ITS HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS BY ROBERT SCHWICKERATH, S. J., WOODSTOCK COLLEGE, MD. ST. LOUIS, MO. B. HERDER 17 South Broadway. PREFACE. Mr. Quick, the English educationist, asserts that "since the Revival of Learning, no body of men has played so important a part in education as the Jesuits." And yet, as the same author says, "about these Jesuit schools there does not seem to be much information accessible to the English reader." (Educational Reformers, pp. 33-34.) It is true, indeed, that during the past few years much has been said and written about the Jesuit schools; in fact, they have occupied the attention of the public more, perhaps, than ever before. However, with the exception of the excellent book of Father Thomas Hughes, S. J. (Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits, 1892), most of what has been offered to American and English readers is entirely untrustworthy. The account given of the Jesuit system in Histories of Education used in this country, as those of Compayré, Painter, and Seeley, is a mere caricature. Instead of drawing from the original sources, these authors have been content to repeat the biased assertions of unreliable secondary authorities. Some observations on American Histories of Education will be found at the end of this book (p. 649 sqq.). The publication of a new work on the educational system of the Jesuits may be justified at the present day. During the last decade, educational circles in this country have been greatly agitated about various questions of the utmost importance: the elective system, the value of the study of the classics, 68625 the function of the college and its relation to the high school and university, and the problem of moral and religious training. It has been the author's intention to view the Jesuit system chiefly in the light of these modern problems. These important educational questions have been treated at some length, and it is hoped. that on this account the work may engage the attention of all who are interested in education. I feel almost obliged to apologize for one feature of the book, viz., the numerous quotations and references. Though aware that there is among American and English readers a sort of antipathy against many references, I have yet deemed it necessary to quote freely from various sources. This course I am forced to adopt, as I do not wish to lay before the reader my own opinions about the educational system of the Jesuits, but I want to show what this system is according to the original sources. These are, above all, the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, and the Ratio Studiorum, which, however, must be supplemented by other documents. For, many points of the Ratio Studiorum are intelligible only in the light of the decrees of the Legislative Assemblies of the Order, the regulations of the General and Provincial Superiors, and the commentaries of prominent Jesuit educators. A great deal of this material has been published by Father Pachtler, in four volumes of the great collection Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica (Berlin 18871894); other valuable information has been published within the last few years, in the Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu, especially in the part entitled Monumenta Paedagogica, which appeared in 1901 and 1902. An account of these works is given in the Biblio graphical Appendix, under the heading: Primary Sources. Another reason which moved me to make use of numerous quotations was the desire to show what distinguished historians and educators outside the Society, particularly non-Catholics, both in America. and Europe, have said on the educational system of the Jesuits. I wished also to call attention to points of contact between the Ratio Studiorum and other famous educational systems. As so many features of the Jesuit system have been misrepresented, a work of this kind must, at times, assume a polemical attitude. Painful as controversy is, the unfair criticism of many writers has compelled me to contest their positions. The style of the book may not always be as smooth as is desirable. In partial extenuation of this defect, it should be stated that a considerable amount of the material had to be translated, chiefly from the Latin, German, and French. It has been my principal aim to be faithful to the original, and in general, to write in the simplest possible language, so as to let the facts speak without attempt at literary embellishment. I desire to acknowledge my obligation to several friends of Woodstock College, who rendered kind assistance in revising the manuscript and reading the proofs. In particular I wish to thank the Rev. Samuel Hanna Frisbee, S. J., editor of the Woodstock Letters, who allowed me the freest use of the Letters and furnished other valuable material. WOODSTOCK COLLEGE, MARYLAND, R. S. |