century have advocated it. Thus the great Latinist,

Dr. Seyffert, says: “Without speaking, the writing of Latin will

always remain a half-measure and patch-work.” Also Dr. Dettweiler,

one of the best modern authorities on the study of Latin, recommends

the speaking of this language.[866] However, the attitude of the

Society in this point has changed. The Society adapts itself in this

respect, as in many others, to the tendency of the times. This may be

inferred from a comparison between the Ratio of 1599 and that of 1832.

The old Ratio enjoins the teacher to insist rigorously that the boys

speak Latin in all matters pertaining to school work, except in the

lowest class, where they do not know Latin.[867] The corresponding

rule in the revised Ratio reads as follows: “The teacher should take

great care that the pupils acquire practice in speaking Latin. For

this reason he should speak Latin from the highest grammar class on,

and should insist on the use of Latin, especially in explaining the

precepts, in correcting Latin compositions, in the _concertationes_

(contests between the boys), and in their conversations.” The revised

rule does not prescribe the colloquial use of Latin as early as was

done in former days. But still it must be remembered that the practice

of speaking Latin must be gradually introduced, and, therefore, the

lower classes are supposed also to have Latin in use, although not so

extensively.

Be it remarked, however, that the colloquial use of Latin is, by no

means, insisted on in the Ratio for its practical value; for Latin

is no longer the universal language of the educated world, as it was

some centuries ago. From time to time, indeed, we hear of efforts

being made to restore Latin to its old place. Thus in the oration at

the Leibnitz celebration of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin,

May 29, 1899, the chief speaker advocated the introduction of Latin

as the international language of learned men. However, such efforts

are too few, too sporadic, to influence the wider circles, at least

for the near future. Nay more, it seems almost certain that Latin will

never acquire that domineering influence which it formerly exercised.

In those days the national languages and literatures were not fully

developed. But now they have attained a high degree of perfection,

and have gained a stronghold on the mind of the people. Besides, most

of the books of great scientific value are either written in German,

English, or French, or are speedily translated into one of these

languages, and in our days, no one can lay claim to scholarship who

does not master one or other of them besides his mother-tongue. The

Society of Jesus has simply, in the words of the Jesuit Ebner, watched

the trend of events, and adapted herself and her teaching in this

point, as in others, to the new conditions.[868] She strives to teach

Latin thoroughly, and therefore urges the colloquial use of Latin as a

most valuable means to that end, although at present not in the same

degree as in former centuries when facility in speaking Latin had,

moreover, a directly practical purpose.

The educational experiments of Germany during the last ten years

afford an interesting illustration of what has been said in this

chapter. It is known that, after the Berlin Conference of 1890, Latin

lost fifteen hours a week in the nine classes of the gymnasium. The

Latin compositions particularly were reduced considerably, almost

completely abolished. What was the result? Very soon complaints were

heard from all sides that in consequence of these changes the teaching

of Latin had been greatly injured.[869] It became evident that more

extensive writing of Latin was necessary to obtain the linguistic and

logical training of the mind, which is one of the foremost objects of

Latin instruction. Only these exercises, the practical application

of the rules of etymology and syntax, the careful examination of the

peculiarities of style in the higher classes, and constant comparison

with the mother-tongue, by means of translations and re-translations,

give a thorough knowledge and insight into the language.[870]

These are the principles on which the Ratio and Jouvancy had insisted

centuries ago, and which were emphasized by the General of the Society

in 1893, at the very time when the German schools saw fit to abandon

them. But experience soon forced the German authorities to revert to

what had been thrown overboard. In 1895 permission was granted to add

one hour weekly in the higher classes, which was to be devoted to

practice in writing and to the application and repetition of rules

of grammar and style. For, as Professor Fries declared,[871] the

curtailing of these exercises had proved to be the weakest point of the

changes made after 1890. In the second conference, in 1900, the opinion

of the most distinguished scholars was most positive in demanding a

further strengthening of these exercises.[872] It was proposed[873]

