Eugene Devlin, SJ, "Character Formation in the Ratio Studiorum" (1953)

[213] In the words of Fr. Martín the Ratio's distinction lies in its spirit and method.[1] If spirit may be taken in the sense of animating principles then a characteristic principle of the Ratio is that mind and will be trained in one relation. The Ratio considered development of intellectual capacity inadequate and unrealistic unless the will was at the same time strengthened in good. The end product of training in such a system was not only an educated man but a man of virtue and character as well. Hence, as Farrell states, "a theology of sanctification and salvation is intrinsic to the system."[2]

St. Ignatius no less pointedly expressed the purpose of the Society in the direction of schools.

Let these schools be conducted in such a way that the students are solidly formed in Christian doctrine . . . and let care be taken, that while learning literature they also learn to act in a way worthy of a Christian.[3]

And further on he writes:

Every effort should be made to ensure that those who frequent our schools in search of learning should at the same time acquire a knowledge of what is rightly expected of a gentleman and a Christian.[4] 

It was clear that the framers of the Ratio did not intend to formulate a detailed and specific program for character development from the psychological viewpoint. Only in one edition, the Ratio of 1586, was particular mention made of the psychological content underlying its directives. Consequently, it was necessary to infer principles valid for a psychological approach to character formation from various rules covering organization, curriculum and method. The problem of the investigation [214] was, therefore, to discover whether there were in the Ratio Studiorum certain distinctive psychological principles which effectively contribute to a school program of character development.

Psychological principles were understood to be certain fundamental sources of human activity flowing from man's nature as a composite being. Such principles included imagination, memory, intellect, emotions, and will. Character formation was defined as a directed and purposeful training of the student's intellectual and volitional powers to assist him to acquire worthwhile ideals, self-control through a disciplined will, suitable moral habits, emotional control, and moral integrity. An objective character program is one which takes into account the demands of the student's psychological nature in its supernatural as well as natural aspects. 

The procedure used in the present investigation was that of documentary analysis. The rules of the Ratio were analyzed in the light of fundamental psychological principles of Scholastic philosophy. the material for the analysis was taken principally from the official edition of the Ratio Studiorum of 1599. The editions of 1586, 1591, 1832, and the works of Jesuit educators of the past and present were used as supplementary guides for interpretation.

At the outset certain definite factors of a psychological nature were accepted as basic for an objective school character program. These factors were moral instruction; development of worthy ideals; will training; acquisition of correct moral habits; and constructive school discipline. The basis for accepting these particular elements was a survey of representative contributions of contemporary Catholic and secular authorities to the field of character education. These factors constituted the guiding norms for the investigation of the Ratio's character program.

Moral instruction. In the Ratio moral principles were taught primarily through the medium of the religion class. The aim of religious instruction was to awaken in Jesuit students a just pride in the heritage of their Faith and at the same time to equip them with the intellectual ability to solve for themselves the social, moral, and religious problems of life. Religious instruction was authoritative and practical. It sought to establish strong personal convictions about the teachings of Christian faith which would result in conscious and deliberate application to conduct. The aim of the program was, in short, to produce men who as a result of informed convictions would be able to contribute through influence, service and example to the upbuilding of God's kingdom on earth.[5]

Religion was meant to be a vital force cutting across every aspect of [215] student activity. At his entrance into the school the student accepted a double responsibility, namely, to tend to intellectual and moral perfection. Ambition, desire, social prestige and material advancement were to be regulated by religious principles.[6] Consequently, a systematic attempt was made to develop the spiritual side of the student's character. Religious practices included regular attendance at Mass, sermons, the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and regular confession.[7] The framers of the Ratio were conscious of the importance of the role of divine grace in building firm moral character and found these practices and effective means to secure it.

