Jesuit Education/Appendix 1
APPENDIX I.
Additions and Corrections.
Chapter I.
Observations on American Histories of Education.[1]
In the course of the present book we have frequently had occasion to point out that the histories of education by Painter, Seeley and Compayre are utterly untrustworthy in their account of the Jesuit system, and of Catholic education in general. It is natural to infer that in other respects they may be equally unreliable. Professor Cubberley, in his recent Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education (New York, Macmillan, 1902), says, on page i, that the works of "Painter, Payne, and Seeley are very unsatisfactory, and are not referred to in the Syllabus." The same should have been done as regards Compayre; for his History of Pedagogy is as unsatisfactory as those mentioned before; it only assumes an air of impartiality, which makes it all the more insidious. (See the present book, pp. lo-n.) Some writers quote from the Ratio Studiorum, but the quotations are often mistranslated in such a manner that they are hardly recognizable when compared with the original. Setting aside the disastrous influence which antipathy and prejudice may have had on some writers, the following reasons may account for many errors. The Ratio Studiorum is in many respects a peculiar document, which is unintelligible unless one is acquainted with the Latin terminology of scholastic philosophy and theology, and there are exceedingly few non-Catholic writers on education who possess this knowledge. Further, numerous regulations of the Ratio are clear only when explained by other documents of the Society, which have either not been known, or not been examined by these writers. Another difficulty is to be found in the fact that the Ratio contains also the regulations for the studies of the members of the Society. Some writers have confounded rules for the novices and scholastics of the Order with regulations for the lay pupils in the colleges. Thus what is said in the Constitutions of the Society about the obedience to be rendered to Superiors by the Jesuits themselves, Mr. Painter has applied to the lay students. (Hist. of Ed., p. 170.) Evidently an entirely false impression must be produced by such confusion.
However, in most cases it is almost certain that these writers have not taken the trouble to examine the Ratio Studiorum, but have contented themselves with copying the assertions of untrustworthy secondary authorities. Raumer's History of Education seems still to be considered by some a reliable source. Even Professor Cubberley styles it "still quite valuable" (l. c.). And yet this work is altogether antiquated. Besides, in regard to Catholic education it is so biased that fair-minded Protestants have rejected many parts of it. Thus Henry Barnard, in his translation of the chapter on the Jesuit schools, says: "We omit in this place as well as towards the close of the article, several passages of Raumer's chapter on the Jesuits, in which he discusses, from the extreme Protestant stand-point, the influence of the confessional, and the principles of what he calls 'Jesuitical' morality. These topics, and especially when handled in a partisan spirit, are more appropriate to a theological and controversial, than to an educational journal. The past as well as the present organization of the schools of the Jesuits, the course of instruction, the methods of teaching and discipline, are worthy of profound study by teachers and educators, who would profit by the experience of wise and learned men." (American Journal of Education, vol. V, p. 215.) However, even in the statements which Barnard accepted from Raurner, there are not a few that are incorrect. Owing to protests of Raumer, Barnard, in the VI. volume of his journal, added the passages which he had omitted in the previous translation. The misrepresentations which Raumer had borrowed from Pascal and others, need not be dwelt on here.
Nor is the estimate of the Jesuit system correct which is found in the History of Modern Education, by Samuel H. Williams, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching, in Cornell University. The author evidently endeavored at times to be impartial, but he was not fortunate in the choice of his sources. They were evidently not the original documents. Otherwise he would not have been betrayed into such absurd statements as this: "The teachers were mostly novices of the Order, with a much smaller number of the fully professed brothers." Now, as the chapter on the "Training of the Jesuit Teacher" proves, novices are not employed in teaching, and the Jesuit is not engaged in teaching until after a training of five or six years succeeding the completion of the novitiate. The expression "fully professed brothers," also, shows that this author knows very little about Jesuit teachers.
Mr. Shoup, in his History and Science of Education, admits many good features in the Jesuit system; he expressly states that it has many points in common with American methods, but then his authorities lead him away into the old tirades of "neglecting mathematics, sciences, practical knowledge; suppressing of independent thought," etc.