that a Latin composition should again be required for the last

examination. Nay more, Dr. Kübler advocated--one would have thought

it impossible after the vehement denunciations of this exercise--the

practice of speaking Latin. “It has been exceedingly gratifying to

me,” he said, “to learn that the Ministry of Instruction will grant

greater liberty for these exercises, especially that the speaking of

Latin shall no longer be proscribed as heretofore.”[874] Before him the

commissary of the Government, Dr. Matthias, had declared that besides

more frequent translations into Latin, more time and attention should

be devoted to the practice of speaking Latin, a practice which in the

Goethe-Gymnasium in Frankfurt (Reform-School) was carried on with most

gratifying results.[875]

In this reaction we may justly find a vindication of the principle

maintained all along by the Society, in spite of the censures of some

modern reformers.

§ 4. Contests.

Among the various school exercises mentioned by the Ratio Studiorum,

we find the so-called _concertationes_, or contests between boys of

the same or of different classes on matter that has been studied

previously. These contests have the same end in the lower classes

as the disputations in the higher: accustoming the boys to speak on

the subject matter of the class, giving them readiness of reply in

answering questions, in a word, making them masters of their subjects.

Ribadeneira speaks of them as follows: “Many means are devised, and

exercises employed, to stimulate the minds of the young, assiduous

disputation, various trials of genius, prizes offered for excellence

in talent and industry. As penalty and disgrace bridle the will and

check it from pursuing evil, so honor and praise quicken the sense

wonderfully to attain the dignity and glory of virtue.”[876]

All opponents of the Jesuits try to make a capital point of

“emulation” as recommended by the Ratio.[877] This “fostering of

ambition” was styled “the characteristic of the corrupt Jesuitical

morality.” We may first ask: are the Jesuits the only educators

that used this means? Professor Paulsen answers our question most

appositely: “The Jesuits know better, perhaps, than others how to

use declamations, contests, premiums, etc., effectively. Protestant

educators are wont to express their indignation, and to inveigh against

the Jesuits, for having made emulation the moving power in learning.

The practice of Protestant schools never shared the disgust of these

theorizers at the use of emulation, and I do not know whether this

practice should be censured. It is true that the good emulation is

closely related to the bad, but without the former there has never been

a good school.”[878]

That these exercises were by no means intended to develop the bad

emulation, or false self-love in the young, is evident; this would

have been little to the purpose with religious teachers. “Let them

root out from themselves, in every possible way, self-love and the

craving for vain glory,” says the oldest code of school rules in the

Society, probably from the pen of Father Peter Canisius.[879] What

is appealed to, is the spirit of good and noble emulation,--_honesta

aemulatio_, as the Ratio says,--and that by a world of industry which

spurs young students on to excellence in whatever they undertake, and

rewards the development of natural energies with the natural luxury of

confessedly doing well. This makes the boys feel happy in having done

well, however little they enjoyed the labor before, and will rouse

them to new exertions. Gradually they may then be led to have higher

motives in their endeavors. Does not the Divine teacher of mankind act

similarly? He demands great sacrifices and arduous exertions of man:

purity, humility, meekness, patience, self-denial, but he always points

also to the reward, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” “your reward

in heaven is exceedingly great.” God promises also earthly blessings

to those that observe his commandments: “Honor thy father and thy

mother, that thou mayest be long lived upon the land which the Lord

thy God will give thee.” Why, then, should it be unlawful and immoral

to employ rewards in the education of the young, who are not yet able

to grasp the highest motives of well-doing? Or is it probable that

young pupils will readily be diligent, when told that _they ought to

do_ their work? Kant’s teaching of the autonomy of human reason is not

only deficient, but positively erroneous[880]; but least of all will

the rule, _you ought because reason tells you so_, have any effect on

the young. On this point also Professor Kemp, in his otherwise fair

treatment of Jesuit education, has been led into an error, when he

states that “emulation was carried to such extremes that, apparently,

it must have obscured the true ends of study and cultivated improper

feeling among the students.”[881] Such _a priori_ conclusions are

very dangerous; and the “must have” is frequently only “apparent.”

