Part 13

This decline is described in the following quotations taken from Painter, and they need no comment: “During the period extending from the middle of the sixteenth to the beginning of the eighteenth century, three leading tendencies are apparent in education. These may be characterized as the theological, the humanistic, and the practical.... A large share of the intellectual strength of the age was turned to theology. Every phase of religious truth, particularly in its doctrinal and speculative aspects, was brought under investigation. Theology was elevated to a science, and doctrinal systems were developed with logical precision, and _extended to trifling subtilities_.”[132]

In the figure of the Bible they strained for gnats, meanwhile swallowing the camel. The life was thus lost in the pulpit and in the theological schools. It was again the “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

[Sidenote: Further return to papal methods]

Painter further says: “The schools, which stand in close relation to religion, were naturally influenced in a large measure by the theological tendencies of the age. Theological interests imposed upon the schools _a narrow range of subjects, a mechanical method of instruction_, and a cruel discipline. The principle of authority, _exacting_ a blind submission of the pupil, prevailed in the schools of every grade. The young were regarded not as tender plants to be carefully nurtured and developed, but as untamed animals to be repressed or broken.”[133]

Notice the creeping in of those very characteristics of papal education so often referred to heretofore: 1, narrow range of subjects; 2, mechanical instruction,—memory work devoid of understanding; 3, arbitrary government, as seen in the matter of discipline. To this we must add that which is the natural accompaniment in papal instruction—the teaching of Latin. Says Painter, quoting Dittes: “‘In the higher institutions, and even in the wretched town schools, LATIN WAS THE MOLOCH to which countless minds fell an offering in return for the blessing granted to a few. _A dead knowledge of words took the place of a living knowledge of things._ Latin schoolbooks supplanted the book of nature, the book of life, the book of mankind. And in the popular schools youthful minds were tortured over the spelling book and catechism. The method of teaching was almost everywhere, in the primary as well as in the higher schools, a mechanical and compulsory drill in unintelligible formulas. The pupils were obliged to learn, _but they were not educated to see and hear, to think and prove_, and were not led to a true independence and personal perfection. THE TEACHERS FOUND THEIR FUNCTION IN TEACHING THE PRESCRIBED TEXT, not in harmoniously developing the young human being according to the laws of nature—a process, moreover, that lay under the ban of ecclesiastical orthodoxy.’”[134]

[Sidenote: Cramming system and memory work]

That there was a cramming process followed equal to any twentieth-century school, is evident. “The discipline answered to the content and spirit of the instruction.... The principle was to tame the pupils, not to educate them. They were to hold themselves motionless, that the school exercises might not be disturbed. What took place in their minds, and how their several characters were constituted, the school pedants did not understand and appreciate.”

[Sidenote: Sturm’s school a compromise]

In order to appreciate the rapidity with which the relapse took place from the educational system introduced by Luther to the medieval principles and methods, our attention is directed to the school of John Sturm. This man, “regarded as the greatest educator that the Reformed Church produced during this period,” died in 1589, less than seventy years after the Diet of Worms; hence his work fell within the half century following those forty years of unusual prosperity for Protestantism which has already been noticed. His work is contemporary with the first Jesuit school of Germany. The decline is visible in every feature of his work.

_John Sturm_ presided for forty years over the gymnasium of Strasburg, and his boast was that his institution “reproduced the best periods of Athens and Rome; and, in fact, he succeeded in giving to his adopted city the name of New Athens.” Sturm’s school stood as a halfway mark between the Christian schools and the purely papal schools of the Jesuits, but since compromise always places a person or institution on the side of wrong, in weighing the worth of his school the balances necessarily tip in favor of the papacy.

