RATIO
655
RATIO
more). Besides Latin and Greek, other branches
were taught from the beginning under the name of
"accessories" — especially history, geography, and
antiquities. As was said above, gradually more
attention was paid to the study of the mother-
tongue and its literature. Mathematics and natural
sciences were originally taught in the higher course
(the department of Arts), together with philosophy;
in more recent times they are taught also in the lower
department. In philosophy Aristotle was pre-
scribed as the standard author in the old Ratio,
but he is not mentioned in the revised Ratio; St.
Thomas Aquinas was to be the chief guide in theology.
The Ratio Studiorum does not contain any provisions
for elementary education. The cause of this omission
is not, as some have thought, contempt for this
branch of educational activity, much less opposition
to popular instruction, but the impossibility of
entering that vast field to any great extent. The
Constitutions declared elementary education to be
"a laudable work of charity, which the Society might
undertake, if it had a sufficient number of men".
In missionary countries, however, Jesuits have fre-
quently devoted themselves to elementary educa-
tion.
If it be asked what is most characteristic of the Ratio Studiorum, the following features may be men- tioned: It was, first of all, a system well thought out and well worked out, and formulated at a time when in most educational establishments there was little system. The practical rules and careful supervision insured efficiency even in the case of teachers of moderate talent, while to the many teachers of more than ordinary ability sufficient scope was left for the display of their special aptitudes. The arrangement of subjects secured a combination of literary, philo- sophical, and scientific training. The Ratio insisted not on a variety of branches taught simultaneously (the bane of many modern systems), but on a few well-related subjects, and these were to be taught thoroughly. To secure thoroughness, frequent rep- etitions (daily, weekly, and monthly) were carried on in all grades. What the teacher presented in his prwlectio (i. e. explanation of grammar or authors in the lower grades, or lecture in the higher faculties) was to be assimilated by the student through a varied system of exercises: compositions, discussions, disputations, and contests. Attention was paid to the physical welfare of the students, school hours and work being so arranged as to leave sufficient time for healthful play and exercise. Com- pared with the severity of many earlier schools, the discipline was mild, the barbarous punishments not unfrequently inflicted by educators of the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries being strictly for- bidden. For the moral training of the pupils much was expected from the personal contact with the teacher, "who was supposed to take an interest in every indi\ndual pupil. Religious training was the foremost object, and religious influence and in- spiration were to pervade all teaching.
In modern times objections have been raised against various features of the Ratio Studiorum, but most of them are either based on a misunderstanding of the Ratio, or directed against features which are entirely unessential. Thus the supervision and examina- tion of students by other pupils, the constant col- loquial use of Latin, etc. are secondary features which have been abolished in most Jesuit schools. Much has been said against the supposed disastrous in- fluence of emulation and rivalry, encouraged by the Ratio, and the awarding of prizes and premiums. This system is not necessarily dangerous and, if properly and cautiously used, may become a whole- some stimulus. At the time when the elective system was looked upon by many as the greatest modern discovery in education, the Ratio Studiorum was
severely censured for upholding the "antiquated
system of prescribed courses". As the free elective
system is now considered a failure by the foremost
educationists, it is not necessary to refute this
charge against the Ratio. Besides, there is nothing
in the Jesuit system which prohibits a reasonable
amount of election, and many American Jesuit
colleges have introduced certain elective branches
in the higher classes. In regard to the numerous
controversies concerning Jesuit education, Mr.
Brown, U. S. Commissioner of Education (1911), has
well observed that "in most of these controversies
the Jesuit side is the side of many who are not
Jesuits" (Educational Review, Dec., 190-1, p. 531).
Even critics who judge the Ratio with excessive
severity are cpmpelled to admit that it contains
"much educational wisdom and experience, prac-
tical skill, and a pedagogical insight which never
swerves from the main purpose" (Professor Fleisch-
mann). Most of its essential features can well
be retained and will prove advantageous no matter
what new branches of study or methods of teaching
are introduced.
Some points deserve to be specially treated on account of the serious objections raised against the Ratio. We hear frequent, and often animated, discussions concerning the aim or scope of educational systems and of various branches of study. \\Tiat was the intellectual scope of the Ratio Studiorum? It cannot be better defined than in the words of the general of the Society, Father Martin, who said in 1892: "The characteristics of the Ratio Studiorum are not to be sought in the subject matter, nor in the order and succession in which the different branches are taught, but rather in what may be called the 'form', or the spirit of the system." This form, or spirit, consists chiefly in the training of the mind lefformatio ingenii], which is the object, and in the various exercises, which are the means of attaining this object. " This training or formation of the mind means the gradual and harmonious develop- ment of the various powers or faculties of the soul — of memory, imagination, intellect, and will; it is what we now call a general and liberal education. The training given by the Ratio was not to be specialized or professional, but general, and was to lay the foundation for professional studies. In this regard the Ratio stands in opposition to various modern systems which aim at the immediately useful and practical or, at best, allot a \'ery short time to general education; it stands Ln sharp contrast with those systems which advocate the earliest possible beginning of specialization. Jesuit educationists think, with many others, that "the higher the level on which the professional specializing begins, the more effective it will be". Besides, there are many spheres of thought, many branches of study, es- pecially literary and historical, which may not be required for professional work, but which are neces- sary for a higher, broader, and truly liberal culture. The educated man is to be not merely a wage-earner, but one who takes an intelligent interest in the great questions of the day, and who thoroughly under- stands the important problems of life, intellectual, social, political, literary, philosophical, and religious. To accomplish this a solid general training, prepara- tory to strictly professional work and reasonably prolonged, is most valuable. One of the means, in fact the most important one, for this liberal training, the Ratio finds in the study of the Classics. Much has been said and written, within the past decades, for and against the value of the Classics as a means of culture. The Ratio does not deny the educational value of other branches, as sciences, modern lan- guages, etc., but it highly values the Classical cur- riculum not merely because it is the old traditional system, but because, so far, it has proved to be the