Kant, indeed, said: “The child must be taught to act from a pure sense

of duty, not from inclination.” Still, in another place he declares

that “it is lost labor to speak to a child of duty.” Children must be

treated, as St. Paul says: “as little ones in Christ, to whom I gave

milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet.”[882] This milk,

in education, is some sort of reward, a means not at all immoral. For

the desire of honor is inborn in man and lawful as long as it does

not become inordinate.[883] Honest emulation is therefore lawful; it

is also productive of great deeds. “In all the pursuits of active and

speculative life, the emulation of states and individuals is the most

powerful spring of the efforts and improvements of mankind.” (Gibbon.)

In speaking of reward we do not mean necessarily prizes or premiums.

These are indeed more open to objections. The jealousy of pupils is

more easily aroused and sometimes even the dissatisfaction of parents.

However, this can not justify the general condemnation of prizes.

There is hardly an appointment made to any position of honor in a city

or state, but a few disappointed individuals will feel and express

their disapproval, no matter how just and fair the promotion has been.

Should the appointment for such adverse criticism be omitted? Further,

premiums for excellence in learning, in military valor, in political

ability are as old as history. The Greeks rewarded the conqueror in

their national games with a wreath; the Romans had various crowns for

citizens who in different ways had deserved well of their country. And

now-a-days no one objects if a victorious general or admiral is offered

a token of public recognition, in the form of a precious sword, or

even a more useful object. The soldiers of our generation are justly

proud if their bravery is rewarded by a badge, and even the scholars

of modern Europe, perhaps such as strongly denounce the corrupting

influence of premiums in Jesuit schools, do not hesitate to accept a

decoration, or the title of nobility in recognition of their labors for

the advance of science. Why, then, should this principle of rewarding

success be so rigorously excluded from the schools? No, it is at least

exceedingly difficult to prove that prizes have generally evil results,

provided all injustice and even all suspicion of unfairness in the

distribution is avoided. However, when speaking of reward we mean in

general some public recognition, be it a word of praise or something

else.[884]

Emulation may be fostered in various ways. The Ratio gives one in the

contests. Each pupil may have his _aemulus_ or rival. The professor

questions A, while B, the aemulus of A., is on the alert to correct his

rival. Or the boys question each other mutually, while the professor

merely presides to see that all goes on fairly. The whole class may

be divided into two sides, which are frequently called camps or

armies, as boys naturally delight in anything military. Boys of the

one camp, let us say the “Carthaginians,” question some of the rival

camps of the “Romans,” and _vice versa_. The leaders of the two sides

keep the record of the points gained, of the corrections made by

their respective side. The leaders ought to be pupils distinguished

by talent, industry and good character. Different classes may also

challenge each other for an extraordinary and more solemn contest, to

which other classes may be invited as witnesses.

It is not easy to make such contests successful, and it may require

great skill and experience on the part of the teacher; and if he lacks

this skill--he may be a very good teacher in other respects--it is

better to find some other means of encouraging fair and successful

emulation. It should not be forgotten that this emulation, in the words

of Fathers Hughes and Duhr, is only one of the “subordinate elements

in the Jesuit method,”[885] or “only a trifling detail,” as Father

de Scoraille says, not the predominant element as its adversaries

represent it. In general, these contests work better in the lower

classes; especially in Northern countries, they will not be found

as suitable for higher classes. Much of the pomp and the ceremonies

which are mentioned in the Ratio and by Jouvancy, do not suit modern

taste and have long ago been discarded in Jesuit colleges. But these

were accidental details; the fundamental principle is sound. Father

Duhr well observes: “The literary contests of the pupils brought life

and action into the schools of olden times. We have become colder

in such things, whether to the benefit of lively youths is another

question.”[886]

