It is not necessary to give specimens from the English. In general, such passages should be chosen whose contents are worth remembering, be it from the ethical, aesthetical, poetical, or historical point of view. The most beautiful and most elevating thoughts from the world’s literature, treasured up in the memory, will also afford considerable help for the writing of essays.
A few suggestions may be added about the manner of learning by heart. Passages from good authors are to be known word for word. The same will ordinarily apply to the rules of grammar; the precepts of rhetoric and of poetry may either be gotten in the same way, or the sense simply may be exacted. The matter which is to be committed to memory should be understood. It will be most useful to instruct the pupils how to memorize. They should not try to learn the lesson as one whole, but rather they should memorize one or two lines at a time, a sentence, or a clause; then the second sentence or line of poetry. After two are well known they should be repeated together. Then a third sentence is learned and again united with those learned previously. The principle of the old Romans: Divide et impera, will here be applied. These suggestions may appear minute, and it may be objected that each individual has a way of his own which is just right for him. However, a little questioning of pupils will show that their method of memorizing is very frequently erroneous, and that instruction on such matters will be far from amiss. One great mistake of students is to try to learn by heart when their minds are bothered and distracted. Memory work is best done when body and mind are quiet; impressions then made are deeper and will last. This is the fundamental secret of the various much vaunted systems of memory which have been paraded about in different times. Concentrate the mind, is their motto, and then you will memorize with ease and tenaciously. Very few people, boys or not, have the self-control to concentrate their minds when they are disturbed. This is one of the reasons why it is best to learn by heart in the early morning, before the thoughts and feelings of a new day crowd upon one. Father Sacchini[847] recommends the pupil to go over his task when walking or alone, the same principle, as is clear, being involved.
When should the lessons be recited? By looking into the Ratio, in the second rule for the several classes, we find that the beginning of both sessions is set aside for the recitation of memory lessons. On Saturday the lessons of the whole week are to be repeated. Father Sacchini[848] speaks of monthly and yearly repetitions by heart. He adds an exhortation to the professor never to omit the recitation of memory lessons, and to exact them to the letter. It is hardly possible, in this case, to hear everything from everybody, so the professor may call on a few only, or ask but a part from each. It is very useful to have, say a whole exordium, or an entire description, thus repeated. Another such recitation is held when a whole speech or book has been seen. This public recitation is to take place from the platform; it might be made an item in the entertainments given one another by the different classes. It is incomparably more advantageous to the pupil to deliver thus by heart and declaim with the pomp and ceremony of public elocution a masterpiece of literature which he has been taught through and through, than to fit gestures and modulate his voice to some half-understood and often inferior composition which he has not had the time, nor the patience, nor the ability to make his own.
The habit of giving memory lines, for punishment, from passages which the offender does not understand is to be seriously deprecated. If it produces no other evil effect, it at least is a great loss of time, seeing that the hours so spent might have been devoted to learning something that would educate all the faculties.
It seems very important that the pupils should be directed to be careful to give their memory lessons according to the sense and feeling; in reciting poetry attention is to be paid to the quantities and, above all, to the caesuras; then the lines will sound like music. This is unquestionably the surest way of making good speakers, and is far superior as an elocutionary practice to any weekly or less frequent class of elocution. It is also for this reason of the utmost importance that the professor should read the authors well, and see that the pupils read according to the sense of the passage.