In addition to formal instruction the environment of the Jesuit school was a powerful indirect force for religious training. It was intended to create an encouraging background for transforming Catholic thought and culture in the practice of virtue and religious perfection. The example of teachers was enlisted to intensify the religious outlook of students by showing them a concrete and living expression of adherence to Christian moral principles. Care was taken to make the formation of religious habits natural and spontaneous rather than forced and artificial.[8]

Another characteristic of the Ratio was its insistence on the ancient classics as a medium for imparting abiding and universal values. The framers of the Ratio realized that one of the first steps in the Christianization of youth is to make it human and spiritual. From an intimate contact with the classical culture carried out under Christian auspices they hoped to give students a true appreciation of the spiritual values which are the foundation of realistic moral training.[9]

The study of the Latin and Greek classics was a practical means for providing students with a first-hand account of the virtues and failings of pagan culture. Teachers were encouraged to make every reasonable effort to compare the life, philosophy and morals of ancient civilization with the supernatural and eternal values of Christian teachings. Early Christian writers and selections from the Latin and Greek Fathers were recommended to express simply and forcefully the intrinsic nobility and superiority of Christian living.[10] Contact with the classics was considered a practical method for developing in students the ability to evaluate on a sound moral basis the ways of men, to approve the punishment of the wicked, to appreciate the wisdom of the wise.[11]

[216] Development of ideals. Training for character begins with knowledge of true and worthy ideals of conduct. These ideals are types of excellence, spiritual values, duties, obligations of life, incentives to moral conduct which are meant to be actualized through the activity of intellect and will. The Ratio provided the student with a picture of what he should be and how he should act. Its rules pictured for him a practical ideal type of gentleman and Christian.[12] The early Jesuit educators were convinced that religion was the richest source of compelling ideals and worthy moral examples. The religious ideal was considered essential. The rules mentioned it frequently as the primary source of all ideals and the guiding norm for the process of character formation.[13]

The teacher was given an important and direct role in the process of communicating worthy ideals. The Ratio expected him to find occasion, in the ordinary teaching process, to instill in his students love for God, respect for authority, devotion to the virtues of Christian life. Outside the classroom he was urged to find frequent opportunity to encourage a spirit of practical piety and a desire for religious ideals.[14]

In a variety of ways the Jesuit student was reminded that the practice of virtue was an integral part of his social life. School regulations were intended not only as a corrective but also to direct external actions according to a pattern which proved to be an accurate reflection of Christian moral and social ideals. Virtue and integrity in conduct was considered no less important than achievement in literature and learning.[15]

The communication of worthwhile ideals has a direct influence on the evolution of correct moral habits. The essential thing in forming habits of conduct is not just the repetition of an act but the assimilation of an ideal value. This principle was recognized in the Ratio.[16] The work recommended to the Jesuit teacher was to unveil those values which are basic to the concept of an educated, Christian gentleman. The curriculum itself was a practical medium for bringing students into contact with spiritual values such as the true, the good, the beautiful. The particular aspect under which these appear in a given subject need not prevent the teacher from linking them in the minds of his students with their supreme and perfect fulfillment, God. This is to make the aim of [217] learning to rethink the thoughts of God. In and out of the classroom the Ratio sought to provide the social-divine atmosphere in which such ideals could flourish.[17]

One of the chief values the Ratio strove to build up in students was a right sense of personal dignity. The framers of the Ratio realized that as self is at the core of human actions a balanced sense of personal dignity is an essential requirement for right conduct. In its disciplinary directives, in provision for emulation and rivalry in the classroom the Ratio kept the ideal of personal dignity before the student and expected him to make it a chief rule of conduct.[18] Through the medium of the drama, from carefully staged pageants to informal class dialogs, the concept of personal dignity received forceful expression in the lives of worthy men and women of classical times, in the saints of the Christian era, and in the life of Jesus Christ the perfect model.[19]

Will training. To actualize high  moral principles a necessary condition is a strengthened and developed will. The rules of the Ratio contained the essential elements for a systematic procedure of successful will training. As is clear form its directives for external conduct, study, and religious exercises, the Ratio took the realistic view that intelligent appreciation of moral principles and ideals must be reinforced by effective volitional practice.

