AQUAVIVA. THE RATIO STUDIORUM.
So centralized an Order as the Society of Jesus, which formed its
Professors for every country, and sent them from one place to another,
undertook, in doing so, to exhibit a definite system of education, of
courses, of method. Besides such a unity of method, it professed also a
consistent uniformity of doctrine.
Before its time there was no one method which could be considered
universal; because there was no teaching body itself universal. The
Order, as it branched out into the world, found a variety of systems
in vogue; and the Jesuit Professors conformed, as best they could, to
the local traditions of populations very diverse, in universities which
were distinct and mutually independent. But, while they endeavored
to better such systems, in accordance with the plan of their own
Constitution, it was clear that they fell short of realizing the idea
of their founder. Hence variations and dispensations were part of the
usual order of the day.
Yet there is a best way of doing everything; and, not least, in
education. In such a best way, some elements are essential at all
times, while others are accidental, and vary with time, place, and
circumstance. The ideal system will preserve in its integrity all
that is essential, and then will adapt the general principles with the
closest adjustment to the particular environment.
Besides the unity of method desired, which I may define to be _the best
way best adjusted to circumstance_, there was need, as I have just
said, of a consistent uniformity of doctrine; lest, in the same chair
of philosophy, of divinity, or of science, or in chairs placed side
by side, one Professor should say Yea to a question, and another Nay
to the same question, with no more material a reason evident for the
difference, save that one taught here and the other there, one spoke
yesterday, the other speaks to-day. The educational effects, however,
are far from being immaterial; for, contradictory statements eliding
one another, it is quite possible that the students understand less the
next day than the day before. And, as to the Professors themselves,
nothing can imperil more the harmony and efficiency of an educational
organization, than disagreement of opinion in the function and act of
teaching. In philosophy, the occasions for dispute spring off at every
turn. Theology, as every one knows, is made to bristle with them. And,
among men who are themselves educated to the highest degree of mental
culture, interests and questions like these are far more absorbing than
money, place, or power elsewhere. If anywhere ideas rule, it is among
men of profound thought; as the intense intellectuality of the mediæval
universities had shown, with all the consequences of unlimited vagaries
in an unbridled scholasticism; or, again, as the whole history of the
intellectual Greek world had evidenced, whether in the early ages of
the Christian Church, or in the heathen generations before.
Whatever, then, a man may think privately, and be free to think, in
matters of mere opinion, the genius of education imposes limits on
the manner and matter of his actual teaching; and the speculations
of a thinker, a writer, or an investigator, are not to be confounded
with the best results of an educator, who, doing his work in the best
way, is to effect a definite and immediate object. That object is
nothing less than the equipping of fresh young spirits with principles
of thought and habits of life, to enter fully appointed on their
respective paths of duty. In this view, therefore, definiteness of
matter, no less than unity of method, were required from the first for
an effective system of education.
During forty years, the individual enterprise of experienced and
responsible men had been interpreting the values and measuring the
results of existing methods. The Society itself had mounted into such
a position, as practically to command the whole field of secular
education. Its own system must have been excellent already. Nor could
that system have been uniformly excellent, but for some uniformity
which characterized it. Still the unity was defective. The Provinces
were petitioning for an improvement. Evils obstructed the way to
something better. For these reasons, the matter was taken in hand by
one General after another. And the final outcome of their work was a
"Form," or "Method of Studies," _Formula_, or _Ratio Studiorum_.
On the nineteenth day of February, 1581, Father Claudius Aquaviva
was elected fifth General Superior of the Society. Taking up this
educational project where his predecessors had left it, and, like
them, availing himself of his almost boundless resources for obtaining
information, he began by putting the work through every possible stage
of consultation, to which the traditions of his office, and his own
executive ability prompted him; and, when all prudent means had been
exhausted in deliberating, he then used the executive power which
was vested in him; and he required that what had been so laboriously
designed, by the united efforts of many, should henceforth be reduced
to practice, with the good will of all.
It will be interesting to review briefly the process of elaboration.
In the general assembly which elected Aquaviva, a committee of twelve
Fathers from different countries was appointed to draw up a method of
studies. How far their work proceeded does not appear. Three years
later, in 1584, the General named a Commission of six, John Azor from
Spain, Gaspar Gonzalez from Portugal, Peter Buys from Austria, Anthony
Guisani from Upper Germany, Stephen Tucci of Rome, and James Tyre to
represent France. This last-named Jesuit, a Scotchman, was not unknown
in the lists of controversy to his countryman, John Knox. They were
all experienced in the administration of colleges, and versed in the
subjects of all the faculties. Entering on their labors, they worked
during six winter months in the Poenitentiaria of St. Peter's in Rome;
and, during the next three summer months, they resided in the Quirinal.