[Sidenote: Course of study in Sturm’s school]

That his was a mixture of the medieval classical literature with a thin slice of Scripture sandwiched in for effect, is seen in the course of study as outlined by Painter. The school was divided into ten classes covering ten years, but only so much is given as is necessary to show the character of the studies: “Tenth class—The alphabet, reading, writing, Latin declensions and conjugations, German or Latin catechism.” “Ninth class—Latin declensions and conjugations continued. Memorizing of Latin words.” The eighth and the seventh classes are about the same. In the sixth, Greek is begun. The fifth class is as follows: “Study of words, ... versification, mythology, Cicero, and Virgil’s eclogues, Greek vocabulary.... On Saturday and Sunday, one of Paul’s epistles.”[135] The remaining four classes have much “learning by heart,” rhetoric, Paul’s epistles, orations of Demosthenes, the Iliad of Odyssey; memorizing and recitation of the Epistle to the Romans, dialectics, and rhetoric continued; Virgil, Horace, Homer, Thucidides, Sallust, weekly dramatic entertainments, and again a reading of Paul’s epistles.

Such a course of instruction was well fitted to bridge the gulf between the papacy and Protestantism. It was imbibing perhaps unconsciously the spirit of the new papal schools. “History, mathematics, natural science, and the mother tongue are ignored. A great gap is left between the gymnasium and life—a gap that could not be filled even by the university. In aiming to reproduce Greece and Rome in the midst of modern Christian civilization, Sturm’s scheme involves a _vast anachronism_.”[136]

[Sidenote: Influence of Sturm’s school]

The Strasburg gymnasium at one time numbered several thousand pupils representing Denmark, Poland, Portugal, France, and England. “Sturm’s influence extended to _England, and thence to America_.” An English writer says: “No one who is acquainted with the education given at our principal classical schools, _Eaton_, _Winchester_, and _Westminster_, forty years ago, can fail to see that their curriculum was framed in a great degree on Sturm’s model.”[137] And yet it is acknowledged that his “scheme involves a _vast anachronism_.”

[Sidenote: Modern schools follow Sturm]

To show that Sturm is the father of much of the instruction now given in our high schools and universities, Rosenkranz says: “John Sturm, of Strasburg, long before Comenius, had laid the foundation of what has become the _traditional course of instruction and methods of study in the classical schools for preparation for college_.”[138]

[Sidenote: Reaction as seen in discipline]

The decline in the matter of instruction was accompanied by a corresponding retrogression in the morals of university students. Painter tells us that “the state of morals at the universities of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was very low. Idleness, drunkenness, disorder, and licentiousness prevailed in an unparalleled degree. The practice of _hazing_ was universal, and new students were subjected to shocking indignities.” Duke Albrecht, of the university of Jena, wrote in 1624: “‘Customs before unheard of, inexcusable, unreasonable, and wholly barbarian, have come into existence.’” Then he speaks of the insulting names, the expensive suppers, and the carousing of the students, until “‘parents in distant places either determine not to send their children to this university, ... or to take them away again.’”[139]

PROTESTANTISM LOST MUCH BECAUSE SHE CEASED TO EDUCATE HER CHILDREN. Had Protestantism remained true to her first principles of education, her overthrow would have been impossible. She paved the way for her own fall by departing gradually from the gospel, and by leaning more and more toward the classics and scholasticism.

[Sidenote: Ignatius Loyola solves the problem]

It was this decline on her own part, caused by the insidious workings of the Jesuits, which made possible the great victories of this order in later years. It was when Rome saw her youth slipping from her hands into the Protestant schools, and as a result, a few years later, found whole nations refusing obedience, and building for themselves new forms of government, that, in her distress, she grasped the offer made by _Loyola_. And while the power he represented in its organization, placed itself above the pope, becoming, as it were, _a papacy of the papacy_, still she accepted his offer, and the _counter educational move_ began. THE JESUITS ORGANIZED TO COMBAT REFORMATION IN EDUCATIONAL LINES. In speaking of the Jesuits, Painter says: “This order, established by Ignatius Loyola [in 1534], found its special mission in combating the Reformation. As the most effective means of arresting the progress of Protestantism, it aimed at controlling education, particularly among the wealthy and the noble. In rivalry with the schools of Protestant countries, it developed an immense educational activity, and earned for its schools a great reputation.” Again, the same writer says: “More than any other agency it stayed the progress of the Reformation, and it even succeeded in winning back territory already conquered by Protestantism. Although employing the pulpit and the confessional, it _worked chiefly through its schools, of which it established and controlled large numbers_. Education in all Catholic countries gradually passed into its hands.”