§ 3. Written Exercises.[849]
Themes, in the broadest sense, including imitation exercises and free essays, are of the greatest importance. They force the pupils to concentration of thought, and give them patience and facility in writing. As we said before, it is most advisable, also in the teaching of English, to make the students write at least some sentences every day. A short Latin theme should be given almost daily, and a Greek theme at least once a week. It is a good custom in many Jesuit colleges in this country to give an English composition for Monday. If the principle maintained by St. Ignatius in the “Spiritual Exercises” is true, that one advances according to the amount of his own self-exertion, not that of his director merely, then these provisions for much and frequent written work were well made. It is not easy to conceive, in the light of this rule, how any one can complain that in the Jesuit system the pupil has nothing to do. He rather has everything to do; the professor goes before him, indeed, and shows him how, but then demands personal application, and that of not the lightest kind, from the pupil who means to advance.[850]
The subject of Latin and Greek themes, whether they are a translation of the teacher’s dictation or a free work of the pupils, should be taken, as far as possible, from the authors read in class. Shorter single sentences must be translated especially in the lower classes, in order to apply and practise the rules of grammar. But the exercises should as early as possible consist of connected pieces, descriptions, narrations etc. and should contain the vocables of the Latin and Greek authors read during that period; in short, the exercises should be based on the authors read in class. During the greater part of the last century there was an excessive use of so-called exercise-books, consisting either of unconnected sentences, or of such connected pieces as had no relation to the authors studied at the time. Of late years this practice is condemned more and more, and we think rightly so. The new “Prussian School Order” prescribes the former system.[851] And recently an American writer could state that “the grammatical training is now brought into more vital connection with the study of classic literature. The writing of Latin verse is generally discarded. Prose composition is receiving increased attention, and is now more imitative in its character than formerly, being commonly based on the Latin and Greek masterpiece which the class is studying at the same time.”[852] Is this a new invention? It is exactly the method prescribed by the Ratio. Thus the 30th of the Common Rules reads: “The theme should be dictated not off-hand but after careful consideration and generally from a written copy. It ought to be directed, as far as possible, to the imitation of Cicero.” Two things are contained in this rule: First, the teacher is to write out the dictation himself, not to take it from an exercise book; secondly, the dictation is to be based on the author studied at the time. Cicero is mentioned because he was formerly the author read with preference. Besides, other rules say that the dictation may follow other authors, especially historians.[853] The rules for the teachers of the different classes enjoin that the same method be followed.[854] Thus the professor of Humanities is told that “it is often advantageous so to compose the theme that the whole may be gathered here and there from passages already explained.”
Indeed, this system affords many great advantages. The reading is made useful for the writing, and the writing helps considerably for the thorough understanding of what has been read. The students will have to ponder over the author, to examine the words, the figures, the phrases, and so they imbibe little by little the genius of the language. Thus imitation-exercises are made useful and easy at the same time. The dictionary need not be consulted for every expression, a custom which entails much waste of time with relatively little fruit. We quoted Dr. Stanley Hall’s words,[855] that “one of the best German teachers told him that the boy should never see a dictionary or even a vocabulary, but the teacher must be a ‘pony’.” This is the old principle of the Ratio. The teacher is told that “after the dictation of the theme he should straightway call for the reading of the theme. Then he should explain anything that may be difficult, suggest words, phrases and other helps.”[856] Is not here the teacher, what modern educators want him to be in their ‘ideal school,’ the boy’s dictionary, vocabulary and ‘pony’? But above all this practice produces unity in the various exercises. It is needless to say that the same principle can be followed with best success in the teaching of English. The compositions ought to be based on the work studied in class.[857]
The imitation exercises should, however, not be a slavish imitation of the author; there may be a great variety in these exercises. Father Jouvancy gives some valuable hints on this subject.[858] “Translate,” he writes, “a passage, say from Cicero, into the native tongue; afterwards, without looking at Cicero, retranslate it into Latin. Then compare your Latin with that of Cicero and correct yours wherever it is necessary. Experience has proved that many have greatly benefited by this excellent practice. Another time you may write out a sketch of an argument or write down the train of thought found in the original author, then work it out, clothe, as it were, this skeleton with flesh and nerves. This being finished the new production is to be compared with the original; not only will the difference appear but also many improvements will be suggested. There is a third way of imitating authors. Take a beautiful passage from an author, change the subject matter into one similar or opposite. Then, following in the foot-steps of the author, use, as far as possible, the same figures, periods, connections, transitions. Thus in the oration against Piso, Cicero shows that a seditious mob is not to be honored with the name of the ‘Roman people.’ In a similar manner it may be shown who really deserves to be styled a Christian, a gentleman, a scholar.” Jouvancy justly remarks that this method of self-training is the best substitute, if another instructor and guide cannot be obtained. For the great authors themselves become the teachers, guides and correctors of the student.
