Jesuit Education/Chapter 16

by Robert Schwickerath

 

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3]

§ 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;^[4] of "explanation" in the lower. In either case, however, it is something specific.^[5] 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.^[6]

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^[7]; 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.^[8]

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,^[9] 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.^[10] 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^[11] 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.^[12] 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.^[13]

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 understand 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.^[14] 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.^[15] 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."^[16]

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 nattering 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.^[17] – 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 little story be told? Or the adage: cum vulpe vidpinandum, 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."^[18] 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."^[19] Dr. Stanley Hall said recently^[20]: "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^[21] 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."^[22] 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."^[23] 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."^[24] 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.^[25]

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?^[26] 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."^[27] 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,^[28] 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.^[29] 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."^[30] 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^[31] 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,^[32] Abram,^[33] and Cantel,^[34] 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.^[35]

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.^[36] 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."^[37] 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.^[38] 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."^[39] The teacher of the next following class should sometimes do the same.^[40] 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.^[41] 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."^[42]

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.^[43] 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.^[44] 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.^[45] But renowned teachers as Dr. Arnold of Rugby,^[46] 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?^[47] 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,^[48] 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^[49] 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 χρυσἄ ἒπη, 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.

Ό μῂ δαρεἰς ἄνθρωπος ού παιδεύεται
Ζἡσεις βίον κράτωτον, ἂν θύμου κρατᾑς.
'Εν ταἲς ἀνάγκαις Χρημάτων κρείττωυ φίλος
(A friend in need is a friend indeed.)
Οὔτοι ποθ' ἄψει τὢν ἀκρὢν ἄνευ πόνου.
(Per aspera ad astra — No pains no gains.)
ΞοΦίς Φθονήδαι μάλλον ή πλούτου καλόυ.
Κακοίς ὁμλών καύτὀς έκβήσει κακός
'Αρχἠν σοΦίας νόμςε τὀν θεού Θόβον.^[50]

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^[51] 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^[52] 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.^[53]

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. ^[54]

The subject of I,atin 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.^[55] 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."^[56] 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.^[57] The rules for the teachers of the different classes enjoin that the same method be followed.^[58] 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,^[59] 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."^[60] 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.^[61]

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.^[62] "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 alter Cicero's invectives against Catiline and Anthony.^[63]

Every one sees that this excellent method of imitating good authors can be applied to the study of English with the greatest advantage.^[64] 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.^[65] And without any practice in writing the understanding of the classical authors will scarcely be more than superficial.^[66] 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.^[67] 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."^[68] 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."^[69] 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 patchwork." Also Dr. Dettweiler, one of the best modern authorities on the study of Latin, recommends the speaking of this language.^[70] 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.^[71] 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.^[72] 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.^[73] 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.^[74]

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,^[75] 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.^[76] It was proposed^[77] 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."^[78] 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.^[79]

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."^[80]

All opponents of the Jesuits try to make a capital point of "emulation" as recommended by the Ratio.^[81] 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."^[82]

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.^[83] 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^[84]; 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."^[85] 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."^[86] 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.^[87] 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.^[88]

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,"^[89] 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."^[90]

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."^[91] 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.^[92] 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."^[93] 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."^[94]

Other exercises intended to rouse the activity of the pupils are oratorical contests and other public exhibitions.^[95] 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.^[96] 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.^[97]

In the last place we must mention an exercise which has been styled a "better kind of rivalry,"^[98] 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.^[99] 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,^[100] 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.^[101] 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.

 