We gladly acknowledge that the latest American book on the subject, Mr. Kemp's History of Education (Lippincott, 1902), is, in point of impartiality, superior to most other works. On the whole, it is free from offensive attacks on the relation of the Church to education. However, we must say that it is not free from assertions which cannot stand in the light of modern historical research. Particularly in chapter XV, many statements need considerable correction, v. g., the assertion that before the Reformation "the large majority of the people felt no need of education and took little interest in it." With this should be compared the authors from whom we quoted on p. 23 sqq. On p. 172, Mr. Kemp repeats Green's assertions about the Grammar schools founded by Henry VIII. But Mr. Arthur F. Leach has proved, from incontestable documents, that this is a pure myth, and that the statements of Green and Mullinger are a distortion of the historical facts. In his English Schools at the Reformation (Westminster, Archibald Constable, 1896), Mr. Leach says: "The records appended to this book show that close on 200 Grammar [secondary] schools existed in England before the reign of Edward VI., which were, for the most part, abolished or crippled under him. ... It will appear, however, that these records are defective. ... three hundred Grammar schools is a moderate estimate of the number in the year 1535, when the floods of the great revolution were let. loose. Most of them were swept away either under Henry or his son; or if not swept away, they were plundered and damaged" (pp. 5-6). Of the character of these schools the author says that they were not mere "monkish" schools, but secondary schools of exactly the same type as the secondary schools of the present day. Considering the population of England at the time, there were previous to the Reformation more higher schools in England than at present; in Herefordshire, v. g., 17 higher schools for a population of 30,000! Nearly every town had a higher school. (Ib., 99-100.) Mr. Leach confesses that his researches revolutionize the traditional view of pre-Reformation schools in England, and that on this account his book was looked upon unfavorably by some people. We call attention to these facts, because they show how the current tradition has influenced men who earnestly endeavor to be impartial. Had all American writers been animated by the spirit of fair-mindedness and zeal for correct information which distinguished that excellent American educator, and first U. S. Commissioner of Education, Henry Barnard, the cause of truth and justice would have been better served in this country.
Chapter II.
The Brethren of the Common Life.
What is said on pp. 31-34 about the Brethren, must partly be corrected. Recent investigations have proved that they were not, as Raumer had represented them, an order of teachers like the Jesuits They taught, indeed, in a few schools, as in that of Liège; but in most schools with which they were connected, they received boarders and looked chiefly after their moral and religious training, while the secular instruction was in the hands of other teachers, who, however, were mostly imbued with the spirit of the Brethren. See Paulsen, Geschichte des g. U., 2nd ed., vol. I, pp. 158-160, where this author modifies, in the same way, the statements expressed in the first edition of his work. Further see the recent valuable work on Jakob Wimpfeling, by Dr. Knepper (Herder, 1902), page 7.
Chapters V And VII.
Jesuit Scholars.
Chapter V, p. 156. – The importance of Father Saccheri's work is being recognized more and more. Professor Ricci of Padua contributed a highly interesting article to the Jahresbericht der mathematischen Verbindung (Vol. XI, October-December 1902), on the "Origin and Development of the Modern Conception of the Foundations of Geometry." There it is said that "Saccheri's works prove him a man of indisputable merit, and one of the first geometricians of his century. ... The Euclides vindicatus alone is a work which could claim the labors of a whole life. In this work he erects an edifice of classical beauty which testifies to the extraordinary ability and geometrical taste of the architect." It is a perplexing problem to modern mathematicians how Saccheri could endeavor to refute his own arguments, with which he had so ably attacked the Euclidian system. Of this attempt Professor Ricci says: "To-day it is hard to understand that a man of so sublime an intellect did not see the truth which he almost could grasp with his hands, and that he stubbornly tried to destroy with sophisms what he had built up with so much correct geometrical skill. Able and sagacious as he is in constructing his system, he is awkward and unskilful in tearing it down." – If for once I may be allowed to venture a conjecture, I would ask: Is it not possible that Saccheri did grasp the truth, but did not think fit to publish it boldly? He may have feared lest his contemporaries would raise a cry of indignation against such a mathematical heresy. Besides, as at that time such hypotheses would have been looked upon as mere freaks, there may have been apprehensions that the publication of such a work would injure the reputation of the college in which Saccheri taught mathematics. The attacks on the Jesuits on account of the bold theories of Hardouin (seep. 160), and similar instances in which the whole Society was reprehended for the attitude of individuals, would have been a sufficient cause for the wariness of the author. If this explanation were the correct one, it would certainly account for the weakness of the arguments which he used to pull down his splendid structure. These arguments, accordingly, would have been merely a thin veil to hide the purport of his work. I communicated this conjecture to Father Hagen of Georgetown, and was surprised to learn that this distinguished mathematician had given the same explanation of the curious phenomenon to Professor Halsted of the University of Texas, the translator of Father Saccheri's works. However, this is only a conjecture, though not void of probability. But even if the author did not see the full truth of his deductions at the time, this has happened to many great discoverers. Professor Whewell says of Kepler, with reference to a similar instance, that it seems strange that he did not fully succeed; "but this lot of missing what afterwards seems to have been obvious, is a common one in the pursuit of truth." (History of the Inductive Sciences, vol. II, p. 56. Appleton's ed., 1859.)
