text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/338

318 intact and spotless. Divine revelation, the world's history, daily experience and our innermost conscience tell us that there are disorders and derangements, that there are not only holy and divine, but also animal desires, not only upward, but also downward tendencies in our nature. The great Apostle testifies to this truth, when he exclaims: "For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do." Now this "law of sin which fights against the spirit" manifests itself differently according to the different dispositions and the age of the individual. In youth, it assumes generally the shape of love of pleasure and enjoyment together with a tendency to idleness, and "idleness is the fruitful mother of many vices." The old educational systems believed in Allopathy, and thought that these moral diseases could be cured effectively only by means which directly attack the root of the evil. So they tried seriously to occupy a boy's mind, to accustom him to hard, steady work, to fight against his dislikes, to do his duty and to break his will. But, we are told, that was all wrong, it was only the outcropping of the severe and gloomy asceticism of former ages. Our modern pedagogues have discovered that Homoeopathy alone will do in education. "The poor children are overburdened, make it easy for them. Give, full vent to the pupil's inclinations and do not force him to anything he dislikes. For this would be interfering with the sanctity of the individual!"

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/338


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/339

Rh If the old view of life and youth and education savors of asceticism, the new one is sheer materialism. But setting aside all supernatural considerations, we must condemn the extreme electivism of the modern system on merely natural grounds. Nor is this attitude peculiar to the Society of Jesus; it is firmly maintained by educators who in their religious tenets differ widely from ourselves. Professor Münsterberg has well pointed out the damage which results from this system to the character of the child, to the "formal side of education," as he styles it. "A child who has himself the right of choice, or who sees that parents and teachers select these courses according to his tastes and inclinations, may learn a thousand pretty things, but never the one which is the greatest of all: to do his duty. He who is allowed always to follow the paths of least resistance never develops the power to overcome resistance; he remains utterly unprepared for life. To do what we like to do, – that needs no pedagogical encouragement: water always runs down hill. Our whole public and social life shows the working of this impulse, and our institutions outbid one another in catering to the taste of the public. The school alone has the power to develop the opposite tendency, to encourage and train the belief in duties and obligations, to inspire devotion to better things than those to which we are drawn by our lower instincts. Yes, water runs down hill all the time; and yet all the earth were sterile and dead if water could not ascend again to the clouds, and supply rain to the field which brings us the harvest. We see only the streams going down to the ocean; we do not see how the ocean sends up the waters to bless our fields. Just so do we see in

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/339


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/340

320 the streams of life the human emotions following the impulses down to selfishness and pleasure and enjoyment, but we do not see how the human emotions ascend again to the ideals, – ascend in feelings of duty and enthusiasm; and yet without this upward movement our fields were dry, our harvest lost. That invisible work is the sacred mission of the school; it is the school that must raise man's mind from his likings to his belief in duties, from his instincts to his ideals, that art and science, national honor and morality, friendship and religion, may spring from the ground and blossom."

According to Dean Briggs of Harvard, no people lay themselves more recklessly open to reductio ad absurdum than advocates of the elective system. They wish to put enjoyment into education, without being sure that such education is robust enough. He quotes the example of Dr. Martineau, who gave double time to the studies he disliked, in order to correct the weak side of his nature rather than to develop its strong side. Now it is not necessary to go to such length; studies need not be imposed because they are difficult and unpleasant, but if they are of real educational value they should be imposed although they are hard and unpleasant. Still, no branch is of any educational value, unless it presents difficulties; the mental powers are called into action and are trained only if they have to overcome obstacles.

Some pedagogists sneer at the idea that resistance, the overcoming of obstacles, plays an important part in education. Herein, however, they manifest their shortsightedness. The old adage, "Fast gotten, fast

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/340


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/341

Rh gone," might be expressed in somewhat different form: "Easily gotten, easily gone." Dr. Stanley Hall, President of Clark University, whose fame as an educator is widely acknowledged, has well said: "Only great, concentrated and prolonged efforts in one direction really train the mind, because they alone train the will beneath it." President Jones of Hobart College speaks to a like purpose: "The college must not always follow the line of least resistance. The intellectual life has also its athletic exercises, and mental slouchiness is no less to be regretted than physical insufficiency. The youthful will needs cultivation no less than the growing body."

On the same head Mr. Townsend Austen wrote most appositely in the North American Review (May 1898). He severely censures those systems of education which attempt to remove as far as possible the obstacles from the course of study. He rightly maintains that the finest nature is the one out of which the dross has been squeezed by painful pressure, and the precious metal has been hammered and beaten into shape. The human being rarely works more than he has to. He appreciates by instinct an easy thing – what college students call a 'snap'. Some of the strongest points of our nature are best called out by resistance. This element in education should never be overlooked. To eliminate the element of difficulty from a study is an act of dishonesty; it deceives the student. The practice side of almost any study is not interesting, but is often rather tedious and must be so: for instance, to spell correctly, to write good English, to draw well, to reason clearly. – This repugnance

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/341


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/342

322 constitutes one of the numerous forms of resistance offered to success in human endeavor; drudgery is the bridge to success. The honors of this life must be won, as the Germans say (and how well the progress of that nation illustrates it), "mit saurem Schweiss," and by the application of another German proverb: "Geduld bricht Eisen" (patience breaks iron). In the development of character in the youth the wise instructor finds the application of this principle most useful and efficient. Will power is acquired. The acquisition of self-control, by which I mean not only the ability to control the passions, but also to compel the action of the mental powers upon a given subject, is aided. The German historian, von Ranke, has stated as a principle in human development, that "all progress is through conflict." The results become of value, because they have a value in work.

Now this last principle was the favorite one of the founder of the Society of Jesus, which he used to inculcate on every occasion, quoting the words of Thomas a Kempis: Tantum proficies, quantum tibi ipsi vim intuleris – "The greater violence thou offerest to thyself, the greater progress thou wilt make." But the "make-it-easy" method – and such is the elective system as advocated by its foremost champions – is pernicious to the formation of the character.

Not less serious is the harm done to instruction, as distinguished from moral education. If the choice of subjects is left to the personal likings of the pupils, in many, if not in most cases, such branches will be chosen which seem to be the easiest, no matter what

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/342


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/343

Rh their educational value is. No one who knows human nature will deny this. But that the subjects left to the choice of the students are not all equally capable of giving a thorough mental discipline, is quite evident; and the easier the subject, the less is, as a rule, its educational value.

There are several false assumptions in the contentions of the advocates of electivism. They state without hesitation that the first and foremost object of modern education is to develop the special aptitudes of the pupils, and they apply this not only to college but also to high school education. But this is a most serious mistake. The application of the pupil's talent to specialties belongs to the university and the professional school; but in the secondary schools, and even in the college, special aptitudes may and should be left to themselves. They will assert themselves when the occasion offers, and the wise teacher will be more solicitous to prevent them from warping the whole course of education than to promote their abnormal development. Special aptitudes must be developed after the general education is completed.

The premature and excessive development of such special aptitudes will invariably result in products which have been called "lop-sided". It is Lowell who said: "I had rather the college turn out one of Aristotle's four-square men, capable of holding his own in whatever field he may be cast, than a score of lop-sided ones developed abnormally in one direction." The outcome of such education, or rather instruction, is a sort of mental deformity: one faculty is over-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/343


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/344

324 developed, while the others are suffering from atrophy. If the "special aptitude" of the student lies in the field of natural sciences or technics, he is liable to neglect altogether literature, history and philosophy, branches which are indispensable for the real culture of the mind. He becomes a narrow specialist, he swells the host of those men who even now afflict the community, men who are incapable of forming a sane opinion on any question which cannot be decided by a laboratory experiment. Such men have no perceptions of the relations and interrelations of the various branches of knowledge; they lack all appreciation of what is noble and sublime; above all they are most liable to ignore, or even to deny, that beyond the narrow limits of natural science lie truths of the utmost importance, unattainable by any process of synthetic reasoning. It is such warped specialists that Goethe ridicules in the famous passage in Faust (part 2, act 1):

There is always a danger that science leads to pride, particularly to that kind of pride which the Germans call Gelehrtenstolz and Professorendünkel. This danger is especially great in the case of specialists. Professor Paulsen quotes a passage from Kant, in which the philosopher of Königsberg speaks of "Cyclopses of science," who carry an immense weight of learning, a "load of a hundred camels," but who have only one eye, namely that of their own specialty. They lack

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/344


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/345

Rh entirely the "philosophic eye," with which they see the relations of things to one another. Of such men Schopenhauer, in his wonted forcible but not overpolite manner, has said: "The man who, disregarding everything else, studies one branch, will in this branch be superior to the rabble (vulgus), but in all the rest he will belong to it. If to this specialization is added a thing which now-a-days becomes more and more common, namely, the neglect of the ancient languages, in consequence of which the general humanistic culture is dropped, then we shall see scientists who, outside their special branch, are real oxen." This danger can be obviated only by a solid general training. But the earlier the specialization begins, the greater shall be the temptation to disregard all other branches, and to despise all those who know little about this special subject, no matter how much they know in other branches. This is intellectual pride, as contemptible as it is ridiculous.

