Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits

by Thomas Hughes

In the same sense, these critics, whom we are following, consider it undesirable that a Master should resign his post in less than three years. Frequent and manifold changes provoke complaints on the part of the outside world. Besides, the Master's own efforts at acquiring perfection in the magisterial art will be cut short. When there is no prospective permanency in a position, the mind is not so seriously applied to the work in hand.[188]

In all this, a most important question regarding boys is being faced by these critics; and a definite practical solution is adopted. The question is, which of the two alternatives to adopt, whether to submit boys to one person's dominant influence, or to pass them on through the hands of divers experienced and permanent Professors, stationed respectively in the different grades. This latter alternative, if it is understood to mean that one Professor remains perpetually in one grade, and another in another, scarcely seems to merit consideration with them, except as regards the two highest literary classes,—of Poetry and Rhetoric,—where the requirements of erudition are so considerable as to need a lengthened term of years for filling the chairs worthily. But, if the alternative regarding permanent Professors means that the same teachers remain constantly within the limits of the same curriculum, then the question seems to be the one which the critics of the preliminary Ratio argue about in both senses, for and against; and they finally arrive at a solution, or rather a compromise.[189]

The severest thing they say against the plan is in this wise, when speaking directly of the two highest grades: "Perpetuity of that kind may give occasion to mere idleness and indifference; for after acquiring, in the first years, some esteem and name for their learning (in Poetry or Rhetoric), Masters prefer to enjoy the fruit and name of the labor already undergone, however moderate that was, rather than wear themselves out with new labors. Hence they make no new acquisitions in the learning and accomplishments proper to their branch; they get rooted in very much the same spot, and teach what they have taught before over and over again, though with some variations. What is worse, as if they were quite worn out with their prolonged exertions, they say that they cannot any longer stand all the labor of exercising their students; whence everything freezes, and they ask for an assistant, who, if he is unlearned, does more harm than good; if learned, then why are two doing the work of one?"

The solution which they arrive at is a compromise, which recognizes peculiar advantages in both arrangements. It is embodied in several rules of the Ratio Studiorum.[190] As many perpetual Professors as possible, for Grammar and Rhetoric, are to be provided; and some candidates for admission to the Order, who seem qualified for this field of work, though apparently not likely to succeed in the higher studies of the Society, may be admitted on this condition, that they devote themselves in perpetuity to this work of zeal. Thus such exigencies are provided for as postulate a perpetuity of professorship within the same limited curriculum.

On the other hand, the normal process is that which arranges a constant succession of teachers in the college, but not a constant change with the same boys. The same boys go hand in hand with the one Master, with whom they have most to do. And no one is to take charge of them, however transiently, says the General Vitelleschi, "whether on account of fewness of numbers, or merely to supply for another in his absence, of whom it is not certain that he is qualified for the post."[191] The very frequent mention, in all these discussions, of something like domestic tragedies resulting from the change of masters, seems to show two things; first, it justifies the practice of keeping the same Professor over the same boys for a certain term of years, if not until the class itself dissolves into higher courses; secondly, it shows what a usual condition it was for masters to have won the most absolute attachment to themselves, in the exercise of their magisterial duties, both on the side of parents and on the part of the scholars. Thus, speaking of the Professors mounting with their classes, the critics say: "They will have observed what their disciples need; they will take them up to the next class. And hence, that changing of Masters, which has caused so many tragic scenes, will not be felt so much."[192]

