FORMATION OF THE SCHOLAR. SYMMETRY OF THE COURSES. THE PRELECTION.
BOOKS.
What is developed to perfection can make other things like unto itself;
it is prolific. So the Aristotelian principle has it: _Perfectum est,
quod generat simile sibi._ This is the outcome and test of perfection.
Having followed the Master, therefore, till he was complete in his
own formation, we have now turned to look in another direction, and
see him reacting upon those whom he is to form. Though much has been
said already implicitly or otherwise, on the method and principles of
this reactive process, yet something remains, especially with regard
to the lower faculties, the literary courses. In this chapter, we may
consider the attitude which the Professors take, singly and as a body,
towards the students and towards their own courses; and then their
chief manner of imparting knowledge, or what is called in the _Ratio_
the _prælectio_. In the next chapter we can survey the principal class
exercises, and the method of school management, throughout the lower
grades. And, in the chapter after that, I shall sketch the system of
grades from the lowest to the highest.
1. One of the first most general rules lays it down that the authority,
in whose hands is the appointment of Professors, "should foresee far
ahead what Professors he can have for every faculty, noting especially
those who seem to be more adapted for the work, who are learned,
diligent, and assiduous, and who are zealous for the advancement of
their students, as well in their lectures (or lessons) as in other
literary exercises."[273] "They are to procure the advancement of each
of their scholars in particular," says Ignatius.[274] The Professor "is
not to show himself more familiar with one student than with another;
he is to disregard no one, to foster the studies of the poor equally
with the rich."[275]
These are the regular and "ordinary Professors, who take account of
their students in particular."[276] There can also be in a university
one or more of another kind, "who, with more solemnity than the
ordinary lecturers, treat Philosophy, Mathematical Sciences, or any
other branch, after the manner of public Professors."[277]
In the lower, or literary courses the Masters must "be good and
skilled," who "seriously, and with all the attention of their mind,
work for the advancement of their scholars, as well in what concerns
learning, as in the matter of morals. They will have to take care that
besides the Christian doctrine, which is so integral a part of our
Institute, they also give frequent exhortations, suited to the capacity
of the boys, and not devised for empty ostentation; let them endeavor
to instil solid affections of piety and love for the things of God, and
a hatred for sin."[278]
What is meant by "good and skilled Masters" in these courses, we have
already seen from Jouvancy's sketch of the accomplishments proper
to a teacher of Literature.[279] If anything remained to be said on
this topic, it would only be to note and reject false standards, by
which the position or efficiency of Professors might possibly, but
incorrectly, be measured. Thus, some five years ago, that is to say,
three hundred years later than the drawing up of the _Ratio_, I find
two such false standards distinctly repudiated; one is the idea of
gathering in just enough of doctrine beforehand to be able, when
occasion calls for it, to develop the attainments of a Professor;
another is that which would look only to the environment around, and
would measure the intellectual formation of men, and the supply of
learning, by the estimate commonly formed of the article, and the
actual demand for it.
2. If we regard not individual Professors, but the whole moral body
or faculty of them, there are two characteristics which it may be
difficult to find, or at least to ensure, outside of an organization
such as the Society of Jesus. One is the very strict unity of
educational matter presented to the studious world. The other is the
degree of coördination and subordination of courses professed. A word
upon each.
The unity of matter in question, as designed for the purposes of
education, is prescribed on the strength of a double maxim; first, that
the sifting of many opinions, by the varied and multiplied activity of
many minds, leaves a residue of matter, quite solid enough to support
a compact and reliable system of teaching; secondly, that, in point
of fact, such matter, which I have called "a residue," is nothing
else than the basis of truth, divine and eternal; since, in clearing
away the ground, all the criteria of each order, the natural and
supernatural, have been faithfully and assiduously regarded.
