# Jesuit Education/Chapter 9

Contents
PART SECOND.
The Principles of the Ratio Studiorum. Its Theory and Practice Viewed in the Light of Modern Educational Problems.
Chapter IX.
Adaptability of the Ratio Studiorum.—Prudent Conservatism.
In the "Introductory Chapter" we quoted this remark of a biographer of St. Ignatius: "The Ratio Studiorum is a plan of studies which admits of every legitimate progress and perfection, and what Ignatius said of the Society in general may be applied to its system of studies in particular, namely that it ought to suit itself to the times and comply with them, and not make the times suit themselves to it. We assert, then, that this is the first principle of the Jesuit system: that it should adapt itself to the different times and countries. We do not treat here of single colleges; it is possible that some have not adapted themselves sufficiently. The question to be discussed here is a general one: namely about the system as such.
That the Jesuit system has not suited itself to the times is the criticism of some. Others go even further, maintaining that it cannot be suited to the times, or only with great difficulty, as it is altogether "anti​quated." Here we may be allowed to ask whether men who make such assertions are sufficiently acquainted with Jesuit education. Some of them seem to have seen Jesuit colleges only from the outside; but an educational system cannot be fairly judged unless one has watched its practical working. It is very easy to make a caricature of a system which one does not know.
But let us, for fairness sake, assume that the opponents of the Jesuit system take the trouble of reading the Constitutions of the Society and the Ratio Studiorum, even then they may be led into serious mistakes, unless they pay attention to a few regulations which are usually overlooked. To say: the Jesuits teach only what is mentioned in the Ratio Studiorum and neglect what is not put down there, is altogether false. The Constitutions and the Ratio Studiorum leave great liberty in the matter of changes and adaptations. In his Constitutions Ignatius himself says: "Let public schools be opened wherever it may conveniently be done. In the more important studies, they may be opened with reference to the circumstances of the places where our colleges exist. And because in particular subjects, there must needs be much variety, according to the difference of places and persons, we shall not here insist on them severally; but this may be declared that rules should be established in every college which shall embrace all necessary points."
Conformably to this fundamental law of St. Ignatius, the Ratio Studiorum emphasizes the lawfulness, ​nay, the necessity of changes and adaptations. In the first part of the Ratio, in the Rules for the Provincial Superior, it is expressed not less than six times. Thus one rule reads: "As according to the difference of country, time and persons, there may be a variety in the order of studies, in the hours assigned to them, in repetitions, disputations and other school exercises as well as in the vacations, if he [the Provincial] should think anything more conducive to the greater advancement of learning in his province, he shall inform the General in order that, after all, special regulations be made for all the particular needs; these regulations should, however, agree as closely as possible with our general plan of studies." This is evidently a most important regulation, proving that the arrangement of studies is practically committed to the Provincial Superior. A distinguished commentator on the Institute of the Society, in a recent work, could write: "We do not deny that in their methods of teaching, the members of the Order differ in many points from the Ratio Studiorum as we have explained it. It cannot be otherwise, since in the various provinces, owing to different conditions, it is necessary to make different regulations, without interfering with the general principles on which the Institute rests. We have already mentioned that St. Ignatius not only permitted but ordered various regulations to be made, according to the various conditions of time and place. This is much more necessary in our days, when so many educational schemes, good ones and bad ones, have been advanced. The Society, far from considering her own system absolutely perfect and unalterable, on the con​trary grants that many things are merely temporary and can be improved."
This is what the Society itself thinks of its educational system. If the system has not been changed for three hundred years – it existed three hundred years, not, as President Eliot thinks, four hundred, – the Society has proved false to the principles of its founder. That the Society has changed its teaching in the course of time, is proved by its history. We referred in a previous chapter to the Revision of 1832 and later additions, and showed that the revision of 1832 was not considered final. But this general change is slight as compared with the many important changes, which were made in the different provinces. The four volumes of Father Pachtler's work exhibit a considerable number of adaptations made in the provinces of Germany in the old Society. As an instance of such a change we must consider the systematic teaching of geography and history, which was gradually introduced in the 17th century, although it was not expressly prescribed by the Ratio. Greater in number and more far-reaching were the changes made in the new Society.