Whatever is voluntary is done on account of some good to be derived from the action. The first motive of the will is its tendency to happiness. The special objective proposed by the Ratio was to train students to distinguish happiness from mere pleasure, to realize that utility and mere temporal happiness are by no means ultimate tests of what is good and honorable.[20] Consequently, the student was encouraged to act deliberately and in conformity with the moral principles which he had learned to accept.

Class and extra-curricular experiences, in particular, gave wide scope to the practice of virtue, responsibility, and self-control.[21] In addition, the scholarship requirements of these early Jesuit schools made severe and exacting demands on student perseverance. Penalties for inaccuracy and lack of effort were made purposely severe to act as an effective deterrent to unscholarly attitudes. Recitations and class exercises were [218] carried out in a high spirit of rivalry which provided a constant incentive to individual application and initiative.[22]

An important element in the process of will training is motivation. Character motivation in the Ratio was both natural and supernatural. Normal healthy desire for success and reputation was used to good effect. Students were encouraged to observe school regulations from the motive of honor and hope of reward than from fear of punishment. Honor and praise were judged practical and proper means to encourage the practice of virtue. Such motives, however, were to be used in moderation and always in due subordination to the demands of justice and religion.[23]

The most highly regarded motivation was centered on religion. Precept, example, suggestion and private conversations were some of the practical methods used to impress on the student the importance of religion as a realistic and central value for life conduct. The work of the classroom was consecrated to God by prayer. The class teacher was urged to follow up instruction in Christian doctrine by personal contact whose object was to instill practical piety and devotion. The religious motive was given prominence in ordinary school experiences wherever possible—in the practice of public and private devotion, in devoted reception of the Sacraments, in the exercise of virtue and the elimination of faults.[24] In this connection mention should be made of the practice of the daily examination of conscience which was recommended to all students. As a spiritual and psychological device for checking bad habits and building habits of virtue its worth has long been recognized.[25]

Another realistic outlet for will training was the Sodality with its several academies. The Sodality was the principal extra-curricular activity recommended by the Ratio.[26] These honor societies in the Jesuit school served to effectively integrate intellectual and volitional aspects of student development by encouraging high spiritual ideals and by intensifying activity in intellectual and moral fields.[27] While satisfying the normal adolescent tendency for group activity they were at the same time a practical medium for translating religion into action.

Habits. The formation of worthwhile volitional habits is also basic to the psychological process of character formation. As Castiello has [219] confirmed experimentally, habits of this type will not be effectively reduced to action unless the student has assimilated appropriate intellectual or moral ideals.[28] The contribution of the Ratio with respect to such ideals has already been determined. The same experimenter adduced another important conclusion. Moral habits, as essentially interior forms, are greatly determined by the kind of environment in which they are evolved. An environment which is forced, artificial, and incapable of arousing the immanent powers of will and intellect will not prove a satisfactory milieu for the evolution of lasting moral habits. The whole spirit and atmosphere of the early Jesuit school was opposed to the formation of habits which were the result of mere repetition of externally imposed acts. Instead, it encouraged action which was the result of spontaneous, deliberate choice according to previously adopted ideals.[29]

The regulations of the Ratio covering individual conduct were directed toward the cultivation of habits of responsibility and self-mastery. The principle behind these directives implied intelligent, free obedience from reasonable motives rather than mechanically or through fear.[30] Habits of devotion were formed by daily attendance at Mass, regular reception of the Sacraments, prescribed prayers and continual encouragement to the practice of virtue.[31] The Jesuit classroom also had its role in forming intellectual and moral habits. through exacting class regulations and teaching procedures students were trained to face problems and assignments in logical and orderly fashion. Teachers were admonished to promote good study habits and to provide opportunities to acquire habits of industry and perseverance.[32]