Hereupon, intellectual concord is felt to be the result in the entire
teaching body. Of this concord the critics say, that it is the
condition and cause of a wider and profounder learning in the faculties
at large. Each Professor is engaged, "not in tilling some patch of
his own, but in contributing his industry to the general field of
all." Where is the gain, they ask, "if what one establishes, another
upsets, not as if he had always excogitated something better, but for
fear he should be thought to profit by the fruits of another's genius?
Sometimes it really makes no difference whether one or other tenet
is held; but, if we are bent on receiving no support from another,
then, for all our labor, we get no other fruit but dissension."[280] I
presume there is not a university anywhere but will bear witness, by
its internal history, to the justice of this remark.
Nor do these Fathers apprehend that reputation for real science will
suffer by such concord, since "reputation for science does not
come from opinions contradicting one another, but from their having
agreed." They express no lofty esteem for the notoriety which may be
had, by fighting no less with friends than with foes, and reserving
admiration for only what is at a respectable distance, and "turning
up one's nose at what is near."[281] This pungent remark seems to be
a new and pedagogical application of the old proverb, _Nihil vicinia
molestius_, "Nothing more annoying than one's neighbors!" They hold
that, upon a basis of concord, there is always room and liberty for
the exercise of talent; first, in those questions which are manifestly
indifferent; secondly, in thinking out new distinctions and reasons,
whereby truths already certain may be made more secure still; thirdly,
in attacking the same, either when publicly disputing, or also when
actually teaching, if what they acutely urge against a position, they
more acutely refute; fourthly, in proposing new opinions and questions,
but after they have sought the approval of the responsible authorities,
lest the labor be spent amiss. The most learned men have always been
persuaded that there is more subtlety shown, more applause merited
and comfort enjoyed, in pursuing the lines of approved and received
thought, than in a general license and novelty of opinion.[282] But
these critics throw out an idea of theirs, which quite possibly will
not meet with universal acceptance. They say, "It is not every one who
can build up a Theology for himself." The remark they add is graceful,
that a modest genius does not court every kind of liberty, but that
which is not divorced from virtue.
These principles explain for us the unity of educational matter, as
presented to the studious world. The same marshalling and husbanding
of force, which effectuates this result, operates another, akin to
the former. It is the most definite coördination and subordination of
courses, with a mutual understanding between Professors and faculties.
Where grades exist, either in their perfect form, as in the five stages
of the classical or literary course, or in a shape approximating to
that, as in the three stages of the philosophical triennium, such
subordination is easily secured. But, also, elsewhere the conditions of
perfectly definite outlines are laid down for courses, which have any
points of mutual contact.
This may be illustrated by some rules of the _Ratio_. The two
Professors of Dogmatic Theology are to consider themselves dispensed
from commenting on questions proper to Sacred Scripture, from treating
philosophical matters, from evolving cases of Moral Theology.
The Professor of Moral Theology is to despatch with the briefest
definitions the matter which belongs to dogma. The Professor of Holy
Scripture is desired not to go at length into points of controverted
Theology. The Professor of Ecclesiastical History need not treat canons
or dogma. The Professor of Canon Law will not touch Theology or Public
Right, any more than his time permits, and the necessary understanding
of Canon Law requires. The same reserve is practised between Theology
in general, and Philosophy. Thus a Professor of Moral Theology
despatches perhaps in ten minutes the definition of Natural Law, upon
which he knows two days are spent by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.
Half a century later, this question of coördination received a still
fuller treatment at the hands of the General Francis Piccolomini.
After requiring that philosophers and theologians alike finish
conscientiously all the matter assigned for each year, he will not
allow that "the example of authors who have mixed up subjects, or have
followed out their questions into mere minutiæ, can be cited as of any
weight with our Professors. For, whatever is to be thought of them,
this method is not opportune for practical teaching in the schools."
The General scouts the idea of "exploring the treasure-house of
possibilities," to find out new questions; for there is reason to fear
that "while folks search about for truths not ascertained, they will
catch at chimeras and shadows."[283] Hence, as the _Ratio_ prescribes,
"opinions which are useless, obsolete, absurd, manifestly false, are
not to receive treatment." The Professors are to run rapidly through
questions which are easy. In Holy Scripture, difficult passages are
not to be dwelt on indefinitely, nor too much time to be given to
chronological computations, or topological surveys of the Holy Land.