In this regard the demands and suggestions for a revision of the old Ratio Studiorum, sent to Rome before 1832, are highly instructive. There we read: "As the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer suited for our age, it should not be introduced into our schools... Natural sciences were formerly taught as part of philosophy; but in order to conform with the exigencies of our times, all these sciences must be taught ​separately... Ethics are not to be treated according to the commentaries on Aristotle, but according to the best modern works... The elements of Euclid do not suffice now-a-days, but in our age we must teach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, conic sections, differential and integral calculus, and the scientific applications of all parts of mathematics... In the lower classes special care must now be had of the mother-tongue; the pupils must be diligently exercised in the use of their native language, and must be acquainted with the best authors in the vernacular... In our times it will not suffice to explain the principles of rhetoric according to the precepts of Aristotle and Cicero, but according to modern authors; besides, now-a-days it is necessary to give instruction in aesthetics... In the lower classes we must now teach history, geography, as well as mathematics; in the higher classes also archaeology." These demands were attended to in the Revised Ratio. This may suffice to show that the Jesuits do not shut their eyes to the needs and exigencies of the times. In 1830 the General of the Society wrote to the superiors of the different provinces that they should not fail to call attention to the commendable practices of other schools in their countries; they should also be careful to mention, whether certain things were to be introduced in their respective places, even if they were contrary to the common customs of the schools of the Order.
The Society has never denied that vast progress has been made in all branches of learning, especially in natural sciences, history, and philology. It does ​not wish a return of the conditions of former centuries, but gladly makes use of the advantages afforded by modern science, in order to qualify the pupils for the necessities of our times. If one compares the curricula of Jesuit schools in America, England, France, Belgium, Austria, and other countries, he will find the greatest variety. He will discover that it is a groundless charge against the Jesuits, that they cling with blind stubbornness to every detail of their Ratio. No, as far as it is compatible with thorough education, they have adapted their teaching to the customs of the respective countries in which they are laboring. As was said before, these changes and modifications are not added to the printed Ratio as amendments or bylaws; this is not necessary, since, as was stated above, the Ratio itself admits the necessity of having "different regulations as regards studies, according to the different conditions of time and place." The changes and modifications are laid down in the customs and directives for the different Provinces or Missions. Now, the writers outside of the Society are, as a rule, utterly ignorant of the particular regulations of the various provinces; hence, they are easily led into the same mistake which a foreigner, coming to the State of New York, would make if he imagined there existed no law except the Constitution of the United States. As the General, and to a great extent the Provincial Superiors, by the Constitution of the Order, are empowered to make all changes which they deem necessary, it cannot be said that the Ratio Studiorum is so difficult to reform.
But it may be objected here, that what remains is no longer the Ratio Studiorum. This is not correct. ​All the essential points remain; it is only important to know what is essential. The assailants of the Ratio usually suppose that it is the preponderance given to certain subjects, especially the classics, or the order and succession in which the different subjects are taught. Others again seem to find the essentials of the Ratio in minor details, concerning the manner in which the subjects are "taught. We admit that it would be altogether impracticable to carry out the prescriptions of the Ratio in their entirety. Thus the Latin idiom can no longer be insisted on as the language of conversational intercourse among the students, as was done in the lyth century, nor is it possible to use it as the medium of instruction in all the lectures. Neither is it possible to devote the same number of hours to the classics, as much time and labor is requisite for the study of modern literature, mathematics, and the sciences. We admit further that some details of the Ratio, for instance the system of decuriones (boy supervisors and assistants of the teacher), certain solemnities at the distribution of prizes, the use of the grammar of Alvarez, etc., are really antiquated. But they are exactly those points which have been abandoned long ago, and which have never been regarded as essential.
The present General of the Society, Father Martin, who, if any one, is unquestionably warranted to speak authoritatively on this subject, declared on January 1, 1893: "There are men who think that the Ratio Studiorum was good formerly, but that it is no longer so in our times. He who maintains this position does not understand the Ratio Studiorum; he looks only at the matter, not at the form [the spirit] of the system. . . ​But the matter is not the essential feature of this system." Neither is the order, the sequence, in which the different branches are taught. The subject matter as well as the order is in many countries prescribed by the governments. Although this prescribed order may not always be the best, still it can be adopted, as the order is not the characteristic feature of the system of the Society.