The activity of the classroom was considered a practical outlet for exercising responsibility. Students were chosen to handle much of the routine work of the classroom. Individual responsibility was also exercised in the organization and conduct of scholastic contests. The spirit of rivalry which was promoted between classes and different sections of the same class was a dynamic and practical exercise for building habits of self-control and virtue.[33] The direction and government of the Sodality and the literary academies was left substantially to the control of student officers and members. These organizations had prescribed [220] objectives and their activity was regulated by a definite set of rules which revealed a realistic and well-balanced outlook toward the development of student self-mastery.[34]

The role of the teacher in encouraging the development of habits received emphasis in the Ratio. Its directives to teachers take account of the natural tendency of adolescents to imitate the actions of their instructors. Jesuit teachers by profession and religious training were expected to furnish a high degree of the inspiration needed to make the practice of virtue appealing to adolescents. Their personal influence and the example of their religious life was meant to evoke in students a generous impulse to acquire the same habits and to practice the same virtues. The character of the Jesuit teacher was intended to reflect a well-balanced combination of natural and supernatural virtue and worthy social and moral habits.[35]

Constructive discipline. The Ratio recognized the value of discipline as a constructive force in the formation of character. It found no justification for the theory that the student should be permitted to follow impulses and inclinations without restraint. Consequently, its disciplinary legislation was intended to exercise a moderate but realistic restraining force on student conduct.

It was characteristic of the Ratio's outlook on discipline to encourage a reasoned, deliberate response to school regulations. The advantages to be gained from external order and uniformity did not justify rigid and mechanical enforcement of rules. In discipline as in studies the Ratio sought to make emulation and hope of honor the practical corrective.[36] Teachers were admonished to avoid the use of fear as a motive for securing obedience. They were encouraged, instead, to become acquainted with their students in order to win their conformity from respect and devotion.[37] Where punishment had to be assigned for some offense the teacher was recommended to impose literary tasks. If such methods did not prove sufficient, and, as a last resort corporal punishment was judged necessary, he was never to administer it himself but send a boy to the Corrector, a non-religious officer appointed for the purpose.[38] By this moderate policy the Ratio sought to teach the naturally impulsive adolescent the need for restraint in the use of individual liberty without at the same time arousing resentment for all authority.

The Ratio's disciplinary legislation was entrusted to the principal, or, [221] where necessary, to an administrative assistant, the prefect of discipline, and to the class teacher. The principal was charged with the obligation of governing the school in such a way that students might attain the Society's double education goal, intellectual and moral perfection. With respect to discipline this meant the general supervision of order and regularity in the school. He was to be especially vigilant for discipline during periods of recreation, time of Mass, confessions and public exercises. Teachers were also expected to be acquainted with the rules of the school and they shared in the responsibility for exact enforcement. Infractions of school and class order were to be referred daily to the proper authority.[39]

the first of fifteen rules governing student conduct centers attention on the supernatural and natural aim of their school training To reinforce this high aim, the third, fourth, fourteenth and fifteenth rules, which are corollaries of the first, provide for regular attendance at Mass, devout reception of the Sacraments, diligence and attention in learning Christian doctrine and faithful practice of Christian virtues. Other directives were concerned with external conduct in the classroom, study activity, the choice of reading material, and worthwhile use of leisure time.[40]

In its informal aspect the discipline of these early Jesuit schools was intended to encourage in students an attitude of mature deliberation and a sense of responsibility toward the duties of school life. School experiences were not meant to be part of an artificial conditioning process for future life but a realistic participation in social and moral activity which is an integral part of all normal human living. The discipline of the Ratio with its multiple appeal to reason and worthy example was an effective and practical means toward the attainment of the ultimate goal—an educated Christian and gentleman.