We quoted above the statement of Professor Paulsen to the effect that

the practice of Protestant schools in regard to emulation is by no

means what should be expected from their severe censures of this point

in the Jesuit system. In fact Mr. Quick, writing about competitions and

“class matches,” says: “With young classes I have tried the Jesuits’

plan of class matches and have found it answer exceedingly well.”[887]

In the revised edition of 1890 the same author declares, in general,

that there are many forms of emulation which he did not set his face

against.[888] And not long ago, in 1901, Dr. Beecher of Dresden

recommended for the lower classes of the gymnasium contests among the

pupils, which resemble very much the _concertationes_ of the Ratio. He

calls them “dainties of a harmless character which make the boys relish

better the dry forms of Latin grammar.”[889] Still more remarkable is

the fact that in the Berlin Conference, June 1900, one of the most

distinguished members of that assembly, Professor Münch, pleaded for

introducing a system which is not much different from the Jesuit system

of the _aemuli_. He says: “It must come to it in our schools that not

only the teacher asks the pupils but also that the pupils question one

another.”[890]

Other exercises intended to rouse the activity of the pupils are

_oratorical contests_ and other public exhibitions.[891] The rules for

the teachers prescribe that the original productions of the pupils must

be carefully corrected and polished by the teacher, but the latter

should not write them in their entirety.[892] A skilful teacher can do

much in stimulating interest in such entertainments, if he proposes an

interesting subject and knows how to use the literary and historical

material treated in the class. The best entertainments will be those

that treat one subject under various aspects.

In the philosophical course the contests consist in the _disputations_.

The disputations of the students of philosophy in most Jesuit colleges

are conducted in the same fashion as those described in a previous

chapter.[893]

In the last place we must mention an exercise which has been styled

a “better kind of rivalry,”[894] namely the so-called _academies_.

These are voluntary associations of the students, literary societies

in the middle classes, and scientific societies in Philosophy. In

Philosophy, according to the rules for the academy, essays are read by

the students on some scientific topic, preferably on subjects which are

in some way connected with the matter studied in class, but which could

not be treated there at length. At times these subjects may be given

in the form of free lectures. After the essay has been read all the

members of the academy are free to enter on a discussion and attack the

assertion of the essayist.[895] It is clear that academies conducted

in this manner afford the greatest advantages. In the essayist, the

spirit of research is stimulated, and in all those who take part in

the discussion, in fact, in all those present, scientific criticism is

developed.

The subjects treated in the academy of the pupils of Rhetoric and

Humanities are, naturally, of a literary character: criticism of

rhetorical and poetical topics not treated fully in class,[896] which

may be illustrated from various authors; a literary and critical

appreciation of a striking passage from an author; the reading of an

essay or poem composed by the pupil himself; a discussion of a disputed

question of literature, and other interesting and useful subjects,

which are recommended by the rules of this academy.[897] An academy is

to be held every week in Philosophy, and every week or every fortnight

in Rhetoric and Humanities. Even the Grammar classes are to have their

academies, in which similar discussions are carried on, of course less

scientific than in the higher classes. At any rate, these academies are

excellently fitted to stimulate the activity of the pupils.

In one Jesuit college in the United States the essays prepared in the

middle classes, sometimes treated of archaeological subjects which had

been alluded to in the course of the reading of the classics. This

seems quite in accord with the spirit of the rules for the academy. The

pupils took a great interest in such subjects and undoubtedly derived

great profit from them.

When the pupil read his essay, not unfrequently drawings on the

blackboard, maps and pictures served to illustrate the lecture. Then

followed a short discussion of the subject and further queries of the

boys, which were answered by the teacher. The following subjects were

treated in this manner: The Roman Coliseum, Roman military roads, Roman

aqueducts, a Roman triumph, the Romans’ daily life, the Roman family,

Roman agriculture, the number and rank of early Christians, character

of Greeks and Romans compared, Greek sculpture, pagan and Christian

art,--this last essay was read in connection with the study of Cicero’s

fourth oration against Verres, “On the Statues,” in which many Greek

masterpieces of art are described or mentioned.--Similar subjects

are: The Roman (or Greek) house, Roman (or Greek) temples, feasts,

costumes, weapons, magistrates, games, theatres, slavery, education,

navy, travels etc. It may be easily understood that much is requisite

to conduct such “Academies” successfully, above all on the part of the

teacher. For he must discuss the subject with the young writer, suggest

reliable sources from which to draw material, direct the writer in his

work, and lastly revise and correct the essay. But the work will be

amply compensated by the result, especially by the increased interest

with which the pupils study the classics.