After having described some of the effects which must necessarily result from electivism, as defended by some, we now turn to a plain question, which has been well stated by Professor Münsterberg. "Are elective studies really elected at all? I mean, do they really represent the deeper desires and demands of the individual, or do they not simply express the cumulation of a hundred chance influences? I have intentionally lingered on the story of my shifting interests in my boyhood; it is more or less the story of every half-way intelligent boy or girl. A little bit of talent, a petty caprice favored by accident, a contagious craze or fad, a chance demand for something of which scarcely the outside is known, – all these whir and buzz

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/345


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/346

326 in every boyhood; but to follow such superficial moods would mean dissolution of all organized life, and education would be an empty word. Election which is more than a chance grasping presupposes first of all acquaintance with the object of our choice. Even in the college two thirds of the elections are haphazard, controlled by accidental motives; election of courses demands a wide view and broad knowledge of the whole field. The lower the level on which the choice is made, the more external and misleading are the motives which direct it. A helter-skelter chase of the unknown is no election. If a man who does not know French goes into a restaurant where the bill of fare is given in the French language, and points to one and to another line, not knowing whether his order is fish, or roast, or pudding, the waiter will bring him a meal, but he cannot say that he has 'elected his course.' From whatever standpoint I view it, the tendency to base the school on elective studies seems to me a mistake, – a mistake for which, of course, not a special school, but the social consciousness is to be blamed."

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/346


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/347

Rh The same truth has been expressed in very plain language by other American educators. We mention a few utterances of more recent date. President Draper, of the University of Illinois, declared recently: "Children are being told that they should elect their studies. They cannot elect." Professor Peck of Columbia University, reviewing Father Brosnahan's answer to President Eliot's charges, speaks of the latter's "theories which have made Harvard into a curious jumble of college and university, and which President Eliot would like to see carried down into the schools, in the apparent belief that babes and sucklings have an intuitive and prophetic power of determining just what is going to be best for them in all their after life." Mr. Tetlow, of Boston, calls the elective system "elective chaos, and philosophical anarchism," and he lays down these propositions: the students are not competent to direct their own studies; most of the parents are utterly incompetent to make an intelligent choice, too many will readily accept the choice made

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/347


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/348

328 by the children; the principals and teachers are in most cases incompetent to make a wise choice for the pupils, as they are hardly ever sufficiently acquainted with the individual scholars. Indeed, to make such a choice for the individual would require nothing less than "direct revelation from on high," as no man knows sufficiently the talent and possibilities that may lie dormant in the mind of a young student. If this system is the outcome of the much vaunted child study and pedagogical psychology, we have little reason to boast of this modern science. And we think those are amply justified who, against this "apotheosis of individual caprice," defend the old system which prescribes those branches that give a solid general training and thereby prepare the mind for taking up successfully any specialty in due time. The philosophical basis of this system is undoubtedly sound, whereas the elective system fully deserves the stigma of "philosophical anarchism".

We have purposely dwelt longer on the question of "electives," as a serious charge has recently been raised against the educational institutions of the Jesuits for not accepting the electivism of some modern reformers. After having quoted the opinions of leading educators on that subject, we may ask: Was

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/348


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/349

Rh that charge justified? – It is superfluous to ask, whether the Society will ever adopt that excessive electivism advocated by several educationists. The Society considers this system as destructive of thorough education.

As early as 1832 the General of the Order, in an encyclical letter on education addressed to his subjects, thus spoke of new inventions: "As to the methods, ever easier and easier, which are being excogitated, whatever convenience may be found in them, there is this grave inconvenience: first, that what is acquired without labor adheres but lightly to the mind, and what is summarily gathered is summarily forgotten; secondly, and this, though not adverted to by many, is a much more serious injury, almost the principal fruit of a boy's training is sacrificed, which is, accustoming himself from an early age to serious application of mind, and to that deliberate exertion which is required for hard work." A comparison with former quotations shows an almost literal identity of these remarks with those of Prof. Münsterberg and other American educators. This agreement, in our humble opinion, is no discredit to either party. Before concluding this chapter, we repeat once more that the Jesuits are not absolutely opposed to the election of courses or branches. But they think with many other educators that the elective system could work well only with many limitations and safeguards. Such limitations are nothing else but prescriptions of certain branches.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/349


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/351

Rh mirers of the "practical" studies, above all of the natural sciences, decry the classical studies as useless, because they do not teach the rising generation how to build bridges or war vessels, how to make aniline colors, or how to utilize best the oil fields of Texas, or the Western prairies. These men do not appreciate classical studies because, to use the words of Brownson, they cannot reduce them immediately to any corresponding value in United States currency. They would rather fill their pockets with Attic oboli and drachmae than their brains with Attic thought. In a word, to them education is only the wild race after the hen that lays the golden eggs. All other requirements they count for nothing. Such views are based on an utter misconception of the intellectual scope of education, and on sheer ignorance of the educational value of the classics. This point we endeavor to illustrate in the present chapter.

The Society of Jesus has always valued classical studies most highly. In the preface to his Ratio Discendi et Docendi, Father Jouvancy says: "Any one acquainted with the Society of Jesus knows how highly she always esteemed the classical studies." Of late the Society has even been censured for clinging tenaciously to them, as to a venerable, but now out-of-date, curriculum. Be it remarked from the very outset, that the Society upholds the classical curriculum not because this is the old traditional system, but because it has so far proved the best means of training the mind, which is the one great end of education. The various branches of studies are the means to this end. Should other means prove better than the classical languages, the Jesuits would not

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/351


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/352

332 hesitate to accept them. They would teach, let us say French and German, instead of Latin and Greek. They would not have to change their system, they would apply it only to the new branches. And the much lauded new method of teaching modern languages by practice and exercise, is essentially what the Ratio Studiorum has insisted on all along. However, the Jesuits are not so short-sighted as to claim for the classical studies the educational monopoly which these studies held in former ages. It cannot be denied that the so-called modern high school, which has a curriculum of English, some other modern languages, mathematics, and natural sciences, answers to particular needs of our age. It is especially fitted for those who want to devote only a few years to study after the completion of the elementary course. For this reason the Jesuits have opened in various countries such "modern high schools," v. g. the Institut St. Ignace, Antwerp. In some of these schools they employ for many branches secular professional teachers, for instance in the successful "army class" attached to the College at Wimbledon, England. Still they think that the best preparation for the professions and for all who wish to exert a far-reaching influence on their fellow-men, is the complete classical course, together with mathematics, history, and a certain amount of natural sciences. They think, and with much reason, that the classical studies even at present should form the backbone of liberal educa-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/352


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/353

Rh tion. They think, with many other prominent educators, that the humanistic studies train the man, whereas the sciences train the specialist.

This is not the place to discuss fully the question of the value of the study of Latin and Greek for liberal education or general culture. Still, we cannot refrain from enumerating a few testimonies in their favor; and that they may be the more effective, we shall exclude those of professors of classical languages, who in this matter might be looked upon as prejudiced witnesses who speak pro domo sua. Many interesting statements were made some ten years ago by the ablest schoolmen of Germany in the famous Berlin Conference preparatory to the "New Plan of Studies" for the Higher Schools of Prussia, which was promulgated in 1892. The relative educational value of the various branches was discussed most thoroughly, and it is surprising to find what professors of mathematics, natural sciences, and medicine have to say in favor of classical studies. Dr. Holzmüller, Director of a commercial and industrial school, said: "I am a mathematician and professor of mathematics, a thorough Realist, but I sound a warning against exaggerating the educational value of mathematics in higher schools. The range of thought and ideas in mathematical studies is narrow; whereas the linguistic studies have many more forms of thought at their disposal." Professor Helmholtz of the University of Berlin, one of the leading scientists of the nineteenth century,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/353


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/354

334 said in the same conference: "The study of the ancient languages alone has so far proved to be the best means of imparting the best mental culture." As a proof he gives his own experience in the physical laboratory of the Berlin University, where the students that had made the classical course, after one year's laboratory work surpassed those who had made the so-called science course (Realschulen), although the latter had studied much more natural science than the former. Professor Virchow, one of the greatest medical authorities, although strongly opposed to the then prevailing methods of the gymnasium, made a plea for the classical studies, saying that "the dropping of Latin would prove most dangerous and injurious to the medical profession." It is a well known fact that this famous pathologist, who died but a few months ago, was an enthusiastic student and admirer of Greek Literature. The verdict of these scholars was based on personal experience made at the University of Berlin some years before. In 1899, seven years after Latin had suffered a severe loss in consequence of the School Order of 1892, Professor Virchow bitterly complained in the German Parliament, that "grammar had been kicked out of the gymnasia, and with it logic."

The graduates of the German schools which deal with practical subjects, and prepare students for commercial pursuits, or for entrance into polytechnic institutes, were at first debarred from entrance into the universities, being considered unqualified for university work; but in 1870 they were admitted, on equal terms with the graduates of classical schools, to

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/354


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/355

Rh the philosophical department of the universities. After ten years trial of this plan the philosophical faculty of the University of Berlin addressed to the Ministry of Instruction a memorandum, which is declared to be the most powerful plea ever made in behalf of classical studies. They declared unhesitatingly that the students of the practical schools were not fitted to pursue a university course on a par with the graduates of the classical schools, and that, if the plan was reversed, German scholarship would soon be a thing of the past. Even the representatives of science and modern languages in the faculty joined heartily in this judgment. In specifying the reasons why the admission of the non-classical graduate was injurious to the interests of higher education, the thirty-six professors mentioned slower development, superficial knowledge, lack of independent judgment, inferiority in private research, less dexterity, want of keenness, and defective power of expression.