[Sidenote: Jesuit schools]

In order to understand the reason for the success of the Jesuits as teachers it is necessary to glance at the plan of studies prepared in 1588 from a draft made by Loyola himself. “Every member of the order,” says Painter, “became a _competent and practical teacher_. He received a thorough course in the ancient classics, philosophy, and theology. During the progress of his later studies he was required to teach.” Jesuit schools contained two courses, the lower corresponding very closely to the work of Sturm. Rosenkranz gives an excellent description of the educational system of the Jesuits. He says:—

[Sidenote: Course of instruction]

“In instruction they developed so exact a mechanism that they gained the reputation of having model school regulations, and even Protestants sent their children to them. From the close of the sixteenth century to the present time they have based their teaching upon the _Ratio et institutio studiorum Societatis Jesu_ of Claudius of Aquaviva. Following that, they distinguished two courses of teaching, a higher and a lower. The lower included nothing but an external knowledge of the Latin language, and some fortuitous knowledge of history, of antiquities, and of mythology. _The memory was cultivated as a means of keeping down free activity of thought and clearness of judgment._ The higher course comprehended dialectics, rhetoric, physics, and morals. Dialectics was expounded as the art of sophistry. In rhetoric, they favored the polemical and emphatic style of the African Fathers of the church and their gorgeous phraseology; in physics, they followed Aristotle closely, and especially encouraged reading of the books ‘De Generatione et Corruptione’ and ‘De Coelo,’ on which they commented after their fashion; finally, in morals, casuistic skepticism was their central point. They made much of rhetoric, on account of their sermons, giving to it careful attention. They laid stress on declamation, and introduced it into their showy public examinations through the performance of Latin school comedies, and thus amused the public, disposed them to approval, and at the same time quite innocently practiced the pupil in the art of assuming a feigned character.

“Diplomatic conduct was made necessary to the pupils of the Jesuits, as well by their strict military discipline as by their system of mutual distrust, espionage, and informing. Implicit obedience relieved the pupils from all responsibility as to the moral justification of their deeds. This exact following out of all commands and refraining from any criticism as to principles, created a moral indifference; and, from the necessity of having consideration for the peculiarities and caprices of the superior on whom all others were dependent, arose eye service. The coolness of mutual distrust sprang from the necessity which each felt of being on his guard against every other as a talebearer. The most deliberate hypocrisy and pleasure in intrigue merely for the sake of intrigue—this subtilest poison of moral corruption—were the result. Jesuitism had not only an interest in the material profit, which, when it had corrupted souls, fell to its share, but it also had an interest in the educative process of corruption. With absolute indifference as to the idea of morality ... or the moral quality of the means used to attain its end, it rejoiced in the efficacy of secrecy, and the accomplished and calculating understanding, and in deceiving the credulous by means of its graceful, seemingly scrupulous, moral language.”[140]

[Sidenote: Spread of Catholicism by schools]

Here is a picture of _this papacy of the papacy_. Again I say, had Protestantism remained true to principle, even this system could not have accomplished its overthrow; but since truth was neglected by Protestant schools, this system of the Jesuits easily carried every country into which it was introduced. “The Jesuit system of education ... was intended to meet the active influence of Protestantism in education. It was remarkably successful, and for a century [following 1584] nearly all the foremost men of Christendom came from Jesuit schools. In 1710 they had six hundred and twelve colleges, one hundred and fifty-seven normal schools, twenty-four universities, and an immense number of lower schools. These schools laid very great stress on _emulation_. Their experiments in this principle are so extensive and long-continued that they furnish a most valuable phase in the history of pedagogy in this respect alone. In the matter of supervision they are also worthy of study. They had a fivefold system, each subordinate being obedient to his superior. Besides this, there was a complete system of espionage on the part of the teachers and pupil monitors.”[141]