In facing the objection, that all this entails a great expenditure of
thought and matter, when Professors must despatch in such short courses
what might well be treated in longer terms, the preliminary _Ratio_
draws a sharp line of demarcation between other universities and those
conducted by Jesuits. "Whatever is the custom in other universities,
our method is very different from theirs, so that no less progress
can be made in our schools during four years, than in others during
five; because our Professors are for the most part more laborious; we
have more numerous exercises; our Society, as standing in need of many
workmen, requires that perfection of science which is necessary for its
men, not that otiose method of others, who, having no motive of this
kind to make them expeditious, divide up into many lectures what could
well be treated in fewer; their vacations too are for the most part
longer and more frequent."[284]
_Ex ungue leonem_, "You can tell a lion by his paw." Let it appear that
the brevity which you study is necessitated by your limits of time;
let discernment be conspicuous in your selection of matter, whether
to treat summarily or to treat copiously; let the alternate courses
supplement one another, so that what had to be skimmed over in one
quadriennium is dilated upon more at large in your next; then, say the
Fathers, the authority which the Professors enjoy with ecclesiastical
dignitaries will not suffer the detriment anticipated by some, when
we give condensed and accurate treatment in a shorter time of what is
usually spread out through a longer.[285] The paw shows the lion.
3. We may proceed now to the typical form of Jesuit instruction.
It is called _prælectio_. This word is largely the equivalent of
"lecturing," in the higher faculties; of "explanation," in the lower.
In either case, however, it is something specific. For this reason, and
because I shall have to use the word often, I may be allowed to put it
in an English dress, and speak of "prelection."
Its form, as a lecture in the higher faculties, is conceived thus: The
whole proposition, which is advanced, is to be delivered consecutively,
without interposing any stoppages. Then it should be repeated in the
same words; and this will be taken by the students as a sign that it
is to be written down; and the delivery of it should be marked by such
inflections, and proceed at such a pace, especially in its obscure and
finer points, that the students may readily distinguish between what
is to be written and what is not. Now, while the proposition is thus
being taken down, the lecturer ought not to advance new ideas, but
should dally with the same, either explaining it in more phrases or
clearer ones, or adducing an example or similitude, or amplifying the
topic, or drawing out the same logical sequence in another order, so
as to make it stand out more distinctly, or throwing out a reason or
two, which, however, it is not necessary for them to note. Indeed, if
the Professor brings his own papers into the school, he might have in
them some select phrases, brief but not obscure, in which he sums up in
few words the gist of the propositions. Longer development they will
receive only in the explanation, which is then to be given.[286] In
that, the Professor will endeavor to prove his thesis, not so much by
the number of arguments, as by their weight. He should not be excessive
in adducing authorities. And it belongs to his dignity, as a Master,
scarcely ever to quote an author whom he has not himself read.[287]
In the grade of Rhetoric, which is the highest of the literary or
classical course, the prelection is double; one is upon the art of
eloquence, wherein precepts are explained; the other is upon an author,
and has for its object the development of style. Taking up an author
such as Cicero, the Professor will, in the first place, make clear
the sense of the passage. Secondly, the artistic structure is to be
analyzed and demonstrated: the _Ratio_ here details the elements of
this analysis. Thirdly, other passages which are similar in thought or
expression are to be adduced; other orators and poets, whether in the
classics or in the vernacular, are to be cited as employing the same
principles of art, in persuading or narrating. Fourthly, if the matter
allows of it, the thoughts expressed by the author are to be confirmed
by what wise men have said on the same subject. Fifthly, whatever else
will conduce to ornamenting the passage is here in place, from history,
mythology, erudition of every kind. Finally, the words are to be
weighed singly; their propriety of use, their beauty, variety, rhythm
to be commented upon. The whole of this treatment, however, does not
come within the limits of each and every lesson.[288] The "erudition"
for this grade is defined to comprise "the history and manners of
nations, the authority of various writers, and all learning, but
sparingly, to suit the capacity of the scholars."[289]
The prelection on the precepts or rules, "the power of which," says
the _Ratio_, "is very great for the purposes of oratory," comprises
six points. Cicero is the rhetorician who supplies the precepts;
but Quintilian and Aristotle may also be used. First, the meaning
of the rule is to be explained. Secondly, upon the same rule, the
rhetoricians are to be collated. Thirdly, some reason for the rule is
to be expounded. Fourthly, some striking passages from prose writers,
and also from poets, are to be adduced in exemplification of the rule.