Since 1890 new and significant results were obtained in Germany, which prove that the classical course, besides the better liberal training which it imparts, is no less fitted as a preparation for technical studies than the courses pursued in the Real-Gymnasium and the Oberrealschule. This was attested in the last Berlin Conference (1900), by professors of the Technical Institutes. The Professors of the Technical Institutes, v. g. of Aix-la-Chapelle, adduced statistics to this effect from their respective schools. Professor

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/355


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/356

336 Launhart of the Technical Institute (Hochschule) of Hanover stated that, from 1890-99, 1209 candidates were examined; 583 from the humanistic gymnasium, 588 from the Real-Gymnasium, and 31 from the Oberrealschule. The results of the examinations proved that the different courses had been equally efficient in preparing pupils for the technical studies. Be it remembered that the humanistic gymnasium devotes less time to mathematics and natural sciences, studies specially required for the technical schools, than the other two kinds of schools. This result, therefore, speaks very well for the solid mental training of the classical schools.

Still more interesting are the statements of Dr. Vogt, who is professor of mathematics in parallel classes of the humanistic Gymnasium and the Reform-Gymnasium at Breslau. This position gives him an exceptional opportunity to compare the results of the two systems. In the lower classes of the Reform-School French is taught, in the humanistic gymnasium Latin. Professor Vogt and his colleagues made the following observations in the third class (Quarta): In 124 hours of the Reform-School they could not achieve more than in the 84 hours of the Latin course. Age, talent, and other conditions of the students were compared, and it was found that all in all the two classes were equal. Does it not necessarily follow from this fact that French does not afford the same mental training as Latin? Professor Vogt maintains in general, that the pupils of the gymnasium acquire less in mathematics than those of the Real-Schulen, if the extent of knowledge is considered, but that their knowledge of mathematics is more intense, more

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/356


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/357

Rh thorough. This he ascribes to the more intense and more thorough training that Latin affords. In fact, this contention is amply proved by the above mentioned results obtained in the Technical Institutes.

The following testimony of a distinguished German writer, who had a large experience in this matter, may claim the attention of all educators. Dr. Karl Hildebrand writes: "If it were conceivable that a youth should entirely forget all the facts, pictures, and ideas he has learned from the classics, together with all the rules of Latin and Greek grammar, his mind would still, as an instrument, be superior to that of one who has not passed through the same training. To give an example, I may state that in my quality of inspector it was my duty to visit a very large number of French lycées and colleges, each of which is usually connected with an école speciale or professionelle, and here I found that the classical pupils, without exception, acquired more English and German than the others, in less than a quarter of the time. (The time devoted to living languages was six hours a week for four years in the special, and only one hour and a half a week for three years in the classical schools.) The same fact struck me in my visits to the German,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/357


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/358

338 Belgium, Dutch, and Swiss colleges. ... A similar experience may be gathered from practical life. One of the first bankers in a foreign capital lately told me that in the course of a year he had given some thirty scholars – who had been educated expressly for commerce in commercial schools – a trial in his offices, and was not able to make use of a single one of them, while those who came from the grammar schools, although they knew nothing whatever of business matters to begin with, soon made themselves masters of them."

The same evidence may be given for England. English papers, on the experience of leading English firms, combated the idea that a university degree was of no use to a man intended for business. Mr. Bryce, no mean authority on this subject, concludes the article in which he advocates a special commercial training, with this significant remark: "This paper is not designed to argue on behalf of what is called a modern or non-classical education. I am not one of those who think that either the ancient languages, or what are called 'literary' or 'humanistic' subjects, play too large a part in our schools, either in England or in the United States. On the contrary, I believe (basing myself on such observations as I have been able to make) that Latin and Greek, when properly taught, are superior as instruments of education to any modern language, and that 'literary' subjects, as history, are on the whole more efficient stimulants to the mind (taking an average of minds) than mathematics or natural science."

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/358


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/359

Rh If Mr. Huntington, the late railroad king, disapproved of colleges, because their training unfitted the young men for practical life, and discounted their chances for becoming millionaires, the right answer seems to have been given by President Jones of Hobart College. "Boys who have followed science, mathematics, and literature to their best results, are not, upon graduation, anxious to be brokers' runners or bank clerks at five or ten dollars per week, and do not exhibit a dawdling inaccuracy, whatever their pursuits. The fresh graduate Mr. Huntington complained of has usually 'skinned through college,' and has been unsatisfactory there also." He was one of the "students" who found football reports more enticing than the Latin and Greek classics; hence "their shortcomings and their commercial inefficiency are evidently not the results and handicaps of scholarship."

Here we must add that the popular argument against the classical studies is very superficial. We

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/359


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/360

340 hear it often said: Of what use are these studies? Men in after life mostly throw aside Latin and Greek; there are exceedingly few who after leaving school take a classical author into their hands. Let us grant it. But does it not follow, then, that the study of mathematics and natural sciences is equally useless except for those who become engineers or chemists? Or who, except a professional mathematician, ever in after life looks at logarithms, equations and the like? But there are many instances on record of men in prominent positions who with pleasure returned to the classics, which they had learned to cherish in college. We may quote one instance of a Jesuit pupil, whose name is indelibly engraved in the annals of American history, we refer to Charles Carroll, of Carrollton. Bishop England says of him: "I have known men who, during protracted lives, found in the cultivation of the classical literature that relaxation which improved, whilst it relieved the mind. The last survivor of those who pledged their lives and fortunes, and nobly redeemed their sacred honor in the achievement of our glorious inheritance of liberty, was a striking instance of this. When nearly fourscore years had passed away from the period of his closing the usual course of his classical education – after the perils of a revolution, after the vicissitudes of party strife, when the decay of his faculties warned him of the near approach of that hour when he should render an account of his deeds to that Judge who was to decide his fate for eternity, from his more serious occupations of prayer and self-examination, and from the important concern of managing and dividing his property, would Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, turn

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/360


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/361

Rh for refreshment to those classic authors with whom he had been familiar through life: – his soul would still feel emotion at the force of Tully's eloquence, or melt at Virgil's pastoral strain."

This much is certain from what has been said so far, that the advocates of "practical" studies indulge in a grave delusion when they object to the classical studies. Their usefulness even for a commercial and political career is undeniable, as President Stryker of Hamilton College pointed out in 1901. He said, it should be remembered that the best preparation for a practical and useful life is in the high development of the powers of the mind, and that, commonly, by a culture that is not considered practical. The great parliamentary orators in the days of George III. were remarkable for the intellectual grasp and resource they displayed in the entire world of letters, in the classics, in ancient and modern history. Yet all of them owed their development to a strictly classical training in the schools. And most of them had not only the gift of imagination necessary to great eloquence, but also had so profited by the mental discipline of the classics, that they handled the practical questions upon which they legislated with clearness and decision. The great masters of finance were the classically trained orators, William Pitt and Charles James Fox. Such an education puts no premium upon haste, nor does it discount future power by an immature substitution of learning for training. It is structural towards the whole man, and seeks to issue him, not "besmeared, but bessemered." It considers the capable metal more

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/361


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/362

342 than the commercial false edge. Serf-realization is the end.

The testimonies given so far undoubtedly outweigh the contemptuous charges which sometimes are hurled against colleges and higher education, by a few "self-made" men, who boast of their ignorance and proudly point to the millions which they were able to amass without any liberal education. These men and some other worshippers of the 'golden calf' frequently ask: "Of what use is the study of the classics? What can I do with Greek?" We have heard that the study of the classics is of very great use, also for practical life, and the fact that a few have become rich without them, does in no way prove against their usefulness. But let us for a moment entirely abstract from the utilitarian point of view and rise to higher conceptions of life. Too much has the spirit of the market place invaded the field of education; and the interests of a liberal training have too often been sacrificed to an insatiate commercialism. Is the highest goal of intellectual and social life nothing but the rearing of a few millionaires? No, there must be a higher aim of education, for the nation as well as the individual. A nation that aims at nothing but industrial and commercial expansion, neglecting the higher ideals of mankind, may flourish for a time, but will not contribute much to real civilization. History has proved this. Take the Carthaginians; for a considerable length of time they held the commercial supremacy among the nations. Even intellect there was in the service of capital. The economical principles of a later and more advanced epoch are found by us in

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/362


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/363

Rh Carthage alone of all the more considerable states of antiquity. But not this "nation of shop-keepers" has civilized the world, but poor Greece, whose culture, continued into the literature of Rome, together with the studies which it involves, has been the instrument of education, and the food of civilization, from the first times of the world down to this day. May we not find a lesson in this fact? This country has made marvellous strides in industrial and commercial enterprise, but should it not aim at becoming a leader in the world of science, literature and art? In order to assume this leadership, the country must aim at thoroughness in education, and at solid, productive scholarship. Now, so far the classical studies have proved the best basis of thorough education and solid scholarship, and doubtless will continue to do so in the future. The inference from this seems to be evident.