Conclusions

The present study dealt with the provisions of the Ratio Studiorum with respect to development of character in the Jesuit student. A basic program for effective character structure was found to underlie a wide variety of regulations governing organization, curriculum, and method. As a result of the findings it was possible to draw certain general conclusions which indicate the attitude of the Ratio with respect to character [222] formation and the demands which its character program makes on teachers and students in the Jesuit school.

Despite the fact that the directives of the Ratio touched on a wide variety of elements which had a psychological bearing on the formation of character a definite unity of procedure was evident. This unity was an internal one which stemmed from a fundamental unity of purpose. Thus, to achieve the aims of its character program the Ratio insisted on close integration of intellectual and moral training. This integration of intellectual and moral elements was to be extended to all aspects of the school's instructional and disciplinary activities.

The second conclusion of this investigation was that in all its character forming activity the Ratio demanded a realistic and objective approach. The Jesuit school sought to provide an effective medium for the transition from the subjective and emotional instability of adolescence to the mature and responsible outlook of Christian manhood. The Ratio was not concerned with providing an easy or effortless way to character. It required of the student persevering effort and the sacrifice of subjective impulses to the objective claims of morality.

The Ratio placed exacting demands on the vocational ethos of the teacher. It presupposed a supernatural outlook combined with a deep sense of responsibility and a practical devotion to the profession of Christian educator. The teacher was in a real sense the center and spirit of the Ratio system since it was largely through his initiative and directive influence that the Ratio goal of formation rather than mere information would result.

The Ratio also made exacting demands on the student. He was expected to assume his share of responsibility for mental and moral growth. The natural and supernatural motivation of the Ratio presupposed a high degree of generous, unrestrained cooperation. Regularity and perseverance were required in the practice of supernatural obligations as in the performance of routine class work. Self-mastery was neither an effortless objective nor one to be accomplished over night. It was an essentially active process calling for sustained effort to keep conduct in conformity with a variety of directives covering individual and group action.

Finally, the Ratio made a distinctive contribution to the field of character education by the inherent and natural adaptability of its method. There was no need to make character training a formal subject of the curriculum. Through the medium of everyday teaching, disciplinary and organizational activity, the influence of the Ratio's program communicated itself naturally and without strain to the character of the Jesuit student.

---

Footnotes:

1. Luis Martín, S.J., "Adhortatio de Studendi Ratione, ad Scholasticos in Collegio Exaaten," Woodstock Letters 22:105–7, 1893.

2. Allan P. Farrell, S.J., The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1938), p. 403.

3. Constitutiones Societatis Jesu Latinae et Hispanicae cum earum declarationibus (Madrid: 1892), IV, c. 7, n. 2.

4. Ibid., c. 16, n. 1.

5. Ratio of 1599, Reg. Prov. 40; Rector 1; Comm. Cl. Inf. 1, 4; Edward A. Fitzpatrick, St. Ignatius and the Ratio Studiorum (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.), pp. 137; 195–6.

6. Farrell, op. cit., p. 422.

7. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf., 3–9; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 195–97.

8. Josephus Juvencius, S.J., De Ratione Discendi et Docendi (Paris: Delalain, 1809), II, cap. 1, art. 1–2.

9. Juvencius, op. cit., I, cap. 2, art. ii.

10. Juvencius, op. cit., I, cap. 2, art. ii–iii.

11. Loc. cit.

12. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 1, 5; Reg. externorum 1–7; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 1995–6; 240–42.

13. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 1, 3, 5–6; Reg. Externorum 14–15; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 195–96; p. 243.

14. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 6, 8; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 196; Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 1, art. i–iii.

15. Ratio of 1599, Reg. Externorum 1–15; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 241–43.

16. Juvencius, op cit., II, cap. 1, art. i–iii.

17. Loc. cit.

18. Ratio of 1599, Reg. Externorum 1, 6–15; Comm. Cl. Inf. 31–4; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 241–43; 203–4; Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 2, art. iii, n. 3.