Now, may it not be said that modern conditions merely forced the Society and its General to this broad interpretation of the Ratio, to make, as President Eliot would express it, some further "trifling concessions"? By no means. The utterances of Father Martin are neither novel nor alien to the Ratio or the Constitutions of the Society, as is shown by a comparison with the quotations we gave before from these two documents. One point is made clear, viz., that the Ratio admits of a very broad interpretation, and leaves especially ample room for innovations as regards various branches of study. If it is useful and advisable to teach a new branch: economics, civics, local history, biology, or Spanish, or any other subject, there is no difficulty on the part of the Ratio Studiorum. If the Jesuits exclude certain branches from their curriculum, it is not because they are not mentioned in the Ratio, but because they consider these branches of less educational value; if they uphold certain other branches, as the classics, it is because they expect the most from them for the training of their pupils; if they defend the successive teaching of different branches in preference to the simultaneous treatment of a multitude ​of unconnected subjects, they act according to approved pedagogical principles; if they do not admit the extravagant electivism of some modern school-reformers, it is because they consider it injurious to solid education, not because it is opposed to their system. We venture to say, they could adopt electivism to a very great extent, without entirely abandoning the fundamental principles of their Ratio. We shall speak of these principles in the next chapter. Suffice it to quote here the words of a writer in a first class literary review in Europe on the Ratio: "The regulations and principles of that system of studies, viewed in the light of modern exigencies, need not shun any comparison, and the pedagogical wisdom contained therein is in no way antiquated."
Although the teaching of the Jesuits has not remained unchanged for centuries, it is true, on the other hand, that the Society was never rash in adopting new methods. The Jesuits did not experiment with every new-fangled theory, with every pedagogical "fad", no matter how loudly praised and held up as the system of our age. Herein they acted wisely. For, first of all, there may be several systems, equally good, and the Jesuits possessed a system of their own, which had been approved by a remarkable success in former centuries. And that in recent times the teaching of the Society has not been unsuccessful, is sufficiently proved by what we said in the preceding chapter.
Whilst the efficiency of her old and approved system justifies the conservative spirit of the Society in educational matters, another striking proof of its wisdom in this respect is furnished by the fate of the ​modern school reforms themselves. No sooner has one startled the world, than it is followed and overthrown by a newer, later, more modern system. To each of them may be applied the words of St. Peter to Saphira, which a German philosopher used with reference to modern philosophical theories: "Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out." We have an instance in Germany. In 1892, a new plan of studies was introduced in Prussia, and at about the same time in the other states of Germany. The classical studies lost a great number of hours. Although this plan was introduced at the urgent wish of the young Emperor and through his "energetic personal interference," it met with great opposition on the part of the majority of teachers. No party was satisfied. The strict advocates of the ancient classics complained of the reduction in the classical instruction. The friends of the scientific schools were not satisfied with the concessions made them. On all sides the cry was heard: "Reform the Reform of 1892."
In 1895 the Ministry of Instruction allowed the directors of the gymnasia to add, in the three higher classes, one hour a week, which should be devoted to ​the old grammatical and stylistic exercises. Still more complaints were heard in the following years. In 1899 even Professor Virchow, one of the most determined opponents of the gymnasium in its old form, admitted that the graduates after the reform manifested a notable decline in grammatical and logical training. It was found necessary to convoke a new conference, which met in Berlin, June 1900. Here some of the ablest schoolmen were outspoken in demanding a partial return to the system existing before 1892. Dr. Matthias, the referee of the Ministry, stated that all official reports and the most experienced men of the Kingdom complained about the serious decline of Latin scholarship which had manifested itself after 1892. The cause of this decline he suspected to be the excessive use of inductive methods, so much encouraged by the reform. Efforts were to be made to check this decline; above all it was necessary to secure again greater grammatical knowledge, and it seemed better to introduce again some of the old methods, especially frequent translations from the German into Latin and speaking Latin. He thus recommended what the most zealous of the reformers had ridiculed as antiquated. Professor Kübler and Professor Harnack were not less outspoken on this point. The latter said that writing Latin was to be insisted on, and that the discarding of this exercise in 1892 was a mistake. The result of these discussions was a strengthening of the Latin course, by adding ​one hour weekly from the third class on, therefore an increase of seven hours Latin weekly in the whole gymnasium. The new "School Order" of 1901 demanded most emphatically a thorough grammatical training. Books for translating from German into Latin, which in 1892 had been done away with almost entirely, were again introduced into all the classes. By these regulations, the Prussian Ministry, taught by the experience of nine years, and convinced by the arguments of the foremost schoolmen of the Kingdom, acknowledged that the "reform" of 1892, in several important points had been a mistake, a deterioration. It was thus proved that some of the much decried old methods were, after all, the best and safest.