Fortunately, in this country, a reaction seems to have set in against the realistic tendency of our secondary schools, and people who have the real education of the nation at heart, are more and more converted to the conviction that the classical studies are most useful, if not necessary, for a liberal culture. It will be interesting to hear what the great journalist, Charles A. Dana, thought of the relation of classical studies to journalism. In a lecture delivered at Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., October 13, 1893, he said: "Give the young man (who is entering upon journalism) a first class course of general education: and if

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/363


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/364

344 I could have my own way, every young man who is going to be a newspaper man, and who is not absolutely rebellious against it, should learn Greek and Latin after the good old fashion. I would rather take a young fellow who knows the Ajax of Sophocles, and who has read Tacitus, and who can scan every Ode of Horace – I would take him to report a prize-fight, or a spelling match, for instance, than to take one who has never had these advantages."

Professor West of Princeton University stated in 1899 that a change of profound significance is taking place in our secondary schools. This change is an improvement, but in reality it is a return to the 'old-fashioned' classical courses, and the writer aptly styles it a 'New Revival.' As one important cause of the change now in progress he assigns dissatisfaction with former school programmes of study. There were too many studies crowded into the programme. In other words, American opinion is moving steadily, and irresistibly, toward the sound elementary and elemental conviction that the best thing for the mass of pupils in secondary schools is a programme consisting of a few well-related studies of central importance, instead of a miscellany.

Is there sufficient evidence, then, that this tendency of things is becoming strongly marked among us? Is attention being more and more concentrated on a few well-related leading studies which have been important in the best modern education? Let us see. Take out all the secondary studies for which statistics are available from 1889-90 to 1897-98:

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/364


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/365

Rh

The importance of the figures is the more evident when we bear in mind that the rate of increase in the total enrollment of pupils from 297,894 in 1889-90 to 554,814 in 1897-98 is 86 per cent. But certain studies are growing faster than this; some of them much faster. ''Latin, to the surprise of many, heads the list with its literally enormous gain of 174 per cent., a rate fully double the 86 per cent. which represents the eight year increase in the total number of pupils.'' Next comes history with 152 per cent., then the two mathematical disciplines (geometry with 147 and algebra with 141), and then German with 131. After these we find French with 107, and Greek with 94. All these and only these exceed the average. Physics and chemistry close the list somewhat below. Prominent educators all the world over hail this "new revival" as one of the most promising signs of the educational movement in America.

The foregoing pages contain sufficient proof that the Ratio Studiorum does not need any defence for giving such prominence to the study of the classical

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/365


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/366

346 languages, especially to Latin. On the contrary, it speaks well for the educational wisdom of the Jesuits that for about a century, despite the sneers of many modern school reformers, they firmly upheld that method to which the more prudent educators steadfastly adhered, and to which others, after roaming about far and wide, now wish to return.

It may be asked why the study of the classical languages is the best means of intellectual training and universal culture. The reasons are manifold. The first is the very fact for which this study is frequently attacked, namely, that these languages are dead languages. "They are not the language of common life. They are not picked up by instinct and without reflection. Everything has to be learned by system, rule, and formula. The relations of grammar and logic must be attended to with deliberation. Thought and judgment are constantly exercised in assigning the exact equivalents of the mother tongue for every phrase of the original. The coincidence of construction is too little, the community of idiomatic thought too remote, for the boy's mind to catch at the idea, by force of that preestablished harmony which exists among most modern tongues. Only the law of thought and logic guides him, with the assistance of a teacher to lead the way, and reassure his struggling conception."

This, then, is the first point of the study of the classical languages: logical training, training that leads to correct and clear thinking, to close and sharp reasoning. The study of Latin is better adapted to

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/366


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/367

Rh accomplish this effect than any other language; for, whereas Greek is more delicately organized, more beautiful and poetic, the Latin is perhaps the more systemically elaborated tongue. In its severe syntax it participates in some of the striking qualities of the Roman character, which seems to have been fitted to legislate, to govern, and to command, as the great poet has it:

The study of Latin requires such application of various rules and laws that it forces the student to the closest attention, to rigorous mental discipline. The processes of reasoning which are, at least implicitly, to be gone through, in translating an English sentence into Latin, are ample proof of this statement. Suppose a pupil has to render the following sentence into correct Latin: "As soon as you arrive at Philadelphia, give him the letter, to prevent him from going to New York." He will probably start: As soon as: ubi primum; arrive is pervenire, or advenire. Now what tense? Ubi primum, together with postquam, etc., is construed with the Perfect Indicative. But wait, does it always take the Perfect? No, only when a single past fact is related; is this the case here? That depends on the tense of the verb in the principal clause: it is give. What tense? It is properly the present tense, but has reference to the future. Therefore, the whole clause does not express a past but a future fact. In English arrive is present tense, but in Latin the use of tenses is much more accurate; if the action of principal and dependent clauses are both

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/367


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/368

348 future, they must be expressed by a future tense. Now arrive has a future meaning; therefore a future tense. But which of the two? First or second? That depends on the nature of the action; if the verb of the dependent clause denotes an action antecedent to that of the principal clause, it must be put in the tense which denotes antecedence. Now, let us see: the arriving at Philadelphia necessarily antecedes the giving of the letter; consequently I have to use the second future, the futurum exactum: ubi primum – venio, Perfect veni – well: ''perveneris. At Philadelphia; at is in; however, names of cities are construed without a preposition, they are used in the locativus, which in singular nouns of the 1st and 2nd declensions is like the Genitive case, therefore Philadelphiae. But is there not a rule about advenire, pervenire, congregari,'' etc.? They mean going towards, into, therefore I must use the construction answering the question: whither, therefore Philadelphiam. Very well. Now: give him the letter; give: trade, da; him: eum, but stop – eum is direct object, while in the given sentence him is indirect, so it must be ''ei, trade ei epistolam. – To prevent,'' is the infinitive, here it expresses a purpose. Clauses denoting purpose are not expressed by the infinitive in Latin prose, but by ut, causa with the gen. of the Gerund, or ad with the accusative, etc.; take ut: but attend to the sequence of tenses! – impedias eum; from going: a proficiscendo? No! but: quominus or ne proficiscatur. To New York – Neo-Eboraco? – Very often pupils use the Dative, not having been instructed from the beginning about the difference of to, meaning towards, into, and to, meaning for the benefit, in the interest of; here Neo-Eboracum. Now the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/368


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/369

Rh sentence is complete: Ubi primum Philadelphiam adveneris, epistolam ei trade ut impedias eum, quominus Neo-Eboracum proficiscatur.

Is it not surprising how much intellectual labor is spent, and well spent, in translating that little sentence? How many syllogisms were formed, or are at least implied? Père Fabri, a French Jesuit teacher, wrote in 1669: "Besides literary accomplishments gained from the study of the classical languages there are other advantages to be derived, especially an exquisite power and facility of reasoning. For in the writing of verses, in the examination of words and contents, a constant analysis and combination is required which helps the mind wonderfully to sound reasoning." Indeed, the study of these languages is a course of applied logic. Immanent logic has been called the characteristic of the Latin language and its grammar. "Latin grammar," says Dr. Karl Hildebrand, "is a course of logic presented in an almost tangible form. Let us only remember how an idea so abstract as that of subject and object is rendered palpable by the s and m." We said, the labor was well spent. For, a student who has thus been trained will acquire the habit of clear thinking. When a doctor, he will in a given case reason similarly, though not in that cumbrous form, but pass in a moment, unconsciously, because from habit, through various syllogisms, and examine whether this or that remedy will have the desired effect. A patient should natur-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/369


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/370

350 ally have much more confidence in such a doctor, than in one who has not had the advantage of the same logical training. The results will be similar in the case of a lawyer, a politician, a business man, a writer. The father in the fable told his sons that there was a treasure hidden in his vineyard. They began to dig the vineyard once, twice, and oftener, in the hope of finding the treasure. No chests of gold, no bags filled with good coin, appeared; but in the following year the vineyard yielded immeasurably more than ever before. Here was the treasure the wise father meant them to seek after. The same holds good in education. The man in later life may never again use his Latin or Greek, still the study of these languages has turned up the soil in the field of his intellect, fertilized it, and if now it yields a rich harvest, the result is to a great extent due to that patient digging, although he himself may not, and in most cases does not, realize to what source his success in life is to be ascribed.

But the logical training acquired by translating from or into the ancient languages, although a most important result, is by no means the only benefit of the study of those languages. There is, besides this formal side, the historical. The Latin and Greek literatures present to us at first hand all the great masterpieces of antiquity, which have inspired directly or indirectly most of what is really great and noble in modern literature. Most deservedly, therefore, have the classical studies been styled the ABC of all higher studies. Latin especially is, as Professor Paulsen styles it, "the gate to the great historical world. No

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/370


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/371

Rh one who wishes to move in wider circles of historical life can do without Latin." For similar reasons Director Jäger maintained the necessity of classical lore for the man who wishes to possess a title to real scientific preparation for higher studies. In the last Berlin Conference on higher education, 1900, there was probably no point so strongly insisted on as the necessity of Latin for all men who lay any claim to culture. Professor Harnack claimed that the humanistic training seemed to him especially necessary for all who had any great influence on their fellow-men and on the social and political life of a nation. Arnold had expressed a similar opinion when he said: "Expel Greek and Latin from your schools, and you confine the views of the existing generation to themselves and their immediate predecessors, you will cut off so many centuries of the world's experience, and place us in the same state as if the human race had first come into existence in the year 1500."