19. Juvencius, op. cit., I, cap. 2, art. ii.

20. Juvencius, op. cit., I. cap. 2, art. i, no. x.

21. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 31, 35–36; Acad. 7–11; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 203–05; 241–46.

22. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 41–43; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 206–7; Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 2, art. i–ii, v.

23. Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 3, art. i–ii.

24. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 1–10; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 195–7.

25. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 5; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 196.

26. Farrell, op. cit., p. 357.

27. Ratio of 1599, Rector 23; Acad. 2; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 142–3; 243–4.

28. Jaime Castiello, S.J., Geistesformung, Beitrage zur experimentellen Erforschung der formalen Bildung (Berlin, 1934).

29. Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 1, art. ii; cap. 3, art. i–ii.

30. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 39–40; Praef. Stud. Inf. 11, 38, 41; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 205–6; 191–88.

31. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 1–9; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 195–6.

32. Juvencius, op. cit., I, cap. 3, art. 2.

33. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 19–22, 31, 36; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 199–200, 203–5; Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 2, art. iii.

34. Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 1, art. i–iii.

35. Ratio of 1599, Acad. 1–12; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 243–6.

36. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 39; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 205–6.

37. Loc. cit.; Juvencius, op. cit., II, cap. 3, art. i.

38. Ratio of 1599, Comm. Cl. Inf. 40; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., p. 206.

39. Ratio of 1599, Praef. Stud. Inf. 1–2, 43–46; Comm. Cl. Inf. 39, 41; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., 176, 188–9; 205–6.

40. Ratio of 1599, Reg. Externorum 1–15; Fitzpatrick, op. cit., pp. 241–3.

---

Source: Eugene J. Devlin, S.J., "Character Formation in the Ratio Studiorum," Jesuit Educational Quarterly 15, no. 4 (March 1953): 213–222.

Miguel Bernad, The Class of "Humanities" in the Ratio Studiorum (1953)

[197] *

Three things are noteworthy in the Jesuit system of education: its plan, its content, and its spirit. Its content may be briefly summarized as the synthesis of classical humanism with Christian theology and philosophy. Its spirit may be described as the resultant of two forces: the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, and that magnificent spirit which was dominant in Europe when Jesuit schools were in their infancy and which produced the Renaissance and the Age of Baroque. But it is the plan of the Jesuit studies that we are here concerned.

Of that plan, or pattern, the fundamental structural principal was that of progression by graded stages. For want of a better term, let us call this principle "grading." Grammar came before rhetoric, rhetoric before philosophy, philosophy before theology and the other university faculties of medicine and law.[1] Even the study of grammar itself was arranged into graded stages: the student progressed from the class called infima grammatica through media to suprema. No one was to be promoted to a higher class who had not mastered the subject-matter of the lower, and on the other hand when he had mastered the subject-matter of the lower class, he was to be promoted to the upper class even at mid-year.[2] The "grade" (scope and objective) of each class was so sharply defined as to leave no room for doubt, and each succeeding class built on the work of the proceeding.

Thus, the aim of infima grammatica was a "perfect mastery of the rudiments of language, and an initial knowledge of syntax." (rudimentorum [198] perfecta, syntaxis inchoata cognitio). The class of media grammatica aimed at "total, though not yet exhaustive, knowledge of grammar" (totius quidem grammaticae, minus tamen plena cognitio). Finally, the student in suprema was expected to strive after absolute mastery of grammar (Gradus huius scholae est absoluta grammaticae cognitio).[3]

It is in the light of this principle of "grading" that we should examine the nature of the class called "humanities" in the Jesuit pedagogical system. This class[4] occupied a strategic position in the Jesuit plan of studies: midway between grammar and rhetoric, perfecting the one, preparing for the other.