Such, then, are the exercises of the Ratio. They are distinguished for

variety: a short recitation of the memory lesson is followed by the

thorough repetition of the prelection of the previous day, or of the

precepts of rhetoric, poetry, and grammar. Then comes the principal

work of the day, the prelection of the new passage of the author,

followed by a brief repetition. Some time is devoted every day to the

writing of a little theme; and lastly the contests rouse the pupils

to new attention, in case the other exercises should have caused some

drowsiness. Certainly this change and variety of the exercises is

calculated to break the monotony which, especially with younger pupils,

is apt to give rise to weariness and disgust. At the same time, the

exercises are of such a character that they call into play all the

faculties of the mind: memory, imagination, reasoning. Thus they are

excellent means for attaining the end of education, namely the thorough

and harmonious training of the mind.

FOOTNOTES:

[797] On this subject see the able article: _The Teaching of Science_,

by Father De Laak, S. J., Professor of Physics in the St. Louis

University, in the _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1901,

vol. I, pp. 904-916.

[798] _Rules for the Professor of Physics_ 33, 34.

[799] For many observations contained in this chapter I am indebted

to the _Woodstock Letters_, especially the valuable papers in volumes

XXIII-XXV, 1894-96.

[800] Its equivalent is used in German, _Vorlesung_, for the lectures

in the universities.

[801] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 232.

[802] See Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 439.

[803] _Ratio Docendi_, ch. II, art. 3, 2.--The same is inculcated

in other documents, v. g. in _Mon. Paed._, page 297: “_Germanam

pronunciationem iam tum ab ipso literarii aedificii vestibulo a

discipulis suis praeceptorum quisque exigat_.”

[804] President Eliot says: “A second interesting result of effective

leadership in a few American colleges and schools is to be seen in

the adoption of the so-called Roman pronunciation of Latin, which

being recommended by two or three Professors of Latin in leading

institutions, spread rapidly over the whole United States, and is now

the accepted pronunciation in most schools and colleges.” _Educational

Reform_, p. 298.--But Professor Bennett of Cornell university calls

it a “fundamental blunder and its retention a serious mistake.”

_The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary School_, p. 66.--See _Latin

Pronunciation_, _a Brief Outline of the Roman_, _Continental and

English Methods_, by D. E. King (Boston, Ginn and Company, 1889).--_The

Roman Pronunciation of Latin_, by Francis Lord (Boston, Ginn, 1895).

[805] “In our times, besides the Latin interpretation, there is to

be added the interpretation in the vernacular, also in the class of

Rhetoric.” Pachtler, vol. IV, p. 435.

[806] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. I, art. 3.

[807] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 239.

[808] Pachtler, vol. II, p. 165.

[809] Quick, _Educational Reformers_, p. 506.

[810] _Rat. Doc._, c. II, art. III, § 1.

[811] _Rat. Doc._, c. II, art. IV.

[812] _Didaktik_, vol. II, p. 387.

[813] English speaking students have at first great difficulties in

grasping the rule of the object, because neither the article nor the

noun shows any case ending. However, it can be explained easily with

pronouns. Thus say: “_Who_ is there? Who is subject. _Whom_ did you

see? Whom is object.--_He_ is there. I saw _him_. It would be bad

English to say: Who did you see, or I saw he. So it is bad Latin to

say: _Vulpes viderat persona._” These examples of _whom_ and _him_ are

especially fitted, as they show an ending similar to the Latin.