There is, in the third place, what we may call the literary and aesthetic momentum. When through means of grammatical studies the pupil is sufficiently prepared, he begins to read the greatest masterpieces of literature. Gradually he becomes intimately acquainted with some of the maturest minds of all ages, provided the teaching is carried on in the proper form, i. e. if the authors are read not to furnish merely material for grammatical drill, but in such a manner that the contents of the authors form the central part of the whole instruction, that the author begins to live, that the persons seem to act and speak before the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/371


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/372

352 eye of the student. He is thus introduced to one great author after another. First comes Caesar, whose plain but vigorous style is the true image of the great Roman general and statesman, who changed the greatest of republics into an Empire. Then appears Xenophon with his lifelike descriptions; Livy with his eloquent history of Rome, full of ardent patriotism; then Cicero, the most gifted and versatile of all the Romans, with his brilliant style, his sparkling wit, his cutting irony and stern denunciation of corruption. Then the student admires Ovid's elegant verses, Virgil's grand and stately lines, Horace's refined and tasteful stanzas. Then rises before him the great philosopher Plato, who portrays in fascinating dialogues the wise man of heathen antiquity, Socrates. If properly taught, but then only, the student is sure, after the struggle of a few months, to form an intimate friendship with the 'Father of Poetry', immortal Homer. He will soon realize the greatness of the blind old man, who lived in the mouths of a hundred generations and a thousand tribes; who, as Cardinal Newman says, "may be called the first apostle of civilization;" whose Odyssey and Iliad formed a source of purest enjoyment to many of the greatest men of history: to Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Newman, Gladstone, and countless others. We could continue and mention the powerful harangues of the prince of orators, Demosthenes, the grand and soul-stirring tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles. But we have enumerated enough to show what wealth and variety of intellectual food is placed before the classical student in the course of a few years. By these studies his aesthetical sense is developed, he acquires imperceptibly that precious gift, which we call taste.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/372


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/373

Rh Sometimes we hear it said that a good translation of these Greek authors would give us all the advantages we may derive from the study of the original. Any one acquainted with classical literature knows what to think of this assertion. Translations are, at the best, what the reproduction of a grammophone is compared to the original concert or solo. Father Jouvancy has well observed: "Translations of Greek authors, even if they are accurate, seldom render the force, beauty, and other striking qualities of the original. It is always better to draw drinking water from the source; the further it runs from the source, the more it is contaminated, and the more it loses its original taste."

This opinion is confirmed by the judgment of many modern writers. Thus Sterne says: "The most excellent profane authors, whether Greek or Latin, lose most of their graces whenever we find them literally translated. In the classical authors, the expressions, the sweetness of numbers, occasioned by a musical placing of words, constitute a great part of their beauties." Mr. Genung, Professor of Rhetoric in Amherst College, speaks thus of the "Untranslatable" in literature: "In all the higher achievements of literature there must necessarily remain a great deal that, in spite of the utmost skill, cannot be adequately reproduced in another language. The thought may indeed survive, though marred and mutilated, but the subtle spiritual aroma, the emotional essence perishes in the transmission. This is preeminently true of

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/373


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/375

Rh of heroic patriotism, of filial devotion, and dutifulness. The example of Socrates, dying in obedience to what he considers the voice of God, of chaste Penelope, of faithful Eumaeus, and of many other characters depicted so vividly and graphically with the inimitable simplicity and skill of the ancient writers, cannot fail to produce an elevating, ennobling and purifying effect on the hearts of the young; these examples show us that the sense of moral beauty was left in mankind even in the midst of the darkness and corruption of paganism. What have the other branches of study, mathematics and natural sciences, to offer that could be compared to this? Mathematics is an excellent means of developing logical thinking, but there its efficiency stops, it has, as professors of mathematics have said, "a narrow range of thoughts and ideas." It certainly does not inspire, does not elevate. Or whose heart has ever become warmed or ennobled by fully grasping the Pythagorean system, or by developing (a+b)³ or any other algebraic formula? Whose aesthetic or moral sense has been refined by analyzing FeS + H₂SO₄ = FeSO₄ + H₂S, or other chemical equations? Mathematics and natural sciences are justly called by the Germans Realfächer; they impart practical, useful knowledge, but not ideal, not liberal culture. Newman has well expressed this difference: "When an idea, whether it is real or not, is of a nature to interest and possess the mind, it is said to have life, that is, to live in the mind which is the recipient of it. Thus mathematical ideas, real as they are, cannot be called living, for they have no influence and lead to nothing." The same applies

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/375


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/376

356 more or less to the natural sciences, whereas the very opposite holds good of the study of literature and history.

In the fifth place we mention the gain classical studies yield to the mother-tongue. This is very important for a thorough and scholarly understanding of the English language, as two thirds or more of the English vocabulary are words derived from Latin. But the principal gain in knowledge of the mother-tongue is derived from careful, idiomatic translations into the vernacular. If translations are made regularly and accurately, there is little need of giving special instructions on English grammar and style. In the Berlin Conference of 1890 some of the leading men, among them Professor Helmholtz, emphasized this point, saying that "good and idiomatic translations are an instruction in the German language, which cannot be appreciated highly enough." The great Prussian schoolman Dr. Wiese had long before expressed himself to the same effect, referring to the example of Dr. Arnold of Rugby, who saw in good translation the best preparation for writing excellent English. "Whenever it is attended to," says Dr. Arnold, "it [translation] is an exercise of exceeding value; it is in fact one of the best modes of instruction in English composition, because the constant comparison with the different idioms of the languages, from which you are translating, shows you in the most lively manner the peculiar excellence and defects of your own." In another passage he writes: "Every lesson in Latin and Greek may, or ought to be made

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/376


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/377

Rh a lesson in English; the translation of every sentence in Demosthenes or Tacitus is properly an exercise in extemporaneous English composition; a problem how to express with equal brevity, clearness and force in our own language the thought which the original author has so admirably expressed in his." "The practice of translating," says James Russell Lowell, "by making us deliberate in the choice of the best equivalent of the foreign word in our own language, has likewise the advantage of schooling us in one of the main elements of a good style – precision." "The old theory is now reviving that the teaching of English in the modern fashion is of little value, and that the old method of teaching Latin grammar, and allowing English to take care of itself, is really sounder and more practical."

Similar are the words of a prominent schoolman of this country, Mr. Nightingale, Superintendent of High Schools, Chicago. In the Report of the Conference on English, read before the National Association of Education at Ashbury Park, N. J., 1894, he says: "I would have children at the age of ten or eleven years commence the study of that language which in the fields of persuasion and philosophy, of literature and law, is so largely the progenitor of the English – the incomparable Latin. If we would be strong we must contend with something – resist something – conquer something. We cannot gain muscle on a bed of eiderdown. Toying with straws will only enervate

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/377


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/378

358 the faculties. The blacksmith's arm becomes mighty through his ponderous strokes of the hammer on the anvil. The very facility of the acquisition of the modern languages precludes the possibility of discipline. Put Latin into our common schools, and the puzzling problem of English Grammar will be nearing its solution, for the why that meets the pupil at every step, the very laboriousness and difficulty of the task, will open the intellect, develop the powers of discrimination and adaptation, enlarge the vocabulary, enable the student to write a better English essay, use a more terse and trenchant style of speech, and grasp with more avidity and keenness any promulgated form of thought, than if he should spend quintuple the time on the study of the English Grammar alone."

Is it not significant that nearly all the great English writers and orators were ardent admirers and students of the classical languages? A Pope, a Dryden, an Addison, a Milton, a Burke, a Pitt, a Tennyson and a Newman, and others? The younger Pitt gives a student the following advice: "The practice of rendering the Greek and Roman classics into English, and of committing to memory the most eloquent passages which occur in reading, is the best exercise in which the young student can engage. It imparts a command of language, aids him in acquiring a forcible style, affords the best mental discipline, strengthens the memory, cultivates his taste, invigorates his intellect, and gives him a relish for the sublime and beautiful in writing." Further, the whole of English literature is so saturated with classical allusions, that without a fair knowledge of the more important works of Greek and Roman writers, it is impossible to ap-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/378


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/379

Rh preciate fully, or even to understand the finest productions of English literature. This being the case, we have another proof that our modern pedagogists, by exaggerating the claims of the natural sciences beyond all reasonable bounds, are doing great harm to literature and liberal culture.

Having reviewed the various advantages which the study of the classics affords, we may well say with one of the greatest minds of the nineteenth century: Modern methods and sciences, and "their inestimable services in the interest of our material well-being, have dazzled the imaginations of men, and since they do wonders in their own province, it is not unfrequently supposed that they can do as much in any other province also. But to advance the useful arts is one thing, and to cultivate the mind another. The simple question to be considered is how best to strengthen, refine, and enrich the intellectual powers; the perusal of the .poets, historians and philosophers of Greece and Rome will accomplish this purpose, as long experience has shown ; but that the study of experimental sciences will do the like, is proved to us as yet by no experience whatever. Far indeed am I from denying the extreme attractiveness, as well as the practical benefit to the world at large, of the sciences of chemistry, electricity, and geology; but the question is not what department of study contains the more wonderful facts, or promises the more brilliant discoveries, and which is in the higher and which is in the inferior rank; but simply which out of all provides the most robust and invigorating discipline for the unformed mind. ... Whatever be the splendors of the modern philosophy, the marvellousness of its dis-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/379


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/380

360 closures, the utility of its acquisitions, and the talents of its masters, still it will not avail in the event, to detrude classical literature and the studies connected with it from the place which they have held in all ages in education." Goethe, realizing what debt he himself owed to the classics, exclaimed: "Would that the study of Greek and Roman literature forever remained the basis of higher education."

