Half a century later, this question of coördination received a still fuller treatment at the hands of the General Francis Piccolomini. After requiring that philosophers and theologians alike finish conscientiously all the matter assigned for each year, he will not allow that "the example of authors who have mixed up subjects, or have followed out their questions into mere minutiæ, can be cited as of any weight with our Professors. For, whatever is to be thought of them, this method is not opportune for practical teaching in the schools." The General scouts the idea of "exploring the treasure-house of possibilities," to find out new questions; for there is reason to fear that "while folks search about for truths not ascertained, they will catch at chimeras and shadows."[283] Hence, as the Ratio prescribes, "opinions which are useless, obsolete, absurd, manifestly false, are not to receive treatment." The Professors are to run rapidly through questions which are easy. In Holy Scripture, difficult passages are not to be dwelt on indefinitely, nor too much time to be given to chronological computations, or topological surveys of the Holy Land.
In facing the objection, that all this entails a great expenditure of thought and matter, when Professors must despatch in such short courses what might well be treated in longer terms, the preliminary Ratio draws a sharp line of demarcation between other universities and those conducted by Jesuits. "Whatever is the custom in other universities, our method is very different from theirs, so that no less progress can be made in our schools during four years, than in others during five; because our Professors are for the most part more laborious; we have more numerous exercises; our Society, as standing in need of many workmen, requires that perfection of science which is necessary for its men, not that otiose method of others, who, having no motive of this kind to make them expeditious, divide up into many lectures what could well be treated in fewer; their vacations too are for the most part longer and more frequent."[284]
Ex ungue leonem, "You can tell a lion by his paw." Let it appear that the brevity which you study is necessitated by your limits of time; let discernment be conspicuous in your selection of matter, whether to treat summarily or to treat copiously; let the alternate courses supplement one another, so that what had to be skimmed over in one quadriennium is dilated upon more at large in your next; then, say the Fathers, the authority which the Professors enjoy with ecclesiastical dignitaries will not suffer the detriment anticipated by some, when we give condensed and accurate treatment in a shorter time of what is usually spread out through a longer.[285] The paw shows the lion.
3. We may proceed now to the typical form of Jesuit instruction. It is called prælectio. This word is largely the equivalent of "lecturing," in the higher faculties; of "explanation," in the lower. In either case, however, it is something specific. For this reason, and because I shall have to use the word often, I may be allowed to put it in an English dress, and speak of "prelection."
Its form, as a lecture in the higher faculties, is conceived thus: The whole proposition, which is advanced, is to be delivered consecutively, without interposing any stoppages. Then it should be repeated in the same words; and this will be taken by the students as a sign that it is to be written down; and the delivery of it should be marked by such inflections, and proceed at such a pace, especially in its obscure and finer points, that the students may readily distinguish between what is to be written and what is not. Now, while the proposition is thus being taken down, the lecturer ought not to advance new ideas, but should dally with the same, either explaining it in more phrases or clearer ones, or adducing an example or similitude, or amplifying the topic, or drawing out the same logical sequence in another order, so as to make it stand out more distinctly, or throwing out a reason or two, which, however, it is not necessary for them to note. Indeed, if the Professor brings his own papers into the school, he might have in them some select phrases, brief but not obscure, in which he sums up in few words the gist of the propositions. Longer development they will receive only in the explanation, which is then to be given.[286] In that, the Professor will endeavor to prove his thesis, not so much by the number of arguments, as by their weight. He should not be excessive in adducing authorities. And it belongs to his dignity, as a Master, scarcely ever to quote an author whom he has not himself read.[287]
In the grade of Rhetoric, which is the highest of the literary or classical course, the prelection is double; one is upon the art of eloquence, wherein precepts are explained; the other is upon an author, and has for its object the development of style. Taking up an author such as Cicero, the Professor will, in the first place, make clear the sense of the passage. Secondly, the artistic structure is to be analyzed and demonstrated: the Ratio here details the elements of this analysis. Thirdly, other passages which are similar in thought or expression are to be adduced; other orators and poets, whether in the classics or in the vernacular, are to be cited as employing the same principles of art, in persuading or narrating. Fourthly, if the matter allows of it, the thoughts expressed by the author are to be confirmed by what wise men have said on the same subject. Fifthly, whatever else will conduce to ornamenting the passage is here in place, from history, mythology, erudition of every kind. Finally, the words are to be weighed singly; their propriety of use, their beauty, variety, rhythm to be commented upon. The whole of this treatment, however, does not come within the limits of each and every lesson.[288] The "erudition" for this grade is defined to comprise "the history and manners of nations, the authority of various writers, and all learning, but sparingly, to suit the capacity of the scholars."[289]
The prelection on the precepts or rules, "the power of which," says the Ratio, "is very great for the purposes of oratory," comprises six points. Cicero is the rhetorician who supplies the precepts; but Quintilian and Aristotle may also be used. First, the meaning of the rule is to be explained. Secondly, upon the same rule, the rhetoricians are to be collated. Thirdly, some reason for the rule is to be expounded. Fourthly, some striking passages from prose writers, and also from poets, are to be adduced in exemplification of the rule. Fifthly, if anything in the way of varied erudition makes to the purpose, it is to be added. Lastly, an indication should be given how this principle of art can be turned to use by ourselves; the style in which this is done must be marked by the most absolute choice and finish of diction possible.[290]
In the grade of Humanity, which is immediately below Rhetoric, the prelection is to be lightly adorned from time to time with the ornaments of erudition, as far as the passage requires. The Master should rather expatiate to the fullest extent upon the genius of the Latin tongue, on the force and etymology of words as shown by approved authors, on the use and variety of phrases, with a view to imitation. Here, as in other rules of this kind, we may notice the degree of progress made in the native tongues during two centuries and a half. While the Ratio of 1599 adds these words: "Nor let him think it out of his way to bring forward something from the vernacular, if it presents anything specially idiomatic for rendering the idea, or offers some remarkable construction;" the revised Ratio of 1832 substitutes these words: "Let him expatiate on a comparison between the genius of both tongues, with a view to imitation." When he is explaining a prose author, he should investigate the precepts of art, as exemplified therein. Lastly, if he thinks fit, he can give a version, but a most elegant one, of the whole passage into the mother tongue.[291] Greek has its own form of prelection.
As to the "prose writer" just mentioned, the manner of treating an historical writer in Humanity, which is otherwise called the class of Poetry, will serve by the way to illustrate the difference between what is recognized as the staple of studies in a class, and what comes in as subsidiary—a most essential distinction, characterizing this system of literary teaching. The critics of 1586 advert to it clearly. After showing the importance of including the study of historians in the course of Poetry, they say: "This will not be too onerous to the Preceptor; for the style of history is plainer and more lucid, so as not to need great study; and it would be enough to explain the course of events, as they are narrated by the author, so that he need not consult other authors who have written on the same matter. The prelection of the historian ought to be easy; after rendering a sentence of the author, the words may be lightly commented upon, and only such as have some obscurity hanging about them." The historians of whom there is question here, are Cæsar, Sallust, Q. Curtius, Justin, Tacitus, Livy.[292]
"In both classes of Rhetoric and Humanities, not everything indiscriminately is to be dictated and taken down, but only certain interpretations of difficult passages, which are not readily obvious to every one, or which the Master has elaborated as the outcome of his personal study; besides, some rather striking remarks on various passages of the author under examination, such annotations as the commentators give, who edit books of various readings. This will befit the Master's dignity, and will be useful for the young men to know."[293]