CHAPTER I.

Observations on American Histories of Education.[1089]

In the course of the present book we have frequently had occasion to point out that the histories of education by Painter, Seeley and Compayré are utterly untrustworthy in their account of the Jesuit system, and of Catholic education in general. It is natural to infer that in other respects they may be equally unreliable. Professor Cubberley, in his recent _Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education_ (New York, Macmillan, 1902), says, on page 1, that the works of “Painter, Payne, and Seeley are very unsatisfactory, and are not referred to in the Syllabus.” The same should have been done as regards Compayré; for his _History of Pedagogy_ is as unsatisfactory as those mentioned before; it only assumes an air of impartiality, which makes it all the more insidious. (See the present book, pp. 10-11.) Some writers quote from the Ratio Studiorum, but the quotations are often mistranslated in such a manner that they are hardly recognizable when compared with the original. Setting aside the disastrous influence which antipathy and prejudice may have had on some writers, the following reasons may account for many errors. The Ratio Studiorum is in many respects a peculiar document, which is unintelligible unless one is acquainted with the Latin terminology of scholastic philosophy and theology, and there are exceedingly few non-Catholic writers on education who possess this knowledge. Further, numerous regulations of the Ratio are clear only when explained by other documents of the Society, which have either not been known, or not been examined by these writers. Another difficulty is to be found in the fact that the Ratio contains also the regulations for the studies of the members of the Society. Some writers have confounded rules for the novices and scholastics of the Order with regulations for the lay pupils in the colleges. Thus what is said in the _Constitutions_ of the Society about the obedience to be rendered to Superiors by the Jesuits themselves, Mr. Painter has applied to the lay students. (_Hist. of Ed._, p. 170.) Evidently an entirely false impression must be produced by such confusion.

However, in most cases it is almost certain that these writers have not taken the trouble to examine the Ratio Studiorum, but have contented themselves with copying the assertions of untrustworthy secondary authorities. Raumer’s _History of Education_ seems still to be considered by some a reliable source. Even Professor Cubberley styles it “still quite valuable” (_l. c._). And yet this work is altogether antiquated. Besides, in regard to Catholic education it is so biased that fair-minded Protestants have rejected many parts of it. Thus Henry Barnard, in his translation of the chapter on the Jesuit schools, says: “We omit in this place as well as towards the close of the article, several passages of Raumer’s chapter on the Jesuits, in which he discusses, from the extreme Protestant stand-point, the influence of the confessional, and the principles of what he calls ‘Jesuitical’ morality. These topics, and especially when handled in a partisan spirit, are more appropriate to a theological and controversial, than to an educational journal. The past as well as the present organization of the schools of the Jesuits, the course of instruction, the methods of teaching and discipline, are worthy of profound study by teachers and educators, who would profit by the experience of wise and learned men.” (_American Journal of Education_, vol. V, p. 215.) However, even in the statements which Barnard accepted from Raumer, there are not a few that are incorrect. Owing to protests of Raumer, Barnard, in the VI. volume of his journal, added the passages which he had omitted in the previous translation. The misrepresentations which Raumer had borrowed from Pascal and others, need not be dwelt on here.

Nor is the estimate of the Jesuit system correct which is found in the _History of Modern Education_, by Samuel H. Williams, Professor of the Science and Art of Teaching, in Cornell University. The author evidently endeavored at times to be impartial, but he was not fortunate in the choice of his sources. They were evidently not the original documents. Otherwise he would not have been betrayed into such absurd statements as this: “The teachers were mostly novices of the Order, with a much smaller number of the fully professed brothers.” Now, as the chapter on the “Training of the Jesuit Teacher” proves, novices are not employed in teaching, and the Jesuit is not engaged in teaching until after a training of five or six years succeeding the _completion_ of the novitiate. The expression “fully professed brothers,” also, shows that this author knows very little about Jesuit teachers.

Mr. Shoup, in his _History and Science of Education_, admits many good features in the Jesuit system; he expressly states that it has many points in common with American methods, but then his authorities lead him away into the old tirades of “neglecting mathematics, sciences, practical knowledge; suppressing of independent thought,” etc.

We gladly acknowledge that the latest American book on the subject, Mr. Kemp’s _History of Education_ (Lippincott, 1902), is, in point of impartiality, superior to most other works. On the whole, it is free from offensive attacks on the relation of the Church to education. However, we must say that it is not free from assertions which cannot stand in the light of modern historical research. Particularly in