These are the reasons why the Society of Jesus always gave such prominence to classical studies. She considers them to be among the "few well-related studies of central importance;" to them she would apply the words of Dr. Stanley Hall, quoted before: "Only great, concentrated and prolonged efforts in one direction really train the mind." The mind can never be trained by that miscellany of studies crowded into the programme of our modern systems. Their effects on youth were ably pointed out seventy years ago by the General of the Society, Father Roothaan, "In the lower schools [he means grammar schools and colleges], the object kept in view is to have boys learn as many things as possible, and learn them in the shortest time and with the least exertion possible. Excellent! But that variety of so many things and so many courses, all barely tasted by youth, enables them to conceive a high opinion of how much they know, and sometimes swells the crowd of the half instructed, the most pernicious of all classes to the sciences and the State alike. As to knowing anything

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/380


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/381

Rh truly and solidly, there is none of it. Ex omnibus aliquid, in toto nihil: Something of everything, nothing in the end. In the method of conducting the lower studies, some accessory branches should have time provided for them, especially the vernacular tongues and literatures. But the study of Latin and Greek must always remain intact and be the chief object of attention. As they have always been the principal sources of exhibiting the most perfect models of literary beauty in precept and style, so are they still."

Here it is necessary to meet some objections to the Jesuit system. It is said that, however much the Jesuits insisted on the classical studies, they directed them to a wrong end. They aimed only at "formation of style." "To write in Latin is the ideal they propose to their pupils... They direct the pupil's attention, not to the thoughts, but to the elegancies of language, to the elocutionary effort; in a word, to the form." Thus M. Compayré. Mr. Painter tells us even that the Jesuits' "plan" says: "The study of classic authors can have for us only a secondary end, namely, to form the style, we wish nothing else. Style will be formed essentially after Cicero." What answer can be given to this serious charge? The answer is a very simple one: the first sentence of Mr. Painter's quotation is untrue. That statement of his is nowhere contained in the whole Ratio, neither literally nor equivalently. The Ratio and its commentator Jou-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/381


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/382

362 vancy state expressly that various things are to be considered in these studies: knowledge of language, of grammar, of syntax, precepts of rhetoric, style, and varied erudition. Jouvancy, in the schemata for explaining the authors, has five or six points, the first is always the interpretation of the meaning, the contents, the linguistic and logical explanation; then rhetorical or poetical precepts, then general erudition, and lastly Latinity. This proves how untrustworthy are the quotations of Mr. Painter and of other critics of the Ratio. The perusal of the commentary of Jouvancy refutes also in general the charge of "mere formalism." However, if by "formal" is meant the general linguistic training, the Society has always laid great stress on it. Many scholars begin to deplore the fact that this "formal" training is being neglected too much in the new schools. "The great linguistic and logical training which results from solid and properly conducted instruction in grammar, especially in another language, particularly in Latin and Greek, has of late been undervalued – the nemesis for it has come already."

It is true that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Jesuits did not enter as fully into the explanation of the contents as is demanded at present. But who can blame them for this? It is true also that

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/382


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/383

Rh they insisted very much on speaking and writing Latin, much more than is advisable in our days. But so did the Protestant schools. For this mastery of Latin was at that time of foremost practical importance, as Latin was the universal language of Western Christendom, the language of law and science, and the necessary organ of international intercourse. As it was necessary, therefore, to teach Latin in such a manner as to enable the pupils to write it, the Jesuits endeavored to do this as well as possible; hence they insisted much on a good Latin style, and imitated most of all that of Cicero, a choice which only some radical critics of the school of Mommsen can condemn. If even at present the writing and speaking of Latin is one of the exercises in the Jesuit schools, it is not for the same practical purpose as formerly, but these exercises are directed towards the logical training of the mind. Besides, much less time is devoted to these exercises now than heretofore. – That the writing and speaking of Latin was never the only object of teaching this language, is proved from the manner in which the authors were explained; it is also sufficiently clear from the fact that Greek was always taught in the Jesuit schools, certainly not for the practical purpose of speaking it, but for purposes of general training. One of these purposes was to acquaint the pupils with the classical writers, with their thoughts and ideas.

But here M. Compayré has discovered another defect in the Jesuit system. "It is to be noted, besides, that the Jesuits put scarcely more into the hands of their pupils than select extracts, expurgated editions.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/383


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/384

364 They wish in some sort to efface from the ancient books whatever marks the epoch and characterizes the time. They detach fine passages of eloquence and beautiful extracts of poetry, but they are afraid, it seems, of the authors themselves; they fear lest the pupils find in them the old human spirit – the spirit of nature." There are several fallacies in this assertion. First of all the terms "select extracts" and "expurgated editions" apparently are used by M. Compayré as synonymous; but this is not correct. An expurgated edition, v. g. of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, gives the whole work with the omission of but a few objectionable passages. Such editions are certainly not to be called select extracts from these authors. The Jesuits used to read select extracts from some authors, whose works are of such a character as to make it impossible to read them entire, as Juvenal, Tibullus, Catullus, etc. But they read the great works, the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Aeneid, some of Plato's Dialogues, the works of Cicero, etc., in expurgated editions in which only a few indecent passages were left out. These editions did not efface what characterized the time, or marked the spirit of the authors. On the contrary, it would have been directly against the principles of the Jesuits to suppress all this. For, whereas the Protestant Reformers and the Jansenists taught that man, unaided by grace, was utterly corrupt and unable to do anything good, that the seeming virtues of the pagans, of a Socrates and others, were but gilded vices, the Jesuits always maintained firmly that fallen man remained capable of performing some good works. The Jesuits were more

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/384


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/385

Rh than once styled Pelagians or Semipelagians, because, as their adversaries said, they extolled human nature too much. The Jesuits could, consistently with their philosophical and theological doctrine, propose to their pupils the example of the natural virtues of the pagans.

On the other hand, they were most anxious to show the immense superiority of the religion of Christ to the philosophical systems of the ancients; they pointed out the helplessness of Greek philosophy to raise man above the baser elements of nature, and they showed into what an abyss of corruption the human race, left to itself, had fallen. All this instruction they could impart only if they left in the authors what was characteristic of their time and spirit, except such passages as on account of their obscenity were not fit to be read by youths. Here we have the meaning of the saying frequently used by Jesuit educators: "So interpret pagan authors as to make of them heralds of Christ." The religious and moral principles of the ancients were to be judged by the standard of Christian principles; what manifested the human spirit in its divine likeness, the testimony of the Anima naturaliter Christiana, as Tertullian says so beautifully, was approved and recommended; what exhibited that spirit of nature which is "the enemy of Christ," was condemned. If M. Compayré reprehends the Jesuits for doing this, they must be proud of such reproach; for it is a contumely suffered for defending the teaching of Christ against the doctrine of rank naturalism.

The Jesuits were never afraid of the ancient authors themselves. History has proved this. If they had been afraid, they would have introduced the Christian Latin and Greek authors instead of the pagan classics.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/385


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/386

366 As they possessed almost an educational monopoly in Catholic countries for about two centuries, it is certain that they would have succeeded, had they attempted such a change. But they never attempted this change; on the contrary, they strongly opposed such attempts. It suffices to allude to the famous controversy carried on with so much vigor by Abbé Gaume in France, about fifty years ago. This zealous scholar maintained that the pagan classics infected the schools with pagan ideas; indeed, he saw in their use in the schools the "fatal cancer which preys upon the vitals of Christianity." Christian Latin and Greek authors should, therefore, be substituted for the pagan classics. Many distinguished Catholic scholars and writers, such as Montalembert, Louis Veuillot, Donoso Cortes and others sided with Abbé Gaume. Among those who most strenuously defended the classics were the Jesuits, foremost among them Father Daniel. In a most elegant and learned book this Jesuit proved overwhelmingly that, from the earliest centuries, the majority of the great Doctors of the Christian Church were not opposed to the classics, on the contrary that most of them favored their study, and that the severe language of a few Fathers is directed not against the classics as such, but against the idolatry and obscenity contained in many of them.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/386


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/387

Rh There was, as far as I can ascertain, only one Jesuit writer who ranged himself prominently on the side of Abbé Gaume in this controversy. The Jesuits, as a body, "the greatest of all educational communities," as a writer at the time called them, stood up for the defence of the classics. They did not deny that the classics contained dangerous elements, which could work evil in men of bad hearts, or weak heads. But they thought that it was the vicious organization of the individual, or a pernicious system of teaching, as that of many humanists, that extracted the poison from the classics and rejected the sound aliment of intellectual food contained in the ancient literature. This danger cannot exist for all, and it can be effectively remedied by wise teaching. As the afore-mentioned writer declared, "put education into proper hands, and the greatest step [towards obviating

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/387


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/388

368 possible evils] is achieved. The present position of the Jesuits in France is for us a more hopeful sign than would be the introduction of the very system called for by Abbé Gaume."