[Sidenote: Methods of Jesuitical schools]

On the subject of emulation, as made use of in the schools of the Jesuits, Painter gives us these thoughts: “The Jesuits made much of emulation, and in their eager desire to promote it they adopted means that could not fail to excite jealousy and envy. Says the Plan of Studies: ‘He who knows how to excite emulation has found the most powerful auxiliary in his teaching. Let the teacher, then, highly appreciate this valuable aid, and let him study to make the wisest use of it. Emulation awakens and develops all the powers of man. In order to maintain emulation, it will be necessary that each pupil have a rival to control his conduct and criticise him; also magistrates, questors, censors, and decurians should be appointed among the students. Nothing will be held more honorable than to outstrip a fellow student, and nothing more dishonorable than to be outstripped. Prizes will be distributed to the best pupils with the greatest possible solemnity. Out of school the place of honor will everywhere be given to the most distinguished pupils.’”[142]

As the Colossus of Rhodes stood astride the Greek waters, so the Jesuit schools spanned the gulf of education. One foot stood in Greece amidst its classics (for “Aristotle furnished the leading text-books”), the other on Christian soil, having the _form_ of godliness; but like the demigods of Greece, it was neither human nor divine. The results of the educational system of the Jesuits are well summed up in another paragraph from Painter:—

“The Jesuit system of education, based not upon a study of man, but upon the interests of the order, was necessarily narrow. It sought showy results with which to dazzle the world. A well-rounded development was nothing. The principle of authority, suppressing all freedom and independence of thought, prevailed from beginning to end. Religious pride and intolerance were fostered. While our baser feelings were highly stimulated, the nobler side of our nature was wholly neglected. Love of country, fidelity to friends, nobleness of character, enthusiasm for beautiful ideals, were insidiously suppressed. For the rest, we adopt the language of Quick: ‘The Jesuits did not aim at developing _all_ the faculties of their pupils, but merely the receptive and reproductive faculties. When the young man had acquired a thorough mastery of the Latin language for all purposes; when he was well versed in the theological and philosophical opinions of his preceptors; when he was skillful in dispute, and could make a brilliant display from the resources of a well-stored memory, he had reached the highest points to which the Jesuits sought to lead him. Originality and independence of mind, love of truth for its own sake, the power of reflecting and of forming correct judgments, were not merely neglected, they were suppressed in the Jesuits’ system. But in what they attempted they were eminently successful, and their success went a long way toward securing their popularity.’”[143]

[Sidenote: Wherein Jesuit schools worthy of imitation]

One can not condemn without reserve the Jesuitical system of education; for all false systems contain some points of truth, and the strength of all these systems lies in their close counterfeit of the true. Hence we can agree with these words: “Whatever its defects as a system of general education, it was admirably suited to Jesuit purposes, and in some particulars it embodied valuable principles.” As the progress of the papacy through the Jesuitical schools is followed into one country and then another, one admires the constancy and self-sacrifice of those who have committed their lives to the order. Had Protestants been one half as diligent in advocating the principles of Christian education as the Jesuit teachers have been in counteracting the influence of the Reformation, far different results would to-day be seen in the world.

[Sidenote: Spread of Jesuit schools]

In tracing the growth of the schools of the Jesuits we begin with Germany, the heart of the reform movement, and follow quite carefully the history as given by Ranke: “Bishop Urban became acquainted with Le Jay and heard from him, for the first time, of the _colleges_ the _Jesuits had founded in several universities_.