Fifthly, if anything in the way of varied erudition makes to the
purpose, it is to be added. Lastly, an indication should be given how
this principle of art can be turned to use by ourselves; the style
in which this is done must be marked by the most absolute choice and
finish of diction possible.[290]
In the grade of Humanity, which is immediately below Rhetoric, the
prelection is to be lightly adorned from time to time with the
ornaments of erudition, as far as the passage requires. The Master
should rather expatiate to the fullest extent upon the genius of the
Latin tongue, on the force and etymology of words as shown by approved
authors, on the use and variety of phrases, with a view to imitation.
Here, as in other rules of this kind, we may notice the degree of
progress made in the native tongues during two centuries and a half.
While the _Ratio_ of 1599 adds these words: "Nor let him think it
out of his way to bring forward something from the vernacular, if it
presents anything specially idiomatic for rendering the idea, or offers
some remarkable construction;" the revised _Ratio_ of 1832 substitutes
these words: "Let him expatiate on a comparison between the genius of
both tongues, with a view to imitation." When he is explaining a prose
author, he should investigate the precepts of art, as exemplified
therein. Lastly, if he thinks fit, he can give a version, but a most
elegant one, of the whole passage into the mother tongue.[291] Greek
has its own form of prelection.
As to the "prose writer" just mentioned, the manner of treating an
historical writer in Humanity, which is otherwise called the class of
Poetry, will serve by the way to illustrate the difference between
what is recognized as the staple of studies in a class, and what comes
in as subsidiary--a most essential distinction, characterizing this
system of literary teaching. The critics of 1586 advert to it clearly.
After showing the importance of including the study of historians
in the course of Poetry, they say: "This will not be too onerous to
the Preceptor; for the style of history is plainer and more lucid,
so as not to need great study; and it would be enough to explain the
course of events, as they are narrated by the author, so that he
need not consult other authors who have written on the same matter.
The prelection of the historian ought to be easy; after rendering a
sentence of the author, the words may be lightly commented upon, and
only such as have some obscurity hanging about them." The historians of
whom there is question here, are Cæsar, Sallust, Q. Curtius, Justin,
Tacitus, Livy.[292]
"In both classes of Rhetoric and Humanities, not everything
indiscriminately is to be dictated and taken down, but only certain
interpretations of difficult passages, which are not readily obvious
to every one, or which the Master has elaborated as the outcome of
his personal study; besides, some rather striking remarks on various
passages of the author under examination, such annotations as the
commentators give, who edit books of various readings. This will
befit the Master's dignity, and will be useful for the young men to
know."[293]
The grades of Grammar have respectively their own forms of prelection,
given in detail by the final _Ratio_. It will be enough for us to
sketch the general form of the earlier critics.[294]
According as it is a grammar or an author that is being explained, a
very different method of prelection is to be followed. In the grammar,
we acquire a fund of precepts; in an author, a store of words and
phrases. Wherefore, in the books of grammar, the boys must understand
perfectly the things explained; they need not attend scrupulously to
the words there, with a view to forming style. But, in the letters of
Cicero, and other texts of the kind, it is not so much the substance of
the sentences, as the words and phrases that are of chief consequence;
the significance and force of his thoughts are to be reserved for the
higher classes, when the students are no longer mere boys.