In 1894 M. Jules Lemaître renewed the attacks on the classics, directing his accusations especially against the Jesuit schools. "I find," he writes, "in the pagan authors read in schools voluptuous naturalism, Epicurean principles, or that Stoicism which is not virtue but pride. The consequences of this anomalous state of affairs are incalculable. We cannot wonder that the Jesuit colleges have produced so many pagans and freethinkers, among them Voltaire." Now this is very amusing. This writer accuses the Jesuits of fostering a heathen, free-thinking spirit, by means of teaching the classics; and M. Compayré charges them with suppressing the characteristic spirit of the classical writers. This is one of the numberless contradictions into which the opponents of the Society have been betrayed. If the classics were taught in the spirit of M. Compayré, there is little doubt that, as Abbé Gaume and M. Lemaître apprehended, free-thinkers would be produced. But the Jesuits teach them in quite a different spirit. Hence the charges of these writers are wide of the mark. Nor did the Jesuits give mere anonymous fragments, mere travesties of the classics, as M. Compayré claims. They expunged obscene passages from their editions, as conscientious non-Catholic editors have done, and that is all. The reasons for doing this are so obvious that

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/388


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/389

Rh there should be no need of defending this practice. However, we shall say more on this subject when speaking of the "Moral Scope of Education." (Chapter XVII.)

One more word about selected extracts. One of the greatest Greek scholars of our age, Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf of the Berlin University, has just published, at the recommendation of the Prussian Ministry of Instruction, a Greek reader consisting of selected extracts from different authors and different kinds of literature. The object of this book is to give the students of the higher classes of the gymnasium, by means of characteristic selections from various kinds of writings, a conspectus of the whole range of Greek literature. We do not wish here to attempt a criticism of such a plan; what we want to state is that, even at present, great scholars think selected extracts of great value especially for acquainting the students with the spirit of a great nation, as expressed in its literature. If, then, the Jesuits had read chiefly selected extracts – which is not the case – M. Compayré would not be justified in blaming the Jesuits in particular for doing this, unless he could prove that their selections were destitute of all educational value.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/389


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/391

Rh and to study the whole grammar inductively. Such reading cannot be fruitful. Let us hear two German schoolmen on this question. Director Jäger of Cologne said in the 41st Conference of the German Philologians and Educators (Munich, 1891): "The reading of the authors should remain the principal object of the classical training, but it must be an intelligent reading, reading that is understood because of solid grammatical training imparted previously. Only thus can the study of a language become a means of scientific knowledge. Therefore, sufficient time must be devoted to the grammatical training." Professor Seeliger makes the following very timely observations: "One point in the linguistic training must not be lost sight of: namely, that the understanding of the authors must be solid; but a solid appreciation of the authors can be built only on the foundation of a knowledge of grammar. Teachers now-a-days try too much to keep this end out of sight for fear of public opinion; some weakly yield to the Zeitgeist and hush it up altogether, to proclaim the more loudly that the reading of the authors is the only object of classical instruction. But I think grammatical discipline is very salutary, even for the youth of the present age, indeed, a remedy against many dangers of our time. And any one of us teachers who conscientiously endeavors to make instruction effective should fearlessly profess to be a grammaticus, and act according to this profession."

The Ratio Studiorum prescribes the authors to be studied in the various classes, and in Jouvancy's commentary and similar documents, other authors are mentioned which may be read alongside or instead of

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/391


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/392

372 those enumerated by the Ratio. As we have seen, the matter and the order in which the different subjects are to be taught are not essential to the Ratio. Consequently it is not necessary to follow strictly the given list. If in any point the Ratio can and must be adapted to the times, it is in the choice of authors. Therefore, those which are generally read in other classical institutions of the country, should be preferred and taught according to the spirit and method of the Ratio. In fact, all authors read in the modern classical schools are mentioned in the Ratio or by Jouvancy.

In different ages we find different tastes and opinions. We must not, therefore, be surprised to find authors recommended as school books which do not suit our taste. We give here a list of authors as contained in different documents of the Society. When the Ratio enumerates many authors for one and the same class, it is understood that the choice was left to provincial or local superiors.

(first high school class): Latin: easy selections from Cicero, if possible in separate editions; Fables of Phaedrus, Lives of Nepos.

Latin: Ratio Studiorum: the same as preceding. Jouvancy: somewhat more difficult letters of Cicero, Virgil's Bucolics, selections from Ovid and other poets. – Greek: Fables of Aesop.

Latin: Ratio Studiorum: Letters of Cicero, Caesar's Commentaries, easy poems of Ovid. Jouvancy: Cicero's Somnium Scipio-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/392


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/393

Rh nis, Virgil's Georgics, especially books I and IV. Ovid's Metamorphoses. – Greek: Fables of Aesop; the Tablet of Cebes; select dialogues of Lucian.

Latin: more important letters of Cicero; De Senectute, De Amicitia etc.; select elegies and epistles of Ovid, or selections from Tibullus, Catullus, Propertius, and Virgil's Eclogues; or the fourth book of Virgil's Georgics, the fifth and seventh book of the Aeneid etc. – Jouvancy: Caesar, Cicero's ''De Officiis. – Greek:'' St. Chrysostom (select Homilies), Xenophon. – Jouvancy: Orations of Isocrates.

(Freshman). Latin: Cicero, especially ethical writings and easier orations. Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Curtius etc.; of the poets, above all Virgil (Aeneid); Odes of Horace, etc. – Greek: Orations of Isocrates, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, Epistles of Plato, and Synesius, selections from Plutarch; of the poets: Homer, Phocylides, Theognis etc. Nadal prescribes besides: Aristophanes.

(Sophomore). Latin: Rhetorical works and orations of Cicero; Quintilian; historians. Jouvancy: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius etc.; poets (not specified by the Ratio); Jouvancy: Seneca, Juvenal etc. – Greek: Demosthenes, Plato, Thucydides, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar etc.; also St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom. – Jouvancy: Sophocles or Euripides. – Nadal prescribes Demosthenes, Thucydides, the tragedians, Pindar, and "all the more important and more difficult authors."

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/393


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/394

374 From this last statement, and in fact from the whole list, it appears that all the important authors were included in the Jesuit plan, and that those who made the sweeping assertion that "the greatest Greek authors were all excluded from the Jesuit schools," have not looked at the documents of the Society. All the most important authors were explicitly prescribed. It is evident that not all the authors which are mentioned could be read. The different provinces of the Society drew up lists, or catalogues of authors, which varied in different years. Thus in the Province of Upper Germany in 1602-1604 a catalogus perpetuus was drawn up, i. e. a list of authors to be read every four or five years. We subjoin the list of the books for Rhetoric class.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/394


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/395

Rh In the Province of the Rhine in Rhetoric class were read:

These lists represent a considerable amount of reading from the best authors. Modern writers object to some of the authors recommended by the Ratio. However, to avoid unfairness, it should not be forgotten that the opinions held in former ages about certain authors were different from those current at present. The same objections can be made against Protestant school plans of former centuries. Thus Melanchthon, as well as the Jesuits, considered the smaller poems formerly attributed to Homer, v. g. the Batrachomyomachia, as a fit school classic. Also Hesiod, Aratus, Plutarch, and Lucian are recommended by Melanchthon.

Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, the Disticha Catonis, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Lucan, Pliny, Pru-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/395


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/396

376 dentius, Publilius, Sedulius, Seneca, Severus, Vellejus, Aelian, Aesop, Cebes, Hesiod, Lucian, Phocylides, Plutarch, Pythagoras, Theognis etc., were read in the Protestant schools of Brunswick and other countries. Besides, in these schools the works of the Neo-Latinists, as Buchanan, Castalio, Eobanus Hessus, Erasmus, Lotichius, Sabinus, Sleidanus and others, were read more extensively than in the Jesuit schools, which confined themselves almost exclusively to the ancient classics. As the ancient authors possess a far superior educational value, the choice of the Jesuits betokens great pedagogical wisdom.

It is evident that authors like Theognis, Phocylides, etc. are not read in modern Jesuit schools. In fact the Jesuits have, in the choice of authors, suited their schools to the times.

It may also be questioned whether it is advisable to read selections from Cicero's letters in the lowest classes, as they can be given only piecemeal; they furnish an excellent subject for higher classes, after the students have become acquainted with Roman history. For the lowest class good connected pieces, short stories from history, mythology etc., as found in Latin Readers, will serve the purpose better than Cicero's letters. In the next class the Lives of Nepos may be taken up, followed by the study of Caesar's Commentaries in the third. Such a plan was suggested by the German province as early as 1830. In the propositions sent to Rome in that year it was said that Cicero's letters, with very few exceptions, require a considerable knowledge of Roman history and should

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/396


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/397

Rh be replaced by select historical passages etc. from the writings of the same author.

