Jesuit Education/Chapter 6

by Robert Schwickerath

 

Chapter VI.

The Revised Ratio of 1832 and Later Regulations.

The Society had been suppressed by Clement XIV. The historian Dr. Brück says: '"The Pope's conduct was harsh and unjust", as he had not a single crime to lay to their charge;^[1] and even Dr. Döllinger, however hostile to the Society, must have considered its suppression unjust; for he calls its restoration an act of justice.^[2] Documentary evidence proves that the Jesuits heroically submitted. Even in Silesia, where Frederick II. wanted to maintain them, "they were unwilling to hold out against the papal bull",^[3] and laying aside whatever was specifically characteristic of the Society, they directed the schools as secular priests. Catharine II. of Russia stubbornly refused to allow the Papal Brief of suppression to be published in her dominions. As the publication was required before the Brief could take effect, the Jesuits continued their work in the two colleges at Mohilev and Polotzk in White Russia. Five years after the suppression, in 1778, the new Pope Pius VI. granted them permission to establish a novitiate. Thus, as Frederick II. expressed it, "the seed had been preserved for those who should wish to cultivate a plant so rare." In 1801, Pius VII., the successor of Pius VI., allowed the Jesuits to establish themselves as a Congregation in Russia, and in 1804 he authorized the introduction of this Congregation into the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

At length, in 1814, Pius VII., who had been educated by the enemies of the Jesuits, reestablished the Society of Jesus. The Pope gives as the motive of this step, that "he acted on the demand of all Catholic Christendom". "We should deem ourselves guilty of a great crime towards God, if amidst the dangers of the Christian republic, we neglected the aids which the special providence of God has put at our disposal; and, if placed in the bark of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual storms, we refuse to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who volunteer their services, in order to break the waves of a sea which threatens every moment shipwreck and death."^[4] In this Bull, Pius VII. expressly says: "We declare besides, and grant power that they may freely and lawfully apply themselves to the education of youth in the principles of the Catholic faith, to form them to good morals, and to direct colleges and seminaries."

The Society immediately took up this work so dear to its founder and ever cherished by the Fathers of the Old Society. New fields had been opened in the meantime for establishing colleges, especially in England and her dependencies, and in the United States of America.

As regards the system of studies it was found necessary, soon after the restoration of the Society, to accommodate the Ratio to the new conditions of the time. The changes were undertaken with the same calm circumspection with which the old Ratio had been drawn up under Father Aquaviva. As early as 1820 suggestions and observations were sent to Rome from the different provinces. In 1830, the General of the Society, Father Roothaan,^[5] himself an excellent classical scholar and experienced teacher, summoned to Rome representatives of all the provinces. After careful deliberations the Revised Ratio appeared in 1832. It was not a new system; nothing had been changed in the essentials, in the fundamental principles. It was an adaptation to modern exigencies of the old methods which had been approved by such great success in former times.

The changes referred mainly to those branches of study, which had become important in the course of time. In the colleges Latin and Greek should remain the principal subjects, but more time and care should henceforth be devoted to the study of the mother-tongue and its literature, although this had by no means been neglected in the Old Society.^[6] Thus to the 23. Rule of the Provincial was added: "He shall take great care that the pupils [in the colleges of his Province] are thoroughly instructed in their mother-tongue, and he shall assign to each class the amount and kind of work to be done." The speaking of Latin in the lower classes was no longer possible; special care of idiom in translating is recommended, as also correctness of pronunciation of the mother-tongue. In the higher classes the cultivation of style in the vernacular, according to the best models, is insisted on. The rules concerning dramatic performances are left out; exhibitions are neither encouraged nor forbidden. In the report of the commission it is said that, if dramas are given, they should be in the vernacular.^[7] For the grammar classes, other authors are introduced; in the highest grammar class, Sallust, Curtius and Livy are read besides Cicero, the elements of mythology and archaeology are to be taught. Xenophon takes the place of Aesop and Agapetus. In the middle grammar class Caesar is added; in the lowest, Cornelius Nepos.^[8]

As mathematics and natural sciences, history and geography claimed more attention, the Revised Ratio prescribed accordingly that more time should be devoted to these branches,^[9] although they were to be considered rather as "accessories" in the literary curriculum. For the study of more advanced mathematics and of natural sciences was even then thought to belong properly to the course of philosophy. Still the new Ratio left to Provincial Superiors considerable liberty in this matter, and the Jesuit colleges, conforming to the customs of the respective countries, have introduced some of these branches also in the lower classes.