In the classes of Grammar then, let the Master follow this method of
explaining Cicero, or any other author. First, he will sketch, in the
briefest way, the meaning of the author, and the connection between
what has gone before and what is now to be explained. Then he will
give a version of the period literally, preserving to the utmost
the collocation of words, as they stand in the author; and also the
figures employed. As to the collocation or arrangement of the words,
this is of such consequence that sometimes, if a single word is put
out of its place, the whole thought seems to lose its force and fall
flat. Herein, too, is perceived that rhythmic flow of the style,
which of itself, even if other ornaments are wanting, pleases the ear
wonderfully and gratifies the mind. Thirdly, the whole period is to be
resolved analytically into its structural elements, so that the boys
understand distinctly what every word governs; and their attention
should be directed to some useful points of good Latinity. As to this
structural analysis, I may be allowed the passing remark, which is
familiar to every judge of a classical education, that the disciplinary
value of literary studies reaches here its highest degree of mental
exercise; and that the two classical tongues, Latin and Greek, are
altogether eminent as supplying materials for this exercise, in their
own native structure; which, in the Latin, is an architectural build,
characteristic of the reasoning Roman mind; and, in the Greek, is a
subtle delicacy of conception and tracery, reflecting the art, the
grace and versatility of Athens and the Ionian Isles.
After this, each word is to be examined, as to what it signifies, and
to what uses it may be applied; the boy is to understand, as far as may
be, the original and proper idea and force of every word, not merely
its general significance, as in a shadowy outline; he should know, too,
the phrases in his native tongue, which correspond with precision and
propriety to the Latin. The metaphors and the figurative use of words,
especially as found in Cicero, are to be explained to the boys in an
extremely plain manner,[295] and by examples drawn from the plainest
objects. Unless this use of words is understood, the true and genuine
knowledge of the tongue is seriously obstructed. Then, picking out
the more elegant turns of style, the Master will dictate them to the
scholars, and afterwards require the use and imitation of these phrases
in their themes. Lastly, he will go back and translate the words of the
author over again, as he did at the beginning; and, if need be, do so a
third and a fourth time.
As to writing, during all this, let him forbid them absolutely to take
down a single letter, except when told. What he does dictate to them,
he is to finish within the time of the prelection, and not prolong
this time for the sake of the writing. 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 Masters are to be on their guard, lest private tutors at the boys'
homes explain new lessons to them. These tutors have merely to repeat
with the boys what has been heard in class. Otherwise, the fruit of the
good explanation which is received at school is lost at home.
Repetition is now in order. Two principles govern this exercise.
First, "what has often been repeated sinks deeper into the mind."[296]
Secondly, "the industry of youths flags under nothing so much as
satiety."[297] As soon, therefore, as the prelection is over, the
Professor is to require at once an account of all that he has said,
and he is to see that the whole line of his explanation is followed in
the repetition. As if this seemed to imply that only the best scholars
were to be called upon, the critics go on to note that not all of what
has been explained should be repeated by one only, but that as many as
possible should be practised every day. The Master should not follow
the order in which the boys are seated, but take them here and there.
However, the first to be called on are those more advanced; then,
the duller, or perhaps lazier ones, and these should rather be asked
oftener, to be kept up to the mark.[298]
The final _Ratio_ notes that the daily lesson should not exceed four
lines in the lowest class of Grammar; seven in Middle Grammar. There
is, as I have already observed, a prelection proper to grammatical
rules; also to Greek, whether it be in the grammar or in an author.
Proportion in width and depth of matter is adjusted to each grade.
A careful dictation in the vernacular is to be given, which, when
rendered into Latin or Greek, will exemplify the precepts explained,
or the use of the phrases already dictated. And one part of the school
exercises, from the lowest class up to Rhetoric, is a _concertatio_
between rivals, which is a lively discussion either upon matters
explained in the prelections, or upon one another's compositions. In
this field of debate, as is natural, the activity of the students
grows, both in the extent of the field to be covered, and in the
depth of erudition required, according as the grades are mounted.