Father Jouvancy, in several chapters of his Ratio Discendi, gives brief notes on the most important Latin and Greek authors and their characteristics, "to show," as he says, "in what order they should be read and what fruit may be derived from their study." A few of his remarks, as is to be expected, cannot stand in the light of modern philological and historical criticism. However, for the greater part his observations are most judicious and correct. We shall embody the substance of these chapters of Jouvancy in the following notes on the authors, supplementing them from the splendid History of Universal Literature of Father Baumgartner, and comparing them with the opinions of other prominent scholars.

is first and preeminently prescribed by the Ratio for every grade. And rightly so, if we except the lowest classes. For he is the master of the Latin language and the best representative of ancient culture, indeed, as regards Latin oratory, the only representative. In former times, particularly during the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/397


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/398

378 Renaissance, Cicero was overestimated; now, after the sweeping condemnations of Drumann, Froude, and Mommsen, it has become the fashion to treat him with contempt. Cicero finds a more sympathetic, and we think more just, treatment at the hands of the great Cardinal Newman, in his Personal and Literary Character of Cicero, where the life of this gifted Roman, his works, and his style are admirably described. Cicero's style is so splendid and masterly that the greatest of the Romans, Caesar, could not help admiring his inventive powers, which, as Newman says, "constitute him the greatest master of composition that the world has seen." Of late years a healthy reaction has set in against the vagaries of such radical critics as Mommsen and Froude. Quite recently Professor von Wilamowitz of the University of Berlin, stated emphatically: "In spite of Mommsen, Cicero must remain the centre of Latin instruction."

Which works of Cicero are to be read? The Ratio Studiorum and other documents mention his epistles, orations, philosophical and rhetorical works. Some specimens of all these should be studied.

I. Of his orations the following deserve especially to be read.

. Verrinae I, IV, V; in the fourth, De Signis, the marvellous grouping of the material is highly instructive. 2. ''De Imperio Cn. Pompei (De Lege Manilia),'' has a most lucid disposition. 3. In Catilinam,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/398


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/399

Rh especially the first and third exhibit a splendid eloquence. 4. Pro Milone, distinguished by masterly argumentation. 5. One or other of the Philippicae (the second seems to be the best). 6. Pro Ligario. 7. Pro Marcello. 8. Pro Archia Poeta (contains a magnificent passage on the Liberal Arts). – Cicero's invectives (against Catiline and Anthony) are sometimes wanting in gravity, and are too declamatory; his laudatory orations, on the other hand, are among his happiest efforts. But all abound in descriptions full of life and nature, and his skill in amplification is unsurpassed.

II. Philosophical writings:

1. The finest part is his Somnium Scipionis, on the immortality of the soul, (in his De Republica, which cannot well be read on account of the many gaps in the text). 2. Cato Major, or De Senectute, is clear and easy, and is better than Laelius: De Amicitia. 3. De Officiis is well fitted for the highest classes. 4. The Disputationes Tusculanae, especially lib. 1, form good and relatively easy reading.

III. ''Rhetorical Works. De Oratore, Orator ad Brutum'' etc., are read in Rhetoric class (Sophomore).

IV. The Letters of Cicero form the most valuable, as well as the largest, collection of letters (870 pieces)

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/399


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/400

380 we possess of any of the ancients. They are the most important source for the history of this remarkable period. In a very pleasant manner the writer exposes all his good and weak points: his honest, although short-sighted patriotism, his affectionate heart, his fickleness, inconstancy and vanity. Drumann and Mommsen, who take his naive confessions in a wrong light, are too severe on Cicero. Professor Mommsen is altogether biased against Cicero in favor of his hero Caesar. Mr. T. Rice Holmes has well said with reference to Mommsen: "Historical imagination is a great quality, but it should not be allowed to run riot."

These letters are an excellent subject for study in the middle or higher classes. A selection can easily be made so as to illustrate Cicero's stormy career from 62-43 B. C., as well as to reflect the whole history of that period fraught with events, which were to change the world's history. For this purpose the following selection used to be read in a Jesuit college of this country: Ad Fam. V, 1; V, 2; Ad Att. II, 22; Ad Fam. XIV, 4; Ad Att. IV, 1; Ad Fam. VII, 1; XIV, 4; Ad Att. VII, 11; Ad Fam. XVI, 12; Ad Att. VIII, 3 (Cicero's opinion of Pompey and Caesar); Ad Att. IX, 18 (a highly interesting description of Cicero's interview with Caesar); Ad Att. XII, 18; Ad Fam. IV, 5 and 6; Ad Att. XIV, 12; Ad Fam. XI, 27 and 28; XI, 1; IX, 14; XII, 4; X, 28, etc.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/400


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/401

Rh The translation of Cicero should be exquisite and polished, as is the noble and refined diction of the original.

Of the character of this "greatest of the Romans," Mommsen has given a splendid delineation in his Roman History, although this sketch is overdrawn and entertaining rather than convincing. We have here to do with Caesar only as historian, particularly as the writer of the Commentaries on the Gallic War. For simple straightforward historical style these commentaries remain up to this day, an unsurpassed model. Caesar's style is remarkable for clearness, ease, perfect equality of expression, and a simplicity bordering on severity. There is something of the imperator or the dictator in his very language. He commands style and language as he does his legions. After the first difficulties are overcome, the reading ought to be quick, as that of all histories and epics in general. Continual references are to be made to the maps. Drawings and plans, illustrating the descriptions of battles and sieges, will arouse interest and facilitate the understanding of the text. The translation of this author, quite different from that of Cicero, should be plain and forcible, like the original itself. From the historical standpoint it must not be overlooked that Caesar's Commentaries are not an unbiased historical work, but one written for a political purpose, viz., the justification of his proceedings in Gaul. The great general was also a skilled strategist in writing, a master in the art of grouping events, so

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/401


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/402

382 as to represent his measures as justified without losing the appearance of strict historic objectivity. In particular the speeches are frequently clever partisan writings. From the ethical point of view it will be also necessary to indicate occasionally the brutality of this great imperialist in dealing with the Gallic and German tribes. Roman military antiquities should be studied in connection with the reading of the Commentaries, while the civil, political and social antiquities are best treated in connection with the study of Cicero. So it was done in the Jesuit schools under the name of "general erudition."

great history of Rome is not a critical work, but a popular narrative, written with the warmth of an enthusiastic patriot. His Latin is not as elegant and grand as Cicero's, but is, as Jouvancy says, "forcible and dignified." In a period of moral decadence he upheld the old virtus Romana which had made Rome the queen of the world. Of special beauty are the speeches which Livy makes his heroes deliver in important moments. They form part and parcel of his narrative and dramatically exhibit the inner feelings of the principal personages. Books I and II should be read; but above all XXI and XXII, the glowing account of the second Punic War, especially Hannibal's daring exploit in crossing the Alps. – Care must be taken to analyze his periods and to render them into shorter English sentences.

, in his Bellum Jugurthinum and Conjuratio Catilinae, of which latter event he was a contem-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/402


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/403

Rh porary, gives an insight into the political machinations and the corruptions of Roman society. His style is carefully formed after that of Thucydides, and is distinguished for vigor and conciseness, but becomes sometimes sententious and abrupt. He is also censured for archaic expressions, and on the whole, lacks graceful ease and smoothness. The delineations of character, (e. g. of Catiline, Jugurtha, Marius), have always been considered masterpieces. Jouvancy rightly says: "Sallust exhibits an abundance of material and a wealth of ideas."

is the greatest historian of Rome, if not of antiquity. He was a stern Roman of the old stamp, an enthusiastic admirer of the virtus Romana, which in his time had almost totally vanished. But the sad condition of his time made him gloomy, pessimistic, and one-sided. "Tacitus and Juvenal paint the deathbead of pagan Rome; they have no eyes to see the growth of new Rome, with its universal citizenship, its universal Church (first of the Emperors, afterwards of Christ). ... The Empire outraged the old republican tradition, that the provincial was naturally inferior to the Roman: but this, which is the greatest crime in the eyes of Tacitus, is precisely what constitutes its importance in the history of the world." Tacitus' sympathetic description of the simple and incorrupt manners of the Germans, in his Germania, was intended to set the Roman corruptions in a more glaring light, and is evidently too much idealized. In psychological depth, warmth of feeling, and vigor of expression, Tacitus surpasses even Thu-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/403


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/404

384 cydides. His style is dignified, manly, studiously devoid of everything feminine and merely ornamental; it is so brief and concise, as to be often obscure. Jouvancy says most appropriately: "His sentiments are striking and profound, so that only deep reflection can fathom them, and mere reading is not sufficient." For these reasons his Annales and Historiae are the proper reading only for the highest classes and for mature men.

Of other Latin prose authors not much need be said. Biographies of Great Generals, written in a simple style, form easy and instructive reading for the lowest classes. – During the Middle Ages, as well as in the first centuries of the Christian era, one of the favorite authors was. The reason is obvious. No philosopher of antiquity has approached the Christian view of life as closely as Seneca, so that a legend sprang up that the Roman had become acquainted with St. Paul and Christianity. Tertullian says: Seneca saepe noster, and Augustine, Jerome, and Lactantius appeal to his testimony. His letters contain the loftiest moral sentiments, – in sharp contrast with the author's life –; "whole letters, with few changes, might have been delivered in the pulpit by Bourdaloue and Massillon." However, it is questionable whether Seneca's works are suitable reading for young pupils. A distinguished critic says: "Seneca is not to be read. His every sentence must have a sharp

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/404