PHILOSOPHY
39
PHILOSOPHY
and cathedral schools. It was the golden age of
schools. Masters and students went from one school
to another: Lanfranc travelled over Europe; John
of Salisbury (twelfth century) heard at Paris all the
then famous professors of philosophy; Abelard
gathered crowds about his rostrum. Moreover: as
the same subjects were taught everywhere, and from
the same text-books scholastic wanderings were
attended with few disadvantages. The books took
the form of commentaries or monographs. From the
time of Abelard a method came into use which met
with great success, that of setting forth the pros
and cons of a question, which was later perfected by
the addition of a solutio. The application of this
method was extended in the thirteenth century (e.
g. in the "Summa theologica" of St. Thomas).
Lastly, philosophy being an educational preparation
for theology, the "Queen of the Sciences", philo-
sophical and theological topics were combined in
one and the same book, or even in the same
lecture.
At the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth, the University of Paris was organ- ized, and philosopliical teaching was concentrated in the Faculty of Arts. Teaching was dominated by two principles: inlernationalism and freedom. The student was an apprentice-professor: after receiving the various degrees, he obtained from the chan- cellor of the university a licence to teach (licentia docendi). Many of the courses of this period have been preserved, the abbreviated script of the Middle Ages being virtually a stenographic system. The programme of courses drawn up in 1255 is well known : it comprises the exegesis of all the books of Aristotle. The commentary, or lectio (from legere, to read), is the ordinary form of instruction (whence the German Vorlesungen and the English leclure). There were also disputations, in which questions were treated by means of objections and answers ; the exercise took a lively character, each one being invited to contribute his thoughts on the subject. The University of Paris was the model for all the others, notably those of Oxford and Cambridge. These forms of instruction in the universities lasted as long as Aristoteleanism, i. e. until the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century — the si'ecle des lumieres (Erkldrung) — philos- ophy took a popular and encyclopedic form, and was circulated in the literary productions of the period. In the nineteenth century it resumed its didactic attitude in the universities and in the semi- naries, where, indeed its teaching had long continued. The advance of philological and historical studies had a great influence on the character of philosophical teaching: critical methods were welcomed, and little by little the professors adopted the practice of special- izing in this or that branch of philosophy — a practice which is still in vogue. Without attempting to touch on all the questions involved in modern methods of teaching philosophy, we shall here indicate some of the principal features.
A. The Language of Philosophy. — The earliest of the moderns — as Descartes or Leibniz — used both Latin and the vernacular, but in the nineteenth cen- tury (except in ecclesiastical seminaries and in certain academical exercises mainly ceremonial in character) the living languages supplantc<l Latin; the result has been a gain in clcarncs.s of thought and interest and vitality of teaching. Teac^hing in Latin too often con- tents itself with formute: the living language effects a better comprehension of things which must in any case be difficult. Personal experience, writes Fr. Hogan, formerly superior of the Boston Seminary, in his "Clerical Studies" (Philadelphia, 189.5-1901), has .shown that among stiidents who have learned philosophy, particularly Scholastic, only in Latin, very few have acciuircd anything more than a mass of formula;, which they hardly understand; though
this does not always prevent their adhering to their
formuliE through thick and thin. Those who continue
to write in Latin — as many Catholic philosophers, of-
ten of the highest worth, still do — have the sad ex-
perience of seeing their books confined to a very
narrow circle of readers.
B. Didactic Processes. — Aristotle's advice, fol- lowed by the Scholastics, still retains its value and its force: before giving the solution of a problem, ex- pound the reasons for and against. This explains, in particular, the great part played by the history of philosophy or the critical examination of the solutions proposed by the great thinkers. Commentary on a treatise still figures in some special higher courses; but contemporary philosophical teaching is princi- pally divided according to the numerous branches of philosophy (see section II). The introduction of laboratories and practical seminaries {seminaires -pra- tiques) in philosophical teaching has been of the great- est advantage. Side by side with libraries and shelves full of periodicals there is room for laboratories and museums, once the necessity of vivifying philos- ophy by contact with the sciences is admitted (see section VIII). As for the practical seminary, in which a group of students, with the aid of a teacher, investigate to some special problem, it may be ap- plied to any branch of philosophy with remarkable results. The work in common, where each directs his individual efforts towards one general aim, makes each the beneficiary of the researches of all; it accustoms them to handling the instruments of re- search, facilitates the detection of facts, teaches the pupil how to discover for himself the reasons for what he observes, affords a real experience in the con- structive methods of discovery proper to each sub- ject, and very often decides the scientific vocation of those whose efforts have been crowned with a first success.
C. The Order of Philosophical Teaching. — One of the most complex questions is: With what branch ought philosophical teaching to begin, and what order should it follow? In conformity with an immemorial tradition, the beginning is often made with logic. Now logic, the science of science, is difficult to under- stand and unattractive in the earliest stages of teach- ing. It is better to begin with the sciences which take the real for their object: psychology, cosmology, metaphysics, and theodicy. Scientific logic will be better understood later on; moral philosophy pre- supposes psychology; systematic history of phi- losophy requires a preliminary acquaintance with all the branches of philosophy (see Mercier, "Manuel de philosophic". Introduction, third edition, Louvain, 1911).
Connected with this question of the order of teaching is another: viz. What should be the scientific teaching preliminary to philosophy? Only a course in the sciences specially appropriate to philosophy can meet the man- ifold exigencies of the problem. The general scientific courses of our modern universities include too much or too little: "too much in the sense that professional teaching must go into numerous technical facts and details with which philosophy has nothing to do; too little, because professional teaching often makes the ob.servation of facts its ultimate aim, whilst, from our standpoint, facts are, and can be, only a means, a starting-point, towards acquiring a knowledge of the mo.st general causes and laws" (Mercier, "Rapport sur les etudes supc'^rieures de philosophic", Louvain, 1S91, p. 25). M. Boutroux, a professor at the Sor- bonne, solves the problem of philosophical teaching at the university in the .same sense, and, according to him, the flexible and very liberal organization of the faculty of philosophy .should include "the whole assemblage of the sciences, whether thcon-tic, niathematico- physical, or philologico-histnrirul" ("Revue Inter- nationale de I'enseignement", Paris, 1901, p. 510).