The greatest change was made in the rules concerning the teaching of philosophy and natural sciences. Aristotle, the Philosopher of former times, could no longer hold his place in the schools. So the Revised Ratio does not mention him, although the speculative questions of logics and general metaphysics are mostly treated according to Aristotelian principles. And rightly so; for as a modern Professor of Philosophy says, "Aristotle's doctrine forms the basis of traditional logic even to this day."^[10]

It may be safely said that after the vagaries of Hegel and others, there was manifested, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, a greater appreciation of Aristotelian philosophy. The most prominent advocate of this revival, Professor Trendelenburg of Berlin, expressly declares that "the organic theory of the universe, the basis of which was laid by Plato and Aristotle, is the only philosophy which has a future before it; and that speculation done by fits and starts and by every man for himself, has proved itself to have no permanence."^[11] A remark of Professor Paulsen may not be without interest. "There are people who are inclined to use the names of Thomas Aquinas and Scotus as synonymous with nonsense and craziness. To such it may be well to say that even at the present day there are men who think similarly as Saint Thomas, whom they consider the prince of philosophers, and on whom they base their whole philosophical instruction. And these are the men to whom the despisers of scholasticism give credit for a great amount, if not of wisdom, at least of extraordinary prudence and cunning, I mean the Jesuits. Has not the See of Rome restored Saint Thomas, the philosopher whom the Society of Jesus has chosen as its guide, as the philosopher of the Church? Has this been done in order to stultify the clergy? Can this be the intention of those who, through the clergy, wish to domineer over the world?"^[12]

Physics, chemistry, physiology, psychology, astronomy, geology, and cosmology are taught according to the established principles of modern science. The basis of this study is thus laid down: "The professor of physics is to expose theories, systems, and hypotheses, so as to make it clear what degree of certitude or probability belongs to each. Since in this faculty new progress is made every day, the professor must consider it part of his duty, to know the more recent discoveries, so that in his prelections he may advance with the science itself."^[13] Higher mathematics (analytic geometry and calculus) are to be taught not only in one but in two, if possible in three, years of the philosophical course. We may now invite the reader to judge about Compayré's assertions: "The sciences and philosophy are involved in the same disdain as history. Scientific studies are entirely proscribed in the lower classes, and the student enters his year in philosophy, having studied only the ancient languages. Philosophy itself is reduced to a barren study of words, to subtile discussions, and to commentaries on Aristotle. Memory and syllogistic reasoning are the only faculties called into play; no facts, no real inductions, no care for the observation of nature. In all things the Jesuits are the enemies of progress. Intolerant of anything new, they would arrest the progress of the human mind and make it immovable."^[14] It seems almost impossible to crowd more falsehoods into so small a space. There are at least ten flagrant misrepresentations in these six short sentences.^[15]

Philosophy has been discarded from most modern programs of college instruction, but to the great detriment of solid learning. A thorough philosophical training is of the greatest value for the lawyer, physician, and scientist, and for every man who wishes to occupy a higher position in life. Paulsen, and many other leading German schoolmen, express their regret that in the new systems philosophical training has been entirely relegated to the university. Two objections are made against this method: First, the form of instruction proper to the university is of the continuous lecture. But this method presupposes instruction in form of question and answer, in philosophy as well as in other branches. We should consider it a failure to try to teach grammar from the beginning by lectures, as given at the university. It seems as little promising of success to teach logic in this manner. Exercises in logic must be practised as well as must the forms of grammar. By giving a boy a definition of the Subjunctive or of the Ablative Absolute, you will not enable him to write correctly. Similarly by lecturing about the definition or by giving a definition of definition, even when illustrated by examples, you will not enable the student to handle these formulas logically. To a certain extent this applies also to psychology, ethics and civics. The elementary notions must be practised by concrete examples, so that they are ready, and as it were, handy in mind; then it is possible to use them for more complicated operations.^[16]

The second reason for not relegating philosophy entirely to the university, has been well stated by Professor Elsperger. "If the gymnasia do not wish to leave to chance the sort of ideas the pupils get from a reading that is often enough desultory, and from intercourse with others, then they need, in the highest classes, a branch of study which gives them the ideas needed. This can be attained only by elementary training in philosophy. Mathematics can do nothing in this direction, the study of Latin and Greek literature does something, but is not sufficient, and unfortunately, religion is to some extent mistrusted by not a few teachers. Thus it happens that many of our older pupils not only suffer shipwreck in their faith, but leave college with that lamentable scepticism of the uneducated, which views every nobler idea with suspicion. This tendency of very many of our young men can be counteracted only by a branch of study which attacks that sceptical disposition, and forces the pupil to obtain a deeper view of things."^[17]

It is exactly for such reasons that the Society of Jesus has kept the course of philosophy in its curriculum of higher education. It agrees with Professor Paulsen that elementary training in philosophy is possible and necessary in higher schools.^[18] About the possibility, the Jesuits never could entertain the least doubt, as for centuries they carried it out successfully, and at present are giving a solid philosophical training in all their larger colleges.

The Revised Ratio of 1832 was in no way considered final. In the letter accompanying this Ratio, Father General Roothaan, writes to the provinces: "We offer to you the result of careful examinations and discussions. You must test it practically that it may be again corrected, if necessary, or enlarged, and then be sanctioned as a universal law (for the Society)."^[19] Only by a decree of a General Congregation of the Order is this sanction possible. Such a decree, however, was not passed; consequently, the Revised Ratio has not the force of a law in the Society, but is merely to be considered as a regulation of the General. So much liberty is left to Provincials that the teaching in Jesuit colleges can easily be adapted to the educational needs of all countries. In 1853, the XXII. Congregation of the Order passed a decree that "the Provincials should be free to exercise the power granted them by the 29th rule of making changes in the studies, according to the demands of various countries and times."^[20] The same decree ordered that "new proposals for amendments be sent from the single provinces and that the Ratio (of 1832) be revised with the advice of learned and experienced men."