1. 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.
2. Rules for the Professor of Physics 33, 34.
3. For many observations contained in this chapter I am indebted to the Woodstock Letters, especially the valuable papers in volumes XXIII-XXV, 1894-96.
4. Its equivalent is used in German, Vorlesung, for the lectures in the universities.
5. Hughes, Loyola, p. 232.
6. See Pachtler, vol, IV, p. 439.
7. 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."
8. 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).
9. "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.
10. Ratio Discendi, ch. I, art. 3.
11. Hughes, Loyola, p. 239.
12. Pachtler, vol. II, p. 165.
13. Quick, Educational Reformers, p. 506.
14. Rat. Doc., c. II, art. III, 1.
15. Rat. Doc., c. II, art. IV.
16. Didaktik, vol. II, p. 387.
17. 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.
18. American edition, pp. 147-149.
19. On Teaching English, ch. 3, p. 27. (N. Y., Appleton, 1887.)
20. In The Forum, September, 1901. Article: "The Ideal School as based on Child Study."
21. 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.
22. Schiller, Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik für höhere Lehranstalten, Leipzig, Reisland (3rd edition 1894), pp. 456 and 476.
23. Ibid., pp. 42 and 152; see also Willmann, Didaktik vol. II, p. 391.
24. Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben, pp. 24, 25, 32, 34.
25. Reg. Scholasticorum 4.
26. On this question we take some suggestions from an article in the Woodstock Letters, 1898, p. 185 sq.
27. Woodstock Letters, 1898, p. 186.
28. 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.
29. Woodstock Letters, l. c., p. 190.
30. See Neue Jahrbücher, 1898, vol. II, p. 82.
31. Professor Plüss, in Neue Jahrbücher, 1901, vol. VII, page 74.
32. Lutheran preacher, died at Naumburg, Germany, 1626, author of Antiquitates Romanae.
33. Jesuit, died at Pont-à-Mousson, 1655.
34. Jesuit, died at Paris 1684, wrote De Republica Romana, ad explicandos Scriptores antiquos.
35. Chossat, l. c., pp. 337-339.
36. Compayré, Hist. of Ped., p. 144.
37. Educ. Ref., p. 50.
38. See the second rule of all the classes.
39. Reg. 5.
40. Reg. 5.
41. Ratio Studiorum; Reg. com. 28, § 2.
42. On Teaching English, ch. V, p. 48 foll.
43. Ibid., ch. VI, page 85 foll.
44. See Fitch, Lectures on Teaching.
45. "The Jesuits maintain the abuse of memory." Compayré, l. c., p. 140.
46. Fitch, Thomas and Matthew Arnold, p. 50.
47. See Woodstock Letters, 1894, p. 325 sq.
48. Alte und neue Schulen, p. 57, note.
49. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, vol. XVIII, p. 242.
50. 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.
51. Paraenesis, art. 8, sec. 3.
52. Paraenesis, ib., sect. 2.
53. 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.
54. Woodstock Letters, 1894, p. 329.
55. Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben, 1901, pp. 23, 25, 29, etc.
56. Education in the United States, (1900), vol. I, p. 185.
57. Reg. Prof. Rhet. 1. – Reg. Prof. Hum. 6.
58. Reg. Prof. Rhet. 9. – Prof. Hum. 6. – Prof. Supr. Gram. 6.
59. From The Forum, Sept. 1901; "The Ideal School."
60. Reg. com. 30.
61. 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.)
62. Ratio Discendi, ch. 1, art. 2, 4. – Cf. Quintilian, Inst. Or. X, 2.
63. See Zielinski, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte.
64. Compare the excellent observations on the value of the "Reproduction of the Thought of Others," in Genung's Practical Rhetoric, pp. 301-325.
65. Bristol, The Teaching of Greek, p. 301. See on pp. 298-307 some excellent remarks on Greek compositions.
66. Bennett, The Teaching of Latin, p. 172.
67. Reden und Vorträge, Berlin, 1901.
68. Neue Jahrbücher, 1901, vol. VII, p. 71.
69. Thomas and Matthew Arnold, p. 39.
70. Didaktik des Lat. Unt., page 110. – See also Rollin, Traité des études, livre II, ch. III, art. 3.
71. Reg. mag. schol. inf. 18. – See Woodstock Letters, 1894, p. 322 foll.
72. Jesuiten-Gymnasien in Oesterreich.
73. See Verhandlungen, 1901, pp. 282 foll.
74. 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."
75. Verhandlungen, 1901, p. 288.
76. Verhandlungen, pp. 21, 129, 139.
77. 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.
78. Ib., p. 139.
79. Ib., p. 129.
80. Hughes, Loyola, p. 90.
81. 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.
82. Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, p. 286. (First edition; the passage has been somewhat changed in the second edition, I, p. 430.)
83. Hughes, Loyola, p. 90.
84. See Rickaby, S. J., Moral Philosophy, pp. 115-118.
85. History of Education, p. 191.
86. 1 Cor. 3, 1-2.
87. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2, 2, qu. 131 and 132: "On Ambition and Vain Glory."
88. 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."
89. Hughes, p. 89. – Duhr, p. 61.
90. Studienordnung, p. 125.
91. Educational Reformers (London edition of 1868), p. 297.
92. 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.
93. Neue Jahrbücher, 1901, vol. VIII, p. 98.
94. Verhandlungen, p. 135.
95. See especially Father Kropf, Ratio et Via, chapter V, art. II. (German edition p. 426 f.)
96. Reg. com. 32.
97. See above pp. 422-425.
98. Quick, Educ. Ref., p. 42.
99. Reg. Acad. Theolog. et Philos., 3.
100. Aliquid de praeceptis magis reconditis rhetoricae vel poesis, as the 2d rule has it.
101. Reg. Acad. Rhet. et Hum. 2.