Chapter VII. – Among the Jesuit scholars of the last decades mention should have been made of the sinologist Father Angelo Zottoli, who died in the College of Zi-ka-wei, near Shanghai, November 9, 1902. In 1876, Baron von Richthofen, in his work on China, expressed his regret that the Jesuit missionaries of recent times had not succeeded in regaining the scientific prestige of the Old Society. But a few years after, in 1879, the first volumes of a work appeared which inaugurated a new period in the scientific activity of the Jesuits in China. This was Father Zottoli's Cursus Literaturae Sinicae. When the work had been completed in five volumes, it put the humble religious in the front rank of sinologists. It has been styled "a landmark in the history of Chinese philology," and received the great prize of the Académie des Inscriptions et des belles Lettres. Mr. Legge, formerly a Protestant missionary in China, and one of the foremost sinologists of our age, declares that in Father Zottoli's Cursus "the scholarship of the earlier Jesuit missionaries has revived." (In vol. XXVII of the Sacred Books of the East, Preface, p. XIII.) In Father Zottoli's school some able Jesuit sinologists were trained, who now publish their researches in a special review, the Variétes Sinologiques, whose scholarly character has been frequently attested to by the foremost orientalists. Father Zottoli was engaged for thirty years in writing a gigantic Chinese dictionary. The ablest of his pupils are now completing this work. (See Kölnische Volkszeitung, Wochenausgabe, January 1, 1903.)
Some readers may be surprised at the list of Jesuit writers – we have enumerated only a small fraction of the number of scholars that well deserve to be known better than is the case –, and ask why so little is said about them in works that treat of the history of the various sciences. It is not because their works are not of great importance for science. The explanation may be found in a remarkable utterance of the celebrated Kepler, the prince of astronomers: "Alas for prejudice and hatred! If a Jesuit writes anything, it is completely ignored by the adherents of Scaliger." Allusion is made to the famous controversy on chronology between the Protestant Scaliger and the Jesuit Petavius (see page 160). The same may be said of many another scientific discussion. Kepler himself, though a Protestant, was not afraid of being a friend of Jesuit scholars, nor of asking their opinion on many of the important questions which he was investigating. (See Johann Kepler, der Gesetzgeber der neueren Astronomie, by Adolph Müller, S. J., Professor of astronomy in the Gregorian University in Rome [Herder, 1903]; see especially chapters 12 and 17, and page 166.)
Chapter VIII.
The Recent Educational Troubles in France.