And it is carried out of the class-room into select societies,
called "academies," the members whereof, whether grammarians or
_littérateurs_, conduct their debates, give their own prelections or
repeat a choice one of their Professor's, award a place in the archives
to some specially meritorious production; and they conduct all these
exercises in exact keeping with their actual prelections and studies.
Nor do they yield an inch in gravity or dignity to the great academy
of theologians and philosophers.[299]
As to the native tongue, one of the earliest systems of studies in
the Society, prior to the general _Ratio_ by about forty years, lays
down for the middle class of Grammar, that "on Mondays and Wednesdays
the boys will receive the themes in Bohemian and German for their
epistolary exercises."[300] This document is probably from the pen
of Peter Canisius, soon after the colleges were founded at Prague,
Ingolstadt and Cologne. In a directive memorial of 1602, drawn up for
Mayence by Father Ferdinand Alber, a postscript is added to the effect,
"Let exercise in the German tongue be furthered."[301] Jouvancy lays
down the practice in this manner: "After the correction and dictation
of the written exercises, the Latin author is rendered into the mother
tongue, or a _concertatio_ is held. These two exercises can be held
on alternate days, if there is not enough of time every day for both.
In rendering the author into the vernacular, you will observe three
things: first, the idiom of the vernacular, and its agreement in
construction with the Latin, or else its disagreement, so that the
scholars learn each tongue by the other; secondly, the proper turns
and elegance of the Latin style; finally, the thoughts of the author,
as having a moral bearing, and as calculated to form and mould the
judgment of the boys; also the ways of men, the punishments of the
wicked, the maxims of sages. Some part of an historical author should
be given sometimes for their written exercise, to translate into the
mother tongue; or it may be added, as an appendix, to a shorter theme.
Let the boys hold a discussion among themselves upon the merits of
the translation; they can write in that narrative style, to win the
best places in class; as also, at the close of the year, for the
premiums. However, the whole time of class is not to be taken up by
such translations, as happens sometimes with negligent Masters, who
shirk the labor of the prelection, and of the correction of themes.
While the boys dispute among themselves on the precepts of grammar,
poetry, or eloquence, one stands against many, or several against
several. The subject, time, and manner of the _concertatio_ is to be
defined beforehand; umpires and judges are to be appointed, prizes for
the victors, penalties for the vanquished. The others, who are merely
listening during the contest, will show in writing what fruit they have
derived from it, or will be asked questions thereupon."[302]
In the following article,[303] the same writer gives several specimens
of a prelection in Cicero, Virgil, Phædrus, as adapted to the different
classes. They are only passages. The whole of this system goes by
passages, taken consecutively, until a whole piece has been mastered
by the students. For it is in the prior perfection of detail that
perfection in a larger compass is attained. And we may also note
that it is only in the original productions of perfect Masters in
style, that detail can ever be adequately studied. The understanding
and enjoyment of an entire masterpiece, taken as a whole, is by every
law of nature and of art an easy resultant of understanding the
parts. If any writers on pedagogy have thought that no student could
"understand and take pleasure" in an original classic, and therefore
have advocated the reading of translations as a means of receiving the
"literary impressions," I fear that we need only point to the style
of literary writing which seems to have resulted from doing things in
this second-hand fashion--if indeed it is even second-hand. For, after
all, style itself never appears in a translation; only the thoughts
are translated. Thoughts are the soul of style; its expression was
the body; each fitted the other in the classic original; and, in an
eminent mutual fitness, an eminent style was being studied. The best
translation of a classic piece has never done more than produce a bare
equivalent. Wherefore, if with the striking original no thorough work
has been done, it is more than probable that, in the results, nothing
original and striking will ever be done.