That such imitations may be masterpieces in themselves, is proved by more than one instance. A great number of the works of Latin writers are imitations of Greek types. And many fiery harangues of the speakers of the French Revolution are fashioned after Cicero’s invectives against Catiline and Anthony.[859]
Every one sees that this excellent method of imitating good authors can be applied to the study of English with the greatest advantage.[860] He who takes a descriptive passage from Washington Irving, or an argument from Burke, Pitt, or Webster and works it out according to these rules of Jouvancy, will surely improve his style—provided he keeps for a long time to the same author. For changing from one author to another, as a butterfly flits from flower to flower, like all desultory work, will produce very little result.
The correction of the written exercises is a very troublesome and uninteresting work, the worst drudgery of the teacher’s daily life. But it is, as the 21st rule says, of the greatest importance and therefore to be done conscientiously. The Ratio advises the teacher to correct the exercises in class, while the boys are writing or studying for themselves. One boy after the other is called up to the teacher’s desk, and his mistakes are pointed out to him; he may himself be asked why it is wrong and correct it himself; particular instructions may be given, a word of praise or of rebuke may be added. Such private corrections afford many advantages. But much time may be lost to teaching and for this reason the rule says “those themes which, owing to the great number, cannot be corrected in class, should be corrected at home.” Many teachers have the following system. They correct all themes at home and return them to the students the following day, with the mistakes marked. Then, if it is a dictation, a boy is called up to translate, the other boys correct him, all comparing their own translations. The pupils will see in most cases why their translations are marked, if not, they should ask immediately, and the teacher may ask other boys why such and such a translation is a mistake. A correct copy should then be made, dictated by the teacher; in lower classes it may be well to have it written by someone on the blackboard.
It is evident that great neatness is to be insisted on in the themes. It is easier to keep paper neat and clean if the themes be exacted on single sheets. But the boys will, as a rule, be more careful, if they have copy books, which are to be used until they are filled. They do not like to see many mistakes in their copy books. In the German and Austrian gymnasia there exists an admirable system. Every exercise in the copy-book has at the top the running number, opposite on the margin the date. Corrections of the teachers and marks are made in red ink: the pupils’ corrections are to be added at the end. Every month one review in Latin and one in Greek, written in ink on single sheets of the same size and kind, marked by the teacher, are to be handed in to the Director of the institution, who at any time may also ask for the copy-books of the class. The Government-Inspectors, who from time to time visit the colleges, carefully examine the copy-books, thus controlling the work of teachers and pupils alike. This system has many and great advantages. It requires hard and conscientious work on the part of the teacher especially, but is producing admirable results. A similar system exists in some Jesuit colleges. During the semi-annual examinations all the copy-books are exhibited in the class room or wherever the examination is conducted, to be inspected by the President, and the Prefect of Studies. It is very important that the copy-books be returned as soon as possible, as the work done by the pupils is still fresh in their mind. An exception to this rule must necessarily be made in the case of English composition, especially longer essays, the correction of which naturally requires more time.
This exercise of writing Latin and Greek themes, particularly free Latin compositions, has within the last decades met with great opposition. And yet, no exercise is more useful and more necessary if a solid knowledge of these languages is to be obtained. The reading of authors alone will not suffice. This is the conviction of the most experienced schoolmen. Even Greek exercises must be written, that a firmer hold may be obtained on the facts of accidence, of syntax, and of idiom.[861] And without any practice in writing the understanding of the classical authors will scarcely be more than superficial.[862] Even the writing of Latin verse may not be so useless as some represent it. Quite recently one of the most distinguished scholars of Germany, Professor von Wilamowitz, of the Berlin University, made a strong plea for this much decried exercise.[863] Similarly Dr. Ilberg of Leipsic, who wrote last year: “The ‘antiquated’ art of writing Latin verses does not deserve the contempt and the sneers with which it has been treated. It is an exercise which requires not only knowledge of the language, but also exertion of the imagination. The writing of Latin verses belongs to those exercises which challenge the pupil to produce something of his own, and which make him enjoy the pleasant sensation of having achieved something.”[864] Hence Sir Joshua Fitch goes beyond the bounds of moderation when he asserts that “enormous injury is done to the rank and file of boys by this antiquated and soulless exercise; which inevitably produces weariness and disgust, and sets a false and ignoble ideal of scholarship before the pupils.”[865] There is in this sweeping condemnation, as in most similar indictments of old customs, a false supposition. We doubt whether any one considers the “manufacture of Latin verses the ultimate test, the ideal and crown of scholarship.” Still, it is one of the many means, although a very subordinate one, of acquiring an accomplished and all around scholarship. Above all, the writing of verses will help to appreciate more fully the classical poets.