[Sidenote: Jesuit college in Vienna]

“Upon this the bishop advised his imperial master [Ferdinand I] to found a _similar college in Vienna_, seeing how great was the decay of Catholic theology in Germany. Ferdinand warmly embraced the suggestion; in a letter he wrote to Loyola on the subject, he declares his conviction that the only _means to uphold the declining cause of Catholicism in Germany, was to give the rising generation learned and pious Catholics for teachers_.” We can understand the grounds for this decision when we recall the statement that about 1563 it was said that “twenty years had elapsed in Vienna since a single student of the university had taken priest’s orders.” “The preliminaries,” says Ranke, “were easily arranged. In the year 1551 thirteen Jesuits, among them Le Jay himself, arrived in Vienna, and were in the first instance, granted a dwelling, chapel, and pension, by Ferdinand, until shortly after he incorporated them with the university, and even assigned to them the visitation of it.” “Soon after this they arose to consideration in _Cologne_,” but for a time had little success. In 1556 the endowed school referred to before governed by a Protestant regent, “gave them an opportunity of gaining a firmer footing. For since there was a party in the city bent above all things on maintaining the Catholic character of the university, the advice given by the patrons of the Jesuits to hand over the establishment to that order, met with attention.” “At the same period they also gained a firm footing in _Ingoldstadt_.” “From these three metropolitan centers the Jesuits now spread out in every direction.” These schools were, some of them at least, training schools for Catholic teachers; for Ranke tells of a certain man in Hungary, Olahus by name, and dedicated in infancy to the church, who, “contemplating the general decay of Catholicism in Hungary, saw that the last hope left for it was that of maintaining its hold on the common people, who had not yet wholly lapsed from its rule. To this end, however, there lacked teachers of Catholic principles, and to form whom, he founded a college of Jesuits at Tyrnau in the year 1561.” “Two privy councilors of the elector Daniel, of Mainz, ... conceived likewise that the _admission of the Jesuits was the only means that promised a recovery of the University of Mainz_. In spite of the opposition made by the canons and feudal proprietors, they founded a college of the order in Mainz, and a preparatory school in Aschaffenburg.”

[Sidenote: School at Heidelberg]

The Jesuits advanced up the Rhine. “They particularly coveted a settlement at Spires, both because ... there were so many distinguished men [assembled there] over whom it would be of extraordinary moment to possess influence; and also in order to be placed near the Heidelberg University, which at that day enjoyed the highest repute for its Protestant professors. They gradually carried their point.” It is interesting to note how they shadowed the Protestant schools, as if, like a parasite, to suck from them their life. “In order to bring back his University of Dillingen to its original purpose, Cardinal Truchess resolved to dismiss all the professors who still taught there, and to commit the establishment entirely to the Jesuits.”

[Sidenote: Rapid growth of Jesuit schools]

To show the rapidity with which the Jesuits worked, Ranke says: “In the year 1551 they had not yet any fixed position in Germany;” “in 1556 they had extended over Bavaria and the Tyrol, Franconia, and Swabia, a great part of Rhineland, and Austria, and they had penetrated into Hungary, Bohemia, and Moravia.” True to the purpose of the order, “their labors were above all devoted to the universities. They were ambitious of rivaling the fame of those of the Protestants.”

[Sidenote: Jesuits’ preparatory schools]

“The Jesuits displayed no less assiduity in the conduct of their Latin schools. It was one of the leading maxims of Lainez that the lower grammatical classes should be supplied with good teachers, since first impressions exercise the greatest influence over the whole future life of the individual.” The Jesuits were willing to devote a lifetime to one phase of education. “It was found that young persons learned more under them in half a year than with others in two years; even Protestants called back their children from distant schools, and put them under the care of the Jesuits.” From this last sentence two things are to be observed. Protestants had lost sight of the importance of education, and their schools had greatly deteriorated, else they would not have intrusted their children to the Jesuits. While the Jesuits began by working into the universities, “schools for the poor, modes of instruction adapted for children, and catechizing followed.”

[Sidenote: Reputation of Jesuit schools]