Within the last decade a novel experiment has been made in Germany, that of the "Pioneer Schools" or "Reform Gymnasia." These schools are to be the common foundation of all higher schools: Gymnasium (classical), Real-Gymnasium (Latin scientific), Real-Schule (scientific). During the first three years one modern language is taught, French in the schools of the Frankfort-type, English in those of the Altona-type. In the fourth year the schools separate. Latin is begun in the Gymnasium and Real-Gymnasium, English in the Real-Schule. In the sixth year the Gymnasium introduces Greek, the Real-Gymnasium English. Whilst a great number of educators vigorously oppose this system – some say "the experiment should never have been allowed" – the most advanced "reformers of the universe" expect great things of it; to them it ​is "the school of the future." Be it remarked, as a curious fact, that this modern system is not new at all, but a mere revival of the system of Comenius (1592—1671). The future has to show whether this system is practicable or not. So far its value has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Our own country furnishes significant phenomena,—similar to those witnessed in Germany. People had been told that our educational system was well nigh perfect. American children, at the age of ten or twelve years, now learn things of which in former generations men of twenty-five knew little or nothing, be it physiology, biology, hygiene, civics or what not. And all this they learn without exertion and coercion; for, agreeably to the free spirit of the country, the young citizens are to be given, as early as possible, full liberty of choosing those branches which suit their good pleasure, or, as our moderns express it, their natural abilities. Indeed, what system can be more perfect? Now on a sudden people are rudely awakened from their pleasant dreams by most distinguished men, who tell the people that there is something wrong, some say "radically wrong," in our educational system. Not a few of these critics begin to point out that one of the fundamental defects of American schools is the very thing which was vaunted as our greatest educational achievement: the elective system in secondary schools. Others discover the greatest danger in the hasty experimenting, in the rash accep ​tation of novelties so common in our modern schools. "There is too much agitation, unceasing change, and consequent uncertainty in the operations of our American schools. There is too much individualism in laying plans and arranging courses and in methods of teaching, too burning a desire to say something new or to do something novel for the sake of prominence in the teaching body. Of course it will be said that this has brought us where we are. But we might be quite as well off if we were not exactly where we are."
Within the last month (October 1902) severe strictures were made on some of the very latest educational "improvements," and that not by Jesuits, nor by professional philologians, who stubbornly defend their long-cherished classics, but by such as may eminently be called men of affairs. The Electrical World spoke of President Eliot's efforts to lift the American college to the plane of a foreign university. "The chief effect has been to push the college into the existing dilemma. It is crowded from above by the necessity for more time in the professional schools, and for a nether millstone it finds the secondary school that its own hands have fashioned. And truth to tell, the college is losing heart. It has virtually surrendered its last year to professional electives, but the sacrifice has not served its purpose. The latest suggestion from no less eminent a source than that of Professor Butler, of Columbia, is ​for a two-year college course, leading to post-graduate training, and a parallel four-year course for such as may desire it. We hope this experiment may not be tried, for its success would mean the disintegration of the college as it has been, and the introduction of nothing to take its place. ... If the American college is still to remain a part of our educational system, it must stand by its old ideals and neither retreat nor compromise. ... If the college would do the greatest possible service to education it should sharpen its ax, not to decapitate itself according to the present program, but to hew out of its curriculum the courses that demand a diffuse preparation in the secondary schools, and out of these latter the time-wasting requirements." The utterances of another man deserve to be quoted in this connection, I mean Mr. Cleveland, the former President of the United States. On October 25, 1902, at the inauguration of the new President of Princeton University, he earnestly warned against "false educational notions," "a new-born impatience which demands a swifter educational current and is content with a shallower depth." Mr. Cleveland declared "Princeton's conservatism is one of her chief virtues, and that we of Princeton are still willing to declare our belief that we are better able to determine than those coming to us for education, what is their most advantageous course of instruction, and surely every phase of our history justifies this belief." It is hardly necessary to point out what "false educational notions" are hinted at. From these criticisms of the latest ​"school reforms" we are justified in drawing the following inferences:
First, not all school changes and innovations are real improvements. Secondly, a great deal of sound pedagogy was contained in the old systems, which was rashly and wantonly abandoned by many modern school reformers. Thirdly, the Jesuits acted prudently in not accepting in their totality these new methods which, to a great extent, are but haphazard experiments.