The eyes of the chief authorities in the Catholic world were turned
in expectancy towards them. Indeed, some of the chief interests of
Catholic Christendom seemed to depend upon them.
They spent three hours a day in consultation. The rest of their time
they devoted to consulting authors and conning over methods, in the
three fields of letters, philosophy, and divinity. The documents which
they studied are enumerated by themselves as being the minutes of
previous deliberations held at Rome, or in the more prominent colleges
of the Order; the letters, consultations and laws of the universities,
and other such documents, sent at different times up to that date
from Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland; the fourth part of the
Constitution, as the standard of guidance; the canons of the general
assemblies; the rules and statutes of the schools; moreover, the
customs and regulations of the Roman College.[144]
After nine months of consecutive labor, they presented the results to
the General, in August, 1585. Father Aquaviva submitted the document
for examination to the Professors of the Roman College. Then he took
the whole matter under his own personal consideration, with his four
General Assistants, who represented each a certain number of Provinces.
At this stage, the report was printed, not as a rule determined on, but
as the preliminary outline of a rule. The copies struck off were few,
just enough for the use of the Provinces. The General's letter, which
accompanied the report, defined the precise stage at which the process
was now understood to be.[145]
He says that, in a matter of such grave and universal consequence, it
was not his intention to prescribe anything, without first learning the
opinions of the chief Doctors of the Society. Accordingly, he had been
content with reading the results of the Commission's labors, decreeing
nothing, changing nothing, except so far as was necessary to put it
in shape for distribution. He now required the Provincial Superiors,
immediately upon receipt of the present letter, to select at least five
men, who were the best qualified in point of learning and judgment,
along with other members, who were eminent in literature, and whom
the Provincial might think fit to convoke. To these the report was to
be submitted, for each to examine privately, and with great care. On
certain days, several times in the week, they were to meet and hold
consultations; to put their conclusions in writing, as well with regard
to the practical method of studies, as with regard to the speculative
opinions which they favored; they were to note whatever they thought
should be added, or be made clearer, or otherwise regulated, for the
greater perfection of the work. If any of the Fathers, designated for
this Provincial committee, could not possibly attend the meetings,
still they were to send their opinions in writing to the Fathers
actually in session; so that full account might be taken of the public
opinion in that Province. The criterion they were to follow, in making
up their minds, was not so much their own private sentiment or their
own leaning this way or that, as the general good of the whole Society,
the practice of the universities and schools, and, in fine, the
judgment of Doctors most approved for their authority and solidity of
doctrine.
Aquaviva refers to the idea and intention of Ignatius with respect to
the present undertaking; and he adds: "I would have all steadfastly
keep this object in view, that they endeavor to find out reasons,
not how a final decree may be prevented, as if the enterprise were
hard, and could not possibly be carried out (for we have made up our
mind to carry it out, since it is necessary, and is recommended by
the Constitution); but how the difficulties, if any such there be,
may disappear, and the whole Order may combine in one and the same
arrangement; for otherwise the final result would only be the greater
detriment of the Society."
He calls their attention to an important point, in what is now styled
Pedagogics, or the Science of Education. It is, that, in the form now
sent out, the Fathers had taken pains to explain their reasons for
arriving at conclusions. That would not be done in the System to be
drawn up later, which would contain only the statement of directions
for all to follow. In these words, we have a most important distinction
laid down between the science which underlies the system of education,
and the practical method itself which rests upon the science. The
_Ratio Studiorum_, as subsequently promulgated, is a practical method.
The science is sketched, as need arises, in the preliminary _Ratio_ of
1586.
At the same time, Father Aquaviva despatched another letter, about
which he says, in a postscript to the foregoing, that the six points
provisionally laid down in it are to be subjected to the same
examination as the preliminary _Ratio_ itself.
In this supplementary epistle, he premises that it will require much
time and consideration to issue the final code of rules; and therefore,
as a direction for the time being, he issues the following:--
First, Professors shall adhere to St. Thomas Aquinas as their standard
in theology.
Secondly, they shall take care, in their manner of teaching, always to
consolidate faith and piety.