In this connection we must say a few words on another exercise, much insisted on by the Ratio, viz. speaking Latin. Few points of the Ratio have been more misrepresented and derided than this. But this without good cause. Facility in speaking Latin is not the principal aim of the Jesuit system. This follows from the tenor of the whole Ratio, and is sufficiently proved by our former statement that branches of study are merely the means to attain the one object of all instruction, the cultivation of the mind. A language—so our modern educators say—is learned much more quickly, if spoken; it becomes easy and familiar and, in a way, natural. That the speaking of Latin is, after all, not so absurd, may be seen from the fact that some of the ablest scholars of the nineteenth century have advocated it. Thus the great Latinist, Dr. Seyffert, says: “Without speaking, the writing of Latin will always remain a half-measure and patch-work.” Also Dr. Dettweiler, one of the best modern authorities on the study of Latin, recommends the speaking of this language.[866] However, the attitude of the Society in this point has changed. The Society adapts itself in this respect, as in many others, to the tendency of the times. This may be inferred from a comparison between the Ratio of 1599 and that of 1832. The old Ratio enjoins the teacher to insist rigorously that the boys speak Latin in all matters pertaining to school work, except in the lowest class, where they do not know Latin.[867] The corresponding rule in the revised Ratio reads as follows: “The teacher should take great care that the pupils acquire practice in speaking Latin. For this reason he should speak Latin from the highest grammar class on, and should insist on the use of Latin, especially in explaining the precepts, in correcting Latin compositions, in the concertationes (contests between the boys), and in their conversations.” The revised rule does not prescribe the colloquial use of Latin as early as was done in former days. But still it must be remembered that the practice of speaking Latin must be gradually introduced, and, therefore, the lower classes are supposed also to have Latin in use, although not so extensively.
Be it remarked, however, that the colloquial use of Latin is, by no means, insisted on in the Ratio for its practical value; for Latin is no longer the universal language of the educated world, as it was some centuries ago. From time to time, indeed, we hear of efforts being made to restore Latin to its old place. Thus in the oration at the Leibnitz celebration of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin, May 29, 1899, the chief speaker advocated the introduction of Latin as the international language of learned men. However, such efforts are too few, too sporadic, to influence the wider circles, at least for the near future. Nay more, it seems almost certain that Latin will never acquire that domineering influence which it formerly exercised. In those days the national languages and literatures were not fully developed. But now they have attained a high degree of perfection, and have gained a stronghold on the mind of the people. Besides, most of the books of great scientific value are either written in German, English, or French, or are speedily translated into one of these languages, and in our days, no one can lay claim to scholarship who does not master one or other of them besides his mother-tongue. The Society of Jesus has simply, in the words of the Jesuit Ebner, watched the trend of events, and adapted herself and her teaching in this point, as in others, to the new conditions.[868] She strives to teach Latin thoroughly, and therefore urges the colloquial use of Latin as a most valuable means to that end, although at present not in the same degree as in former centuries when facility in speaking Latin had, moreover, a directly practical purpose.
The educational experiments of Germany during the last ten years afford an interesting illustration of what has been said in this chapter. It is known that, after the Berlin Conference of 1890, Latin lost fifteen hours a week in the nine classes of the gymnasium. The Latin compositions particularly were reduced considerably, almost completely abolished. What was the result? Very soon complaints were heard from all sides that in consequence of these changes the teaching of Latin had been greatly injured.[869] It became evident that more extensive writing of Latin was necessary to obtain the linguistic and logical training of the mind, which is one of the foremost objects of Latin instruction. Only these exercises, the practical application of the rules of etymology and syntax, the careful examination of the peculiarities of style in the higher classes, and constant comparison with the mother-tongue, by means of translations and re-translations, give a thorough knowledge and insight into the language.[870]
These are the principles on which the Ratio and Jouvancy had insisted centuries ago, and which were emphasized by the General of the Society in 1893, at the very time when the German schools saw fit to abandon them. But experience soon forced the German authorities to revert to what had been thrown overboard. In 1895 permission was granted to add one hour weekly in the higher classes, which was to be devoted to practice in writing and to the application and repetition of rules of grammar and style. For, as Professor Fries declared,[871] the curtailing of these exercises had proved to be the weakest point of the changes made after 1890. In the second conference, in 1900, the opinion of the most distinguished scholars was most positive in demanding a further strengthening of these exercises.[872] It was proposed[873] that a Latin composition should again be required for the last examination. Nay more, Dr. Kübler advocated—one would have thought it impossible after the vehement denunciations of this exercise—the practice of speaking Latin. “It has been exceedingly gratifying to me,” he said, “to learn that the Ministry of Instruction will grant greater liberty for these exercises, especially that the speaking of Latin shall no longer be proscribed as heretofore.”[874] Before him the commissary of the Government, Dr. Matthias, had declared that besides more frequent translations into Latin, more time and attention should be devoted to the practice of speaking Latin, a practice which in the Goethe-Gymnasium in Frankfurt (Reform-School) was carried on with most gratifying results.[875]
In this reaction we may justly find a vindication of the principle maintained all along by the Society, in spite of the censures of some modern reformers.