The Society believes in a sound evolution in educational matters, but is averse to a precipitous revolution. Those who recently have called the educational system of the Society antiquated or absurd, because it repudiates their own pet theories, have acted very rashly, all the more so that these very theories have been condemned by many competent judges. The man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones at other people.
In every important movement, the ardent desire of progress must be tempered and controlled by a goodly amount of conservatism. Otherwise the rerum novarum studiosi will sacrifice much of what is of fundamental importance. At the time of the famous Gaume controversy in France about the classical studies, an English Catholic writer characterized the attitude of the Jesuits in the following words: "Though essentially conservative, that remarkable Society has never held itself so far behind the current of Catholic thought, as to lose its influence over it; nor has it placed itself so much in the advance, as to become an object of general observation. It has, as a rule, firmly, cautiously, and with a practical wisdom, mani​fested to so great an extent by 110 other order in the Church, kept pace with the general movement, and influenced its direction; and when it has not been able, through the unmanageable nature of the elements with which it has had to do, to lead, it has had the sagacity to bide its time and follow. It is this instinct which, though it may to 'carnal men' savor of human prudence, to men who see things through a spiritual eye, manifests the workings of a governing Providence through one of the most able human instruments which has ever undertaken God's work upon the earth."
The extent and limit of the Society's progressiveness and conservatism in educational matters, has been clearly enunciated by Father Roothaan, General of the Society, in 1832: "The adaptation of the Ratio Studiorum means that we consult the necessities of the age so far as not in the least to sacrifice the solid and correct education of youth." Accordingly, the Society will ever adapt its system in all and to all that is conducive to the great end of its educational labors: the thorough intellectual and moral training of its pupils.
* ↑ Genelli, Life of St. Ignatius", part II, ch. VII.
* ↑ Part IV, ch. VII. The translation is that of the Protestant translator (London, 1838).
* ↑ Rules of the Provincial, 39.
* ↑ Oswald, S. J., Commentarius, no. 204, nota.
* ↑ See above ch. IV, pp. 125-129.
* ↑ Pachtler, vol. IV, pp. 392-444.
* ↑ Ib., p. 407.
* ↑ The Woodstock Letters, vol. XXII (1893), p. 106. – Quoted also by Chossat, Les Jésuites à Avignon, p. 258, n. 3.
* ↑ Oesterreichisches Litteraturblatt, Vienna, 1897, No. 4.
* ↑ Acts 5, 9.
* ↑ A very good account of this reform is given by Dr. Russell, German Higher Schools, ch. XX. See also Educational Review, September, 1900. The best and most comprehensive sketch of the "Berlin Conference of 1890" is contained in the Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1889-90, vol. I, pp. 343-398, by Charles Herbert Thurston of Cornell University.
* ↑ Report of the Comm. of Ed., l. c., p. 363.
* ↑ Rep. of Com. of Ed., l. c., p. 398.
* ↑ Messer, Die Reformbewegung, p. 155.
* ↑ Verhandlungen über die Fragen des höhern Unterrichts, Berlin, June 1900, p. 128.
* ↑ Ib., p. 294.
* ↑ Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höhern Schulen in Preussen, 1901. pp. 28-30. – Messer, l. c., p. 157.
* ↑ See Russell, German Higher Schools, ch. XX. – Viereck, in Educational Review, Sept. 1900.
* ↑ "No less a person than Cornenius, the father of our new philosophical education, outlines in his Great Didactic a system which in its principal features agrees with that now in vogue in our pioneer schools." Educational Review, Sept. 1900, p. 173.
* ↑ "In America we are unfortunately too prone to view with favor any new idea, educational or other, and to embark precipitately in experiments which involve serious consequences." Professor Bennett of Cornell University, in The Teaching of Latin in the Secondary School, p. 80.
* ↑ President Draper of the University of Illinois. Educational Review, May 1902, p. 457.
* ↑ Electrical World, October 25, 1902.
* ↑ From the Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, October 25, 1902. (Italics are ours, also those of preceding quotation.)
* ↑ Dublin Review, 1866, vol. VII, (p. 208): "The Gaume controversy on Classical Studies," by R. B. V. – I think the writer is Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., later on Archbishop of Sydney, Australia.