On page 265 it is said that the non-Catholic view of the Jesuits is not based on historical facts, but largely on works of fiction. A case in point is Zola's posthumous novel, the English edition of which was issued in this country in February, 1903. The subject of this work was announced as "illustrating the keenly antagonistic influences of the Jesuitical and secular parties in France, as instanced in the recent educational troubles." Though the book is styled "Truth," it is in reality a tissue of falsehoods and enormous charges, not only against the religious orders, but the Catholic Church as-such. The Baltimore Sun, February 19, 1903, says in a very judicious criticism, that the author "asserts and asserts, but, behold! of proof there is little or nothing. This, however, will make no difference to those readers to whom this diatribe appeals [among them the same paper reckons those who hate the Catholic Church, and who welcome any attack that may be made upon it]. In the present instance Zola has, seemingly, cared little about the truth of his statements." The book furnishes a strong proof of what we said on page 268, namely, that the present persecution of the teaching Congregations in France is in reality a brutal attack on Christianity and all religion. Zola says little about Jesuit education, but what is meant by secular education, is set forth in clearest light: All religious beliefs and observances are derided, every sign of religion is to be banished from the school, women are to be emancipated from the influence of the Church, experimental science is to take the place of religion in school and private life. It is the old Voltairian Écrasez l'infâme! This is the antagonist of "Jesuitical" education! (On this subject see the article of M. Brunetiere, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, December 15, 1902: "The Laws of Proscription in France," translated in the Catholic Mind, New York, 1903, no. 2).
For the Catholic view of the educational movement in France during the last decade we refer to the Études, which contain many excellent articles not only on the religious side of the question, but also on modern school reforms, the classics, etc. See especially volumes 54 (page 100 sqq.), 57 (page 345 sqq.), 69 (page 224 sqq.), 70 (page 496 sqq.), 78 (page 21 sqq.), 79 (page 41 sqq.), 84 (page 654 sqq.), 86 (page 29 sqq. and 501 sqq.). In the volume mentioned in the last place, the article: L'Enseignement classique en Allemagne, son rôle pédagogique, contains interesting comparisons between the French and German secondary schools.
Chapters X—XII.
"Impressions of American Education."
Under the above title, the Educational Review (March, 1903) published an address delivered by Mr. Sadler, at the Annual Congress of the Educational Institute, Glasgow, Scotland, December 30, 1902. Mr. Sadler admires many features in American education: the hearty belief of Americans in the value of education, the sacrifices they make for it, etc. But he discovers also the following defects and weaknesses: 1) In some cases municipal corruption has baleful results in the sphere of educational administration. 2) There is a grave doubt whether the stricter forms of intellectual discipline have not been unduly sacrificed in many American schools. The besetting sin of some modern methods of education is that they stimulate interest without laying corresponding stress on intellectual discipline. As it were, they feed the children on sweeties and plumcake, in a strenuous revolt against an austere tradition of too much oatmeal porridge. Nor does home discipline restore the balance. The younger Americans find it difficult to focus their attention on uncongenial tasks. An insidious evil is the tendency on the part of teachers to make lessons interesting by avoiding the harder, duller, and more disciplinary parts of the subjects. Another evil is the excessive encouraging, among young children, of what is called "self-realization", even occasionally to the point of impertinence. 3) Lack of severe discipline leads to a third weakness, – superficiality, – with its attendant evils, exaggeration in language and love of excitement. The Americans do not as yet sufficiently allow for the slow percolation of ideas into the mind. They make too many short cuts. They are too fond of the last new thing. They forget that a pupil gains true independence of taste and judgment by slowly and thoroughly working his way, under guidance and with encouragement, through masterpieces as a whole, and through masses of the same kind of work, often against the grain. All true culture has in it an element of stubbornness and persistence, which must be acquired through the lessons of life, and the lessons of the school, which ought to prepare for life. 4) A fourth danger proceeds from the tendency of American men to become unduly concentrated in business pursuits. Many Americans sterilize part of their nature by too great absorption in the excitement and struggles of commercial competition. This overzeal for business forms an atmosphere which cannot but affect educational ideals. Intense absorption in commercial enterprise is not an aim worthy to dominate the thoughts and lives of the rising generation of a great people. The noble answer of the Short Catechism to the question: "What is the chief end of man?", deserves not to be forgotten in commercial pursuits.
It may be well to compare these statements with what has been said in the chapters on the "Intellectual Scope," "Prescribed Courses or Elective Studies," and "Classical Studies".
- ↑ See also the interesting article: "The History of Educution. A Plea for the Study of Original Sources," by the Rev. W. Turner, D. D., in the new and promising Review of Catholic Pedagogy, January, 1903.