§ 4. Contests.
Among the various school exercises mentioned by the Ratio Studiorum, we find the so-called concertationes, or contests between boys of the same or of different classes on matter that has been studied previously. These contests have the same end in the lower classes as the disputations in the higher: accustoming the boys to speak on the subject matter of the class, giving them readiness of reply in answering questions, in a word, making them masters of their subjects. Ribadeneira speaks of them as follows: “Many means are devised, and exercises employed, to stimulate the minds of the young, assiduous disputation, various trials of genius, prizes offered for excellence in talent and industry. As penalty and disgrace bridle the will and check it from pursuing evil, so honor and praise quicken the sense wonderfully to attain the dignity and glory of virtue.”[876]
All opponents of the Jesuits try to make a capital point of “emulation” as recommended by the Ratio.[877] This “fostering of ambition” was styled “the characteristic of the corrupt Jesuitical morality.” We may first ask: are the Jesuits the only educators that used this means? Professor Paulsen answers our question most appositely: “The Jesuits know better, perhaps, than others how to use declamations, contests, premiums, etc., effectively. Protestant educators are wont to express their indignation, and to inveigh against the Jesuits, for having made emulation the moving power in learning. The practice of Protestant schools never shared the disgust of these theorizers at the use of emulation, and I do not know whether this practice should be censured. It is true that the good emulation is closely related to the bad, but without the former there has never been a good school.”[878]
That these exercises were by no means intended to develop the bad emulation, or false self-love in the young, is evident; this would have been little to the purpose with religious teachers. “Let them root out from themselves, in every possible way, self-love and the craving for vain glory,” says the oldest code of school rules in the Society, probably from the pen of Father Peter Canisius.[879] What is appealed to, is the spirit of good and noble emulation,—honesta aemulatio, as the Ratio says,—and that by a world of industry which spurs young students on to excellence in whatever they undertake, and rewards the development of natural energies with the natural luxury of confessedly doing well. This makes the boys feel happy in having done well, however little they enjoyed the labor before, and will rouse them to new exertions. Gradually they may then be led to have higher motives in their endeavors. Does not the Divine teacher of mankind act similarly? He demands great sacrifices and arduous exertions of man: purity, humility, meekness, patience, self-denial, but he always points also to the reward, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” “your reward in heaven is exceedingly great.” God promises also earthly blessings to those that observe his commandments: “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be long lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.” Why, then, should it be unlawful and immoral to employ rewards in the education of the young, who are not yet able to grasp the highest motives of well-doing? Or is it probable that young pupils will readily be diligent, when told that they ought to do their work? Kant’s teaching of the autonomy of human reason is not only deficient, but positively erroneous[880]; but least of all will the rule, you ought because reason tells you so, have any effect on the young. On this point also Professor Kemp, in his otherwise fair treatment of Jesuit education, has been led into an error, when he states that “emulation was carried to such extremes that, apparently, it must have obscured the true ends of study and cultivated improper feeling among the students.”[881] Such a priori conclusions are very dangerous; and the “must have” is frequently only “apparent.” Kant, indeed, said: “The child must be taught to act from a pure sense of duty, not from inclination.” Still, in another place he declares that “it is lost labor to speak to a child of duty.” Children must be treated, as St. Paul says: “as little ones in Christ, to whom I gave milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet.”[882] This milk, in education, is some sort of reward, a means not at all immoral. For the desire of honor is inborn in man and lawful as long as it does not become inordinate.[883] Honest emulation is therefore lawful; it is also productive of great deeds. “In all the pursuits of active and speculative life, the emulation of states and individuals is the most powerful spring of the efforts and improvements of mankind.” (Gibbon.)