Add to these elements of permanency and identity, another which is most fundamental of all, the identity of their formation as Masters; so that the young Jesuits, as the General Visconti sums up the matter in 1752, "must have the most accomplished Professors of Rhetoric, immediately after their novitiate, men who not only are altogether eminent in this faculty, but who know how to teach, and make everything smooth for them; men of eminent talent and the widest experience in the art; who are not merely to form good scholars, but to train good Masters"; and that "two years entire must be given to Rhetoric, according to the custom of the Society, which term is not to be abridged, unless necessity is urgent."[193] Add, moreover, the uniformity of plan, "so that the form of our schools may be everywhere as much as possible the same, and, when Masters are changed, itself need undergo no change."[194] It follows that, though the flow of new blood is constantly entering the pedagogic body, and a constant renewal is taking place, neither the permanency nor the identity of the teaching body and its system is found to depend upon the same individuals remaining at the same posts. Naturally, such conditions are not to be looked for, except in the special circumstances of a religious community, with perfect organization in the body, with the conscientiousness of a self-denying formation actuating the members, with the landmarks of traditions, and a statutory method to show the way; and, finally, with executive officials adequate to control.

As to this last-named condition of executive superintendence over persons and things in the system, several rules for the Prefect of Studies of these literary courses will explain themselves. The Ratio of 1599 says: "Let him have the rules of the Masters and scholars, and see that they are observed, as if they were his own. Let him help the Masters themselves and direct them, and be especially cautious that the esteem and authority due to them be not in the least impaired. Let him be very solicitous that the new Preceptors follow with accuracy the manner of teaching, and other customs of their predecessors, provided that these were not foreign to our method; so that persons outside may not have reason to find fault with the frequent change of Masters. Once a fortnight, at least, let him listen to each one teaching."[195]

This moral identity being secured, in the ways, means, and views of the teaching body, the individual and personal elements, which each Master brings to bear upon the work before him, are no more interfered with, or hampered by community of method, than are all the varieties of race, nation, politics, and environment, slighted or interfered with by a single system of collegiate institution being placed in their midst. It was in view of being everywhere, that the system was cast in its precise and adjustable form, so that, in spite of being everywhere, it should be found equally manageable and effective. And similarly, in spite of the system itself being one, the play of individual talents can be various, as are the movable factors in any great organization.

We may close this chapter by observing several far-reaching consequences of the foregoing principles. In the first place, those who, after personal experience in the classes, come to take charge of colleges in the capacity of Rectors, are found, say the critics of 1586, to take full and accurate account of studies and Professors alike; for they themselves "have borne the burden of the schools, and know how to sympathize with others from their own experience"; a fact which is the more conducive to the end in view, as "colleges have been instituted for the study of letters. Besides, not unfrequently there arise in the classes, especially of the smaller colleges, difficulties which can scarcely be overcome, except by a Rector who has personal experience to guide him; otherwise, whether he chances to solve the difficulty aright, or solves it awry, he will not do much good either way, since they do not give him the credit of knowing how."[196] The "smaller colleges" spoken of here, as more liable to encounter internal difficulties, are contrasted elsewhere by these critics with "the greater and principal ones, in which there are many counsellors or referees at hand, to whom the Masters can have recourse for assistance; and the schools themselves have sufficient authority." But, in what they call the minor colleges, "the authority of the schools depends for the most part on the reputation and authority of the individual Masters," who happen at a given time to be filling the posts.[197]

In the spirit of this personal and experienced concurrence with all the affairs of the college, the Rector is required so to moderate the other concerns of his office, as to be prompt in fostering and advancing all literary exercises. He is to go often to the classes, those of the lower faculties as well as of the higher.[198] Every month, or at least every other month, he is to hold general consultations with all the Masters below the course of Logic, the several Prefects being present; and, after the reading of some selection from the Ratio, concerning the Masters or the piety and good conduct of the students, he is to inquire what difficulties occur, or what omissions are noticed in the observance of rules.[199] Books are never to be wanting, in the sufficiency desired by the members generally, whether they are engaged in teaching, or are pursuing their studies.[200] To this regulation, which concerns the chief authority in a Province, the revised Ratio of 1832 adds: "The same is to be said of literary periodicals for the use of the Professors; of museums, physical apparatus, and other equipments, which are needed by a college according to its degree." The General Visconti observes somewhat emphatically, that "in buying books the Rectors will never consider the money of their colleges ill spent."[201]