RATIO
656
RATIO
best means for giving the mind the much desired
liberal training and general culture. It cannot be
denied that the study of Latin, in particular, is ex-
cellently fitted to train the mind in clear and logical
thinking. Immanent logic has been called the
characteristic of the Latin language and its grammar,
and its study has been termed a course in appUed
logic. Some writers have asserted that the Ratio
prescribed Latin because it was the language of the
Church, and of political and scholarly intercourse
of former centuries, and that for this reason the per-
fect mastery of Latin, the acquisition of a Ciceronian
style, was the primary aim of Jesuit education. It
is true that in former ages, when Latin was the one
great international tongue of the West, the study
of this language had an eminently practical purpose,
and both Protestant and Catholic schools aimed at
imparting a mastery of it. But this was by no means
the only object even in those days. As a distin-
guished French Jesuit educationist expressed it in
1669: "Besides literary accomplishments gained
from the study of the Classical languages, there are
other advantages, especially an exquisite power and
faciUty of reasoning", that is, in modern terms,
mental training. The same is evident from the fact
that Greek was always taught, certainly not for the
purpose of conversation and intercourse. As there
are many other advantages, besides the formal
training, to be derived from the study of the Classics,
the Ratio needs no apology for the high value it set
on them.
As was said above, the various exercises (the "prelection", memory lessons, compositions, rep- etitions, and contests) are the means of training the mind. The typical form of Jesuit education, minutely described in the Ratio, is called pra-Ieclio; it means "lecturing" in the higher faculties, and its equivalent (Vorlesung) is even now used in German for the lectures in the universities. In the lower grades it means "explanation", but, as it has some special features, it is best to retain the word in an English dress as "prelection". It is applied both to the interpretation of authors and to the explana- tion of grammar, prosody, precepts of rhetoric, poetry, and style. In regard to the authors, the text was first to be read by the teacher, distinctly, accurately, and intelligently, as the best introduction to the imderstanding of the text. Then follow the interpretation of the text, formerly a paraphrase of the contents in Latin, now a translation into the vernacular; linguistic explanations of particular sentences; study of poetical or rhetorical precepts contained in the passage; finally, what is called "erudition" (i. c. antiquarian and subject explana- tion, including historical, archceological, geographical, biographical, political, ethical, and religious details, according to the contents). From many documents it is evident that a great deal of interesting and useful information was given under this head. But what is more important, the systematic handhng of the text, the completeness of the explanation from every point of view, was an excellent means of train- ing in accuracy and thoroughness.
Still it has been maintained that this method of teaching was too "formal", too "mechanical", and that as a re.'suU "originality and independence of mind, love of truth for its own sake", were .suppressed (Quick). Should this "independence of mind" be taken as unrestrained Uberty of thought in religious matters, as outspoken or disguised RationaHsm which places itself above the whole deposit of Di%ine Reve- lation, it mu.st, indeed, be admitted that the Ratio and the whole Jesuit teaching are opposed to this kind of "origin.ality and independence of min<r'. 'I'his, however, is a question of philosophy and theology rather than of pedagogical methods. Still, even some Catholic writers have thought that the
Jesuit system is unfavourable to the development of
great individualities, at least among the members
of the order. Cardinal Newman says: "\Miat a
great idea, to use Guizot's expression, is the Societj'
of Jesus! ^Miat a creation of genius is its organiza-
tion; but so well adapted is the institution to its
object that for that very reason it can afford to crush
individualities, however gifted" (Hist. Sketches, III,
71). ^Maether the great cardinal here fully endorses
Guizot's sentiments or not, it is certain that he vir-
tually refutes them in another passage, when he
states that the order was not o^-er-zealous about its
theological traditions, but suffered its great theo-
logians to controvert with one another. "In this
intellectual freedom its members justly glory; in-
asmuch as they have set their affections not on the
opinions of the Schools, but on the souls of men"
(ibid., II, 369). The history of the Society is the
best refutation of the charge of crushing individuali-
ties. The literary and scientific activity of the order
has been admired by its bitterest enemies. It has
produced not only great theologians (Suarez, Vasquez,
iMolina, de Lugo, and others), but men prominently
mentioned among the earUer Orientalists and writers
on comparative language, as Hervas, Beschi, Ricci,
Pr^mare, Gaubil; in the field of mathematics and
natural sciences high distinction has been obtained
by Clavius, called "the Euclid of his age", chief
agent in the reformation of the Calendar under
Gregory XIII; Grimaldi, Scheiner, and Secchi are
famous as astronomers; Athanasius Kircher was a
polyhistor in the best sense of the term; Hardouin,
though frequently hypercritical and eccentric, was a
most acute critic and in many ways far in advance
of his age; Petavius was the father of the historical
treatment of dogma and a leader in chronologj- ; and
the BoUandists have achieved a work which is truly
a monumentum (rre pcreytnius. If the number of great
men be taken as a criterion of the merit of an educa-
tional system, a long roll can be exliibited of pupils
who were among the most prominent men in Europe:
poets like Calderon, Tasso, Corneille, Moliere,
Goldoni; orators like Bossuet; scholars like Galileo,
Descartes, Buffon, Muratori, Montesquieu, Males-
herbes; statesmen like Richelieu; church dignitaries
like St. Francis de Sales and Benedict XIV, called
" the most learned of the Popes " . All these men were
trained under the Ratio, and, though it would be
puerile to claim all their greatness for the system
of education, one thing is certain, namely that the
Ratio did not crush the originality and individuality
of thesei pupils, whether members of the order or
outside it. Nor has the educational s.ystem of the
Society been sterile in more recent times in this regard;
among its pupils it mmibers men who have become
distinguished in everj' walk of life.
The history of the practical working of the Ratio is the history of the colleges of the Society. In 1706 the number of collegiate and university institutions was o\-er 7.50; Latin America alone had 96 colleges before the suppression of the Society. Some of the Jesuit colleges had over 2000 pupils each; while it is impossible to give an absolute average, 300 seems to be the very lowest. This would give the 700 and more colleges a sum total of over 210,000 students, all trained imder the same system. Even non- Catholics bestowed great praise on the educational efficiency of the Jesuit schools; it was a common complaint among Protestants that many non- Catholic parents sent their sons to Jesuit schools because they considered the training given there superior to that obtained elsewhere. The suppression of the Society in the second half of the eighteenth century meant the total lo.ss of i)roperty, houses, libraries, and observatories. After its restoration it had to struggle into existence mider .altered and unfavourable conditdons, During the nineteenth