In speaking of reward we do not mean necessarily prizes or premiums. These are indeed more open to objections. The jealousy of pupils is more easily aroused and sometimes even the dissatisfaction of parents. However, this can not justify the general condemnation of prizes. There is hardly an appointment made to any position of honor in a city or state, but a few disappointed individuals will feel and express their disapproval, no matter how just and fair the promotion has been. Should the appointment for such adverse criticism be omitted? Further, premiums for excellence in learning, in military valor, in political ability are as old as history. The Greeks rewarded the conqueror in their national games with a wreath; the Romans had various crowns for citizens who in different ways had deserved well of their country. And now-a-days no one objects if a victorious general or admiral is offered a token of public recognition, in the form of a precious sword, or even a more useful object. The soldiers of our generation are justly proud if their bravery is rewarded by a badge, and even the scholars of modern Europe, perhaps such as strongly denounce the corrupting influence of premiums in Jesuit schools, do not hesitate to accept a decoration, or the title of nobility in recognition of their labors for the advance of science. Why, then, should this principle of rewarding success be so rigorously excluded from the schools? No, it is at least exceedingly difficult to prove that prizes have generally evil results, provided all injustice and even all suspicion of unfairness in the distribution is avoided. However, when speaking of reward we mean in general some public recognition, be it a word of praise or something else.[884]
Emulation may be fostered in various ways. The Ratio gives one in the contests. Each pupil may have his aemulus or rival. The professor questions A, while B, the aemulus of A., is on the alert to correct his rival. Or the boys question each other mutually, while the professor merely presides to see that all goes on fairly. The whole class may be divided into two sides, which are frequently called camps or armies, as boys naturally delight in anything military. Boys of the one camp, let us say the “Carthaginians,” question some of the rival camps of the “Romans,” and vice versa. The leaders of the two sides keep the record of the points gained, of the corrections made by their respective side. The leaders ought to be pupils distinguished by talent, industry and good character. Different classes may also challenge each other for an extraordinary and more solemn contest, to which other classes may be invited as witnesses.
It is not easy to make such contests successful, and it may require great skill and experience on the part of the teacher; and if he lacks this skill—he may be a very good teacher in other respects—it is better to find some other means of encouraging fair and successful emulation. It should not be forgotten that this emulation, in the words of Fathers Hughes and Duhr, is only one of the “subordinate elements in the Jesuit method,”[885] or “only a trifling detail,” as Father de Scoraille says, not the predominant element as its adversaries represent it. In general, these contests work better in the lower classes; especially in Northern countries, they will not be found as suitable for higher classes. Much of the pomp and the ceremonies which are mentioned in the Ratio and by Jouvancy, do not suit modern taste and have long ago been discarded in Jesuit colleges. But these were accidental details; the fundamental principle is sound. Father Duhr well observes: “The literary contests of the pupils brought life and action into the schools of olden times. We have become colder in such things, whether to the benefit of lively youths is another question.”[886]
We quoted above the statement of Professor Paulsen to the effect that the practice of Protestant schools in regard to emulation is by no means what should be expected from their severe censures of this point in the Jesuit system. In fact Mr. Quick, writing about competitions and “class matches,” says: “With young classes I have tried the Jesuits’ plan of class matches and have found it answer exceedingly well.”[887] In the revised edition of 1890 the same author declares, in general, that there are many forms of emulation which he did not set his face against.[888] And not long ago, in 1901, Dr. Beecher of Dresden recommended for the lower classes of the gymnasium contests among the pupils, which resemble very much the concertationes of the Ratio. He calls them “dainties of a harmless character which make the boys relish better the dry forms of Latin grammar.”[889] Still more remarkable is the fact that in the Berlin Conference, June 1900, one of the most distinguished members of that assembly, Professor Münch, pleaded for introducing a system which is not much different from the Jesuit system of the aemuli. He says: “It must come to it in our schools that not only the teacher asks the pupils but also that the pupils question one another.”[890]
Other exercises intended to rouse the activity of the pupils are oratorical contests and other public exhibitions.[891] The rules for the teachers prescribe that the original productions of the pupils must be carefully corrected and polished by the teacher, but the latter should not write them in their entirety.[892] A skilful teacher can do much in stimulating interest in such entertainments, if he proposes an interesting subject and knows how to use the literary and historical material treated in the class. The best entertainments will be those that treat one subject under various aspects.