In the XXIII. Congregation, 1883, the study of natural sciences was especially recommended. Among others the following regulation was passed: "Those scholastics [the younger members of the Order engaged in studies] who seem to have a special talent for any of these sciences, should be given a fourth year, or special hours in the third year of their philosophical course, to perfect themselves in that science under the direction of a professor."^[21] "It is advisable to destine select younger members of the Society for the acquisition of the degrees which empower them to act as authorized public teachers." (State examinations in the European Universities.) These special subjects are to be pursued after the regular course of studies has been finished.^[22] Finally, it was asked "that some regulations should be made as to special studies in ancient languages, philology, ethnology, archaeology, history, higher mathematics and all natural sciences." It was decreed that no "general prescription could be made in this matter, but the Provincials should confer with the General as to how these studies should be arranged in the different provinces. At the same time the Congregation decrees that, provided the customary studies of the Society, and as far as possible, the preeminence of literary studies remain intact in the classical schools, the progress and increased cultivation of those [special] branches should be earnestly recommended to the Provincials. It is also their duty to select those young men, who have a special talent for these branches, that they may devote themselves to them entirely."^[23]

From all that has been said so far, it becomes evident that the Society is continually improving its system, and adapting it to the conditions of the age. It would also seem that it was inadvertence to these more recent legislations which betrayed President Eliot into the statement: "The curriculum of the Jesuit colleges has remained almost unchanged for four hundred years, disregarding some trifling concessions made to natural sciences."^[24] As the Ratio of 1832 has not been ratified by a Congregation, and as a further revision has been demanded, we may expect to hear in the future of further development in the Jesuit system.

 

1. "History of the Catholic Church", (Engl. transl.) vol. II, p. 306.
2. See "Historische Zeitschrift", 1900, vol. LXXXIV, p. 300.
3. Alzog, "Church History", vol. Ill, p. 571. Against Theiner's charge of disobedience see Zalenski, "Les Jésuites de la Russie Blanche", vol. 1, pp. 169—218.
4. The Papal Bull: Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum. This Bull and that of the suppression of the Society are translated in the Protestant Advocate, vol. III, pp. 13 and 153 etc.
5. J. A. Thym, S. J., Life of Father Roothaan. (In Dutch; German Translation by Jos. Martin, S. J.) pp. 110-113.
6. See above pp. 129-131, and the chapter on the study of the mother-tongue in Jouvancy's Ratio Disc. et Doc., part I, ch. I, § 3. – Woodstock Letters, 1894, p. 309. – Father Duhr, Studienordnung, pp. 107-118.
7. Pachtler, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 479.
8. Other changes see Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 459-469.
9. Reg. Prov., 23, sect. 3. – Reg. Praef. Stud. Inf., 8, sect. 11.
10. Windelband, History of Philosophy, p. 135.
11. Erdmann, History of Philosophy, vol. III, p. 278.
12. Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, vol. I, p. 38.
13. Reg. Prof. Phys., 34-35. – Hughes, Loyola, p. 275.
14. History of Pedagogy, p. 145. – It is beyond my comprehension how Mr. Payne, the translator, can style this book "a model, in matter and form, for a general history of education", nor is it intelligible how such a superficial production could be received so favorably by the American educational public.
15. 1. History, as has been proved before, is not disdained; 2. sciences and philosophy are not disdained; 3. scientific studies are not entirely proscribed in the lower classes; 4. there are ordinarily two years of philosophy, not one; 5. the student, entering philosophy, has studied much more than only the ancient languages; 6. philosophy is not merely a barren study of words; 7. nor is it reduced to a commentary on Aristotle; 8. facts, inductions, the observation of nature are not neglected; 9. the Jesuits are not enemies of progress in all things (see what has been said by Protestant scholars on their writers, above pp. 149-173, 179-182, and below, chapter VII); 10. far from being intolerant of everything new, the professors are expressly told to study carefully the new discoveries and to keep abreast of the advance of science; etc., etc.
16. Paulsen, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, p. 771. (2. ed. vol. II, p. 668.) – See also Willmann, Didaktik, vol. II, pp. 142 foll.
17. Blätter für das bayerische Gymnasialwesen, vol. VII, p. 41. (Paulsen, l. c., II, 667.) – In recent years educators demand more and more that college education should terminate in a solid course of philosophy. See Lehmann, Erziehung und Erzieher, Berlin, 1901. Paulsen, l. c., II, 664-670.
18. L. c., vol. II, p. 666: "The lack of philosophical training makes itself felt more painfully every day among the scientists, and in public life."
19. Pachtler, vol. II, pp. 228-233. There it is also stated expressly: "Some of these regulations are merely temporary"; p. 232.
20. Pachtler, vol. I, p. 115.
21. Decr. XVII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 121.
22. Decr. XXII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
23. Decr. XXIII., Pachtler, vol. I, p. 123.
24. Atlantic Monthly, October 1899.