Thirdly, he lays down a principle of still wider application, and one
which seems vital in the whole theory and practice of teaching: "Let
no one defend any opinion which is judged by the generality of learned
men to go against the received tenets of philosophers and theologians,
or the common consent of theological schools." This touches a vital
element in education. If we suppose that the teacher's art lies, not in
giving forth the lucubrations of his own private thoughts and theories,
but in imparting solid results, approved and ascertained, to those who
come for such results, and wish to receive them in the most approved
way, then the Professor in his chair ought not to mistake himself for
the author in his study, nor should he practise on living men, whose
life is all before them, what he might, with more propriety, first
practise on the leisured world, and test elsewhere, either in the
printed page, or in conference with his equals. The Professor, as such,
is not the original investigator. In mathematics, he is notoriously
not so. In that branch, the best teacher is the man who walks along a
definite line, turns neither to the right nor left, and finishes in
a definite time; or else his scholars will never finish. To a certain
degree, the same holds in all courses. If a man is theorizing, when
he ought to be instructing, he goes off the line of perfect system,
however much pains he takes with his matter; just as much as if, taking
no pains whatever, he neglected his matter altogether, went behind it,
or around it, gave histories of his branch, methods of teaching it, and
descanted on pedagogics, to young people who were never sent to him for
that purpose. They are sent to learn definite matter, and to be formed
therein on a good plan, by the man who understands it. Then, as Loyola
said in another connection, "when they have experienced in themselves
the effects thereof," they will be qualified for all the rest, for
understanding the plan itself on which they have been formed, and
enjoying all the practical results of it; and, if their line of life
invites, for understanding other plans too. This is practical wisdom in
education; neither dilettantism nor speculation.
Fourthly, Aquaviva lays down a principle regarding the public
advocacy of opinions. He is not referring to authorities denouncing,
or Professors repudiating, them; but merely to certain conditions
for putting them forward: "If opinions, no matter whose they be, are
found in a certain province or city to give offence to many Catholics,
whether members of the Society or not, that is, persons not unqualified
to judge, let no one teach them or defend them there, albeit the same
doctrines may be taught elsewhere without offence." The word "defence,"
in a context like this, means publishing and sustaining theses against
all comers in public disputations; wherein the Professor represents
the school, and the school is put to the account of the Order. The
principle seems discreet. If a corporate body does not want to be
compromised, it is not for the member to compromise it. If he wants to
use the perfect freedom of his opinions, and deliver himself of his own
pronouncements, he ought first to assure himself that his circumstances
are such as to set him free from representing others. This is an
elementary principle of social and urbane existence.
The fifth point concerns the march of improvement in the advancement
of opinions. It describes the method of discreet development: "In
questions which have already been treated by others, let no one follow
new opinions, or, in matters which in any way pertain to religion, or
are of some consequence, let no one introduce new questions, without
consulting the Prefect of Studies, or the Superior. If, then, it still
remains dubious, whether the new opinion, or the new question, is
permissible, it will be proper for the said authority, in order that
things may proceed more smoothly, to learn the judgment of others
in the Society upon the subject; and then he will determine what
appears best for the greater glory of God." In the sixth and last
point, Aquaviva calls attention to a former decree, upon the manner of
treating the Aristotelian philosophy.[146]
So much for this letter of Aquaviva. On the sense and purport thereof
he invited the communication of views from the Order at large, as
well as on the document which he encloses, the preliminary _Ratio
Studiorum_. To this we may now turn our attention.
The six Fathers, who drew it up, state, in their introduction, that
there are two mainstays and supports of the Society of Jesus, "an
ardent pursuit of piety and an eminent degree of learning," _ardens
pietatis studium et præstans rerum scientia_. If piety is not illumined
with the light of learning, it can be, no doubt, of great use to the
person who possesses it, but of scarcely any use in the service of the
Church and of one's neighbor, in the administration of the Word and of
the Sacraments, in the education of youth, in controversies with those
who are hostile to the faith, in giving counsel, answering doubts, and
in all other offices and functions, which are proper to men of the
Order. All these call for an endowment of learning not common, but
excelling in its degree.
To acquire such learning, it is of supreme consequence that we set
before ourselves what path we enter on, what arts we employ, and what
means we use; because, unless a ready and tried method be adopted,
_ratio facilis ac solers_, much labor is spent in gathering but
little fruit; whereas, if the labor of studies be guided by some sage
rule, great results are compendiously obtained, at the cost of little
research.