In the philosophical course the contests consist in the disputations. The disputations of the students of philosophy in most Jesuit colleges are conducted in the same fashion as those described in a previous chapter.[893]
In the last place we must mention an exercise which has been styled a “better kind of rivalry,”[894] namely the so-called academies. These are voluntary associations of the students, literary societies in the middle classes, and scientific societies in Philosophy. In Philosophy, according to the rules for the academy, essays are read by the students on some scientific topic, preferably on subjects which are in some way connected with the matter studied in class, but which could not be treated there at length. At times these subjects may be given in the form of free lectures. After the essay has been read all the members of the academy are free to enter on a discussion and attack the assertion of the essayist.[895] It is clear that academies conducted in this manner afford the greatest advantages. In the essayist, the spirit of research is stimulated, and in all those who take part in the discussion, in fact, in all those present, scientific criticism is developed.
The subjects treated in the academy of the pupils of Rhetoric and Humanities are, naturally, of a literary character: criticism of rhetorical and poetical topics not treated fully in class,[896] which may be illustrated from various authors; a literary and critical appreciation of a striking passage from an author; the reading of an essay or poem composed by the pupil himself; a discussion of a disputed question of literature, and other interesting and useful subjects, which are recommended by the rules of this academy.[897] An academy is to be held every week in Philosophy, and every week or every fortnight in Rhetoric and Humanities. Even the Grammar classes are to have their academies, in which similar discussions are carried on, of course less scientific than in the higher classes. At any rate, these academies are excellently fitted to stimulate the activity of the pupils.
In one Jesuit college in the United States the essays prepared in the middle classes, sometimes treated of archaeological subjects which had been alluded to in the course of the reading of the classics. This seems quite in accord with the spirit of the rules for the academy. The pupils took a great interest in such subjects and undoubtedly derived great profit from them.
When the pupil read his essay, not unfrequently drawings on the blackboard, maps and pictures served to illustrate the lecture. Then followed a short discussion of the subject and further queries of the boys, which were answered by the teacher. The following subjects were treated in this manner: The Roman Coliseum, Roman military roads, Roman aqueducts, a Roman triumph, the Romans’ daily life, the Roman family, Roman agriculture, the number and rank of early Christians, character of Greeks and Romans compared, Greek sculpture, pagan and Christian art,—this last essay was read in connection with the study of Cicero’s fourth oration against Verres, “On the Statues,” in which many Greek masterpieces of art are described or mentioned.—Similar subjects are: The Roman (or Greek) house, Roman (or Greek) temples, feasts, costumes, weapons, magistrates, games, theatres, slavery, education, navy, travels etc. It may be easily understood that much is requisite to conduct such “Academies” successfully, above all on the part of the teacher. For he must discuss the subject with the young writer, suggest reliable sources from which to draw material, direct the writer in his work, and lastly revise and correct the essay. But the work will be amply compensated by the result, especially by the increased interest with which the pupils study the classics.
Such, then, are the exercises of the Ratio. They are distinguished for variety: a short recitation of the memory lesson is followed by the thorough repetition of the prelection of the previous day, or of the precepts of rhetoric, poetry, and grammar. Then comes the principal work of the day, the prelection of the new passage of the author, followed by a brief repetition. Some time is devoted every day to the writing of a little theme; and lastly the contests rouse the pupils to new attention, in case the other exercises should have caused some drowsiness. Certainly this change and variety of the exercises is calculated to break the monotony which, especially with younger pupils, is apt to give rise to weariness and disgust. At the same time, the exercises are of such a character that they call into play all the faculties of the mind: memory, imagination, reasoning. Thus they are excellent means for attaining the end of education, namely the thorough and harmonious training of the mind.