This system of prelection, which in addition to the perfection of its
_technique_, required erudition from every branch of learning,[304]
made of the Professor anything but a technical pedagogue. Voltaire
noticed it, speaking of his own Professor. "Nothing will efface
from my heart," he wrote to Père de la Tour, Rector of the Collège
Louis-le-Grand, "the memory of Father Porée, who is equally dear to
all that studied under him. Never did man make study and virtue more
amiable. The hours of his lessons were delicious hours to us. And I
should have wished that it was the custom at Paris, as it used to be at
Athens, that one, at any age, could listen to such lectures. I should
often go to hear them. I have had the good fortune to be formed by more
than one Jesuit of the character of Père Porée, and I know that he has
successors worthy of him."[305]
The productions of such Professors replenished the literature of
the classics, as we may see in the great editions, or _bibliothecæ
classicæ_, published during the present century. Father De la Cerda
of Toledo, in his three folio volumes on Virgil, in 1617, gave to
literature an encyclopædia of political and moral observations,
including geography, history, and the natural sciences.[306] His
technical work was not inferior; for his "Grammatical Institutions"
became in 1613, by an exclusive privilege, the standard of all the
public schools in Spain. Father Nicholas Abram, whose "Epitome
of Greek Precepts in Latin Verse" went through fifty editions in
twenty-two years, published in 1632, while Professor at the College
of Pont-à-Mousson, two volumes octavo on Virgil, which were then
republished constantly at Rouen, Paris, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons,
etc.[307] Undertaking the same labor, in behalf of Cicero, he issued
two volumes folio, "by which John George Grævius profited in his
edition of Cicero, Amsterdam, 1699; as well as the editor of Cambridge,
whose work appeared in 1699, 1710, and 1717."[308] Father De la Rue's
(Carolus Ruæus) Delphin Virgil is a familiar work in France, Holland,
England; so, too, De Merouville's Delphin edition of Cicero, which was
often reproduced at Cambridge, London, Dublin, etc. The same we see
with regard to Sanadon on Horace, Brumoy's great work on the Greek
Drama, René Rapin's various critical and poetical works; and so of
the rest. Of Père Rapin's thirty-five works, there are few which were
not translated into various European languages; and Oxford, London,
Cambridge, have been among the most active centres of republication, or
translation into English.[309]
4. This chapter, which has extended beyond the usual limits, cannot
close better than with a word on books, a matter intimately connected
with its subject. The Fathers of 1586 set down some principles
with regard to the proper supply and use of books, as well as the
expurgation of the classical standard works;[310] and accordingly the
_Ratio_ of 1599 ordains that "the students are neither to be without
useful books, nor to abound in useless ones."[311] A multitude is
considered useless, because "it oppresses the mind, and interferes
with the convenient preparation of the lesson. Of books by more recent
authors few are to be allowed, and those very carefully selected."
Yet, "a variety of authors gives a richer vein to the boys, and makes
imitation easier."[312] Here the Fathers proceed to give directions
for the composition of an entirely new kind of work, which would be
of great use in the colleges. It is exactly the species so well known
in our days under the various titles of "Precepts of Rhetoric," "Art
of Composition," etc. As the development of pedagogical literature,
which we took note of in a former chapter,[313] had already made some
progress, the critics say: "Some one most versed in all these matters
should be deputed to gather whatever is best in this line, and to
compile in one treatise, written in an elegant style, all that he has
selected, about the art of writing epigrams, elegies, odes, eclogues,
_sylvæ_ (that is, materials, "objects"), comedies, tragedies, epopoeiæ,
a brief method of chronology; explaining also what is the historical
(or narrative) style, the poetic, the epistolary, the different
kinds of speaking, and other such matters, all to be illustrated by
examples."[314] Elsewhere they call for a similar work of a higher
order, on the Art of Oratory. The sources which they designate for
such a compilation are "the numerous publications of our Professors of
Rhetoric, as well on the art itself, as on classical orations."[315]
These _compendia_, or text-books, were a new idea in education.