[814] American edition, pp. 147-149.

[815] _On Teaching English_, ch. 3, p. 27. (N. Y., Appleton, 1887.)

[816] In _The Forum_, September, 1901. Article: “The Ideal School as

based on Child Study.”

[817] These remarks are based on the writer’s own experience. Of all

his professors _none_ ever called attention to a difficult passage, but

the students had to do all by themselves at home. This was before the

reform of 1890-1892. To judge from educational publications things have

changed of late.

[818] Schiller, _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik für höhere

Lehranstalten_, Leipzig, Reisland (3rd edition 1894), pp. 456 and 476.

[819] _Ibid._, pp. 42 and 152; see also Willmann, _Didaktik_ vol. II,

p. 391.

[820] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, pp. 24, 25, 32, 34.

[821] _Reg. Scholasticorum_ 4.

[822] On this question we take some suggestions from an article in the

_Woodstock Letters_, 1898, p. 185 sq.

[823] _Woodstock Letters_, 1898, p. 186.

[824] _Un collège de Jésuites aux XVII et XVIII siècles. Le collège

Henri Quatre de la Flèche, par le Père Camille de Rochemonteix._ See

vol. IV, pp. 165 and 388-403.

[825] _Woodstock Letters_, _l. c._, p. 190.

[826] See _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1898, vol. II, p. 82.

[827] Professor Plüss, in _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VII, page 74.

[828] Lutheran preacher, died at Naumburg, Germany, 1626, author of

_Antiquitates Romanae_.

[829] Jesuit, died at Pont-à-Mousson, 1655.

[830] Jesuit, died at Paris 1684, wrote _De Republica Romana ad

explicandos Scriptores antiquos_.

[831] Chossat, _l. c._, pp. 337-339.

[832] Compayré, _Hist. of Ped._, p. 144.

[833] _Educ. Ref._, p. 50.

[834] See the second rule of all the classes.

[835] _Reg._ 5.

[836] _Reg._ 5.

[837] _Ratio Studiorum: Reg. com._ 28, § 2.

[838] _On Teaching English_, ch. V, p. 48 foll.

[839] _Ibid._, ch. VI, page 85 foll.

[840] See Fitch, _Lectures on Teaching_.

[841] “The Jesuits maintain the abuse of memory.” Compayré, _l. c._, p.

140.

[842] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 50.

[843] See _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 325 sq.

[844] _Alte und neue Schulen_, p. 57, note.

[845] _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. XVIII, p. 242.

[846] The excellent _Greek Exercise Book_ by Professor Kaegi (English

edition by James Kleist, S. J.--Herder, St. Louis, 1902) contains a

great number of such gnomes.

[847] _Paraenesis_, art. 8, sect. 3.

[848] _Paraenesis_, _ib._, sect. 2.

[849] In a recent article in the _Fortnightly Review_, November 1902

(“Are the Classics to Go?”), Professor Postgate, a distinguished

English scholar, writes: “If the ‘dead’ languages and literatures are

not to retire into the background, they must be taught as if they were

alive” (p. 878).--“Translations from English into Latin or Greek is a

most valuable training and necessary part of classical training; but it

ought not to have superseded original composition.... From the first,

speaking and writing Latin should go hand in hand with reading” (pp.

879-880). Professor Postgate calls these “improved methods”; improved,

surely, if he speaks of nearly all systems in vogue during the last

century, not however in regard to the system of the Society of Jesus,

which always practised this system, as will appear from the next pages.

[850] _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p. 329.

[851] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, pp. 23, 25, 29, etc.

[852] _Education in the United States_, (1900), vol. I, p. 185.

[853] _Reg. Prof. Rhet._ 1.--_Reg. Prof. Hum._ 6.

[854] _Reg. Prof. Rhet._ 9.--_Prof. Hum._ 6.--_Prof. Supr. Gram._ 6.

[855] From _The Forum_, Sept. 1901; “_The Ideal School_.”

[856] _Reg. com._ 30.