Then the Commission goes on to say: "We have undertaken to teach,
not only members of the Order, but youth from the world outside. The
number of this latter class is vast; it includes brilliant talent, and
represents the nobility. We cannot imagine that we do justice to our
functions, or come up to the expectations formed of us, if we do not
feed this multitude of youths, in the same way as nurses do, with
food dressed in the best way, for fear they grow up in our schools,
without growing much in learning. An additional spur is felt in the
circumstance, that whatever concerns us is public and, day after day,
is before the eyes of all, even of those who are not well disposed
towards us." The Fathers consider it unnecessary to enlarge upon that
harmony of views, so much commended in the Constitution, as to matters
of public policy or teaching; they say, "sufficient regard could not,
up to this, be paid to such harmony; for, when no common order or
form was as yet prescribed, every one thought that he could hold what
sentiments he liked, and teach them to others in the manner he himself
preferred; so that sometimes the members of the Order disagreed as much
among themselves, as with others outside."[147]
After describing, in vivid terms, the manner in which they had
conducted their deliberations, and arrived at conclusions, and how,
when any keen dispute had arisen among them,[148] they had divided and
distinguished the disputed matter, and had examined it during two and
even three days, till they came to settle at last on what all of them
accepted, the critics come to the Practice and Order of Studies;[149]
and upon this they enlarge, in successive chapters, under the following
heads:--
The Sacred Scriptures. The Length of the Course in Divinity. The Means
of finishing that Course in Four Years. The Method of Lecturing. The
Questions which are either not to be treated by the Theological
Professors, or are to be treated only at a Certain Part of the Course.
Repetitions. Disputations. The Choice, Censorship, and Correcting of
Opinions. The Private Studies of Students. Vacations. The Degrees of
Bachelor, Master, Doctor. Controversial Theology. Moral Theology.
Hebrew. The Study of Philosophy, which includes Physics. Mathematics.
Literature, that is, Grammar, History, Poetry, Rhetoric. Seminaries
for Literature and the Higher Faculties. The Professors of Literature.
The Grammar to be used. Greek. Different Exercises in the Classics.
Incitements to Study. The Method of Promotion. Books. Vacations in the
Lower Classes. Order and Piety. The Respective Objects and Exercises of
the Classes of Grammar and Humanity. The Class of Humanity. The Class
of Rhetoric. General Distribution of Time during the Year.
These are the matters handled in the publication of 1586. In the course
of treatment, this document contains, by way of a running commentary,
the complete theory of Education, or Science of Pedagogics, as
understood by these critics. It will not be possible, within the brief
limits of this work, to give more than a bare sketch of the pedagogical
elements contained in the one hundred and fifty pages of the _Monumenta
Germaniæ Pædagogica_.[150]
A second, partial edition of this preliminary _Ratio_ was sent out by
Father Aquaviva, in 1591, to which an entertaining bibliographical
history is attached.[151] In 1593, the fifth general assembly of
the Order met, Claudius Aquaviva presiding. By this time, during the
interval of seven years which had elapsed since the first edition,
the book had been subjected to examination in all the Provinces;
observations and criticisms had been returned; it had been re-committed
to the Fathers at Rome, and revised by the General with his Assistants;
and had again been sent out for trial. The Provincials and Deputies,
meeting in 1593, brought with them the reports of how the system
worked. Its slightest defects were noted.[152] Most asked for an
abridged form.
Amid the very grave questions then pending, the assembly took some
action on the _Ratio_. It was re-committed once more to the competent
authorities for revision. And it assumed its last and definite form,
in what was probably its ninth edition. This last issue, in the year
1599, after fifteen years spent on the elaboration of it, is the RATIO
STUDIORUM.
One hundred and twenty-seven years later, the great old University of
Paris seems to have become a disciple of its educational rival, the
Society of Jesus. Querard observes that the Rector, Rollin, "without
saying anything about it, translated the _Ratio_ for his _Traité des
Études_."[153] Indeed, as M. Bréal, historian of that University,
observes, referring to the suppression of the Order: "Once delivered
from the Jesuits, the University installed itself in their houses, and
continued their manner of teaching."[154]
In all general works on education, there is question of this System.
Its form is that of a practical method, without reasons being assigned,
or arguments urged. It is a legislative document, which superseded all
previous forms. The General's letter, which accompanied it, ordered the
suppression of them all, promulgating this one to the exclusion of the
rest.
The sentiment, to which the last words of this letter gives expression
as a fond hope, was fully responded to by the course of events, in the
one hundred and seventy-four years which were to elapse before the
general suppression of the Order: "It is believed," he said, "that it
will bring forth abundant fruit, for the benefit of our scholars,"
_Quae nostris auditoribus uberes fructus allatura creditur_. Aquaviva's
letter is dated the eighth day of January, 1599.[155]