[857] How this can be done may be seen from a little book recently

published by a Jesuit: _Imitation and Analysis; English Exercises based

on Irving’s Sketch Book_, by F. Donnelly, S. J. (Boston, 1902, Allyn

and Bacon.)

[858] _Ratio Discendi_, ch. 1, art. 2, 4.--Cf. Quintilian, _Inst. Or._

X, 2.

[859] See Zielinski, _Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte_.

[860] Compare the excellent observations on the value of the

“Reproduction of the Thought of Others,” in Genung’s _Practical

Rhetoric_, pp. 301-325.

[861] Bristol, _The Teaching of Greek_, p. 301. See on pp. 298-307 some

excellent remarks on Greek compositions.

[862] Bennett, _The Teaching of Latin_, p. 172.

[863] _Reden und Vorträge_, Berlin, 1901.

[864] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VII, p. 71.

[865] _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, p. 39.

[866] _Didaktik des Lat. Unt._, page 110.--See also Rollin, _Traité des

études_, livre II, ch. III, art. 3.

[867] _Reg. mag. schol. inf._ 18.--See _Woodstock Letters_, 1894, p.

322 foll.

[868] _Jesuiten-Gymnasien in Oesterreich._

[869] See _Verhandlungen_, 1901, pp. 282 foll.

[870] _Ibid._, p. 286: “Vielfache Uebungen hin und her, die ein stetes

Umdenken der Vorlagen erfordern, sollen sein (the pupil’s) Wissen

geläufig, sein Können gewandt machen und ihn allmählich zu einem

sicheren Sprachgefühl verhelfen.”

[871] _Verhandlungen_, 1901, p. 288.

[872] _Verhandlungen_, pp. 21, 129, 139.

[873] By Director Kübler and Prof. Harnack, _ibid._, pp. 140 and 294.

The latter declares Latin compositions to be absolutely necessary for a

satisfactory instruction in this language.

[874] _Ib._, p. 139.

[875] _Ib._, p. 129.

[876] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 90.

[877] See v. g. Compayré, p. 146.--Seeley, p. 186.--Painter, p.

171-172, where the Jesuit system is stigmatized as “stimulating baser

feelings,” “appealing to low motives,” etc.--In France the Jesuits were

attacked on this point also by M. Michel Bréal, in his _Quelques mots

sur l’instruction publique_.

[878] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 286. (First edition;

the passage has been somewhat changed in the second edition, I, p. 430.)

[879] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 90.

[880] See Rickaby, S. J., _Moral Philosophy_, pp. 115-118.

[881] _History of Education_, p. 191.

[882] 1 _Cor._ 3, 1-2.

[883] See Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologiae_, 2, 2, _qu._ 131 and 132:

“On Ambition and Vain Glory.”

[884] The rewarding of prizes is ably vindicated by Father R. de

Scoraille, S. J., in the _Études religieuses_, Paris, August and

September 1879. “Les distributions de prix dans les collèges.”

[885] Hughes, p. 89.--Duhr, p. 61.

[886] _Studienordnung_, p. 125.

[887] _Educational Reformers_ (London edition of 1868), p. 297.

[888] On pp. 529-532. There he also states that the New England

_Journal of Education_ gives an account of some interclass matches

at Milwaukee, and the New York _School Journal_ of contests in the

McDonough School No. 12, New Orleans.

[889] _Neue Jahrbücher_, 1901, vol. VIII, p. 98.

[890] _Verhandlungen_, p. 135.

[891] See especially Father Kropf, _Ratio et Via_, chapter V, art. II.

(German edition p. 426 f.).

[892] _Reg. com._ 32.

[893] See above pp. 422-425.

[894] Quick, _Educ. Ref._, p. 42.

[895] _Reg. Acad. Theolog. et Philos._, 3.

[896] _Aliquid de praeceptis magis reconditis rhetoricae vel poesis_;

as the 2d rule has it.

[897] _Reg. Acad. Rhet. et Hum._ 2.