The "grade" of the class of humanities is thus defined in the Ratio Studiorum:

Gradus huius scholae est, postquam ex grammaticis excesserint, praeparare veluti solum eloquentiae; quod tripliciter accidit, cognitione linguae, aliqua eruditione, et brevi informatione praeceptorum ad rhetoricam spectantium.[5]

Translated freely, this means that student was expected to gain mastery of language, greater than that achieved in the grammar classes, and that in doing so, he was to prepare the "groundwork" for the study of eloquence to be undertaken in the next class, that of rhetoric. This twofold aim, furthermore, was to be achieved through a threefold [sic] means: cognitio linguae, aliqua eruditio, brevis informatio praeceptorum ad rhetoricam spectantium.

It is this writer's opinion that this three-fold [sic] means (just mentioned) is the key to the understanding, not only of the class of humanities, but also of the entire literary and linguistic phase of Jesuit studies—the so-called studia inferiora.[6]

It is therefore important to determine the precise meaning of each of these three phrases. Let us try to do so by a closer inspection of the text of the Ratio Studiorum,[7] as well as of the wider context of Jesuit documents.

[199] Cognitio Linguae

This phrase could not have meant a mere "reading" (or even a "speaking") knowledge of a language (primarily Latin). This kind of knowledge was presupposed before a student was admitted to the class of humanities: postquam ex grammaticis excesserint. Perfect mastery of "grammar" was the aim of the suprema grammatica class—absoluta grammaticae cognitio—an ideal, incidentally, which implied much more than a ready knowledge of grammatical rules.[8]

Cognitio linguae in this context, therefore, must mean a deeper knowledge of a language, a penetrating insight into its genius. Such a knowledge implied familiarity with the peculiarities of idiom of a given tongue, its patterns of thought, its way of viewing the world, its nuances, its idiosyncracies [sic], its elegances, its characteristic rhythms. Only he may be said to have mastered a language who has made these qualities his own.

This interpretation, based on the context of the rule, would seem, at first sight, to be contradicted by the text itself of the rule in which the phrase occurs, namely the first rule for the professor of humanities: for there, the phrase cognitio linguae is explained as quae in proprietate maxime et copia consistit. It would be possible, apart from the context, to understand copia as meaning merely a wide vocabulary, and proprietas as meaning merely the correct use of idioms. But the words must be understood in the light of the context; and the word proprietas, moreover, has been used by the best classical authors in a more refined sense than that just given.[9]

The term cognitio linguae invites comparison with a silver term in that [200] standard manual of Jesuit spirituality, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, where the term interna cognitio never means any ordinary knowledge, but a profound insight which moves the soul to the depths of its being.[10]

Thus, considered in the light of its context (both the more immediate context of the Ratio Studiorum and the wider context of standard Jesuit usage), the term cognitio linguae would seem to mean the kind of linguistic mastery which involves penetrating insight into the very nature of a language, into its "inscape"—to borrow a word from a Jesuit poet.

How is this linguistic mastery to be obtained? The first rule for the professor of humanities gives the answer: it is to be obtained by the careful reading of the classical authors (orators, poets, and historians), and by that method of teaching the authors which is called "prelection."

The list of authors prescribed for study in the class of humanities was much longer than that prescribed for the ordinary (undergraduate) Latin classes of today. The list included, first, the "historians": Caesar, Sallust, Livy, and similar authors (et si qui sunt similes). Second, the "poets": Horace, the "elegies, epigrams, and other poems of the great poets of antiquity"—provided duly expurgated (modo sint ab omni obscaenitate expurgati), but principally Virgil, all of whose works were read except the Eclogues (which formed part of the subject-matter for suprema grammatica)[11] and the fourth book of the Aeneid (not considered proper class reading for a class of young adolescents).[12] Thirdly, there were the orators, but only one of these was to be "prelected" in class, namely Cicero. Since his Letters had been studied in the grammar classes and his Orations would form the bulk of the student's reading in the class of [201] rhetoric, his philosophical works were chosen for study in the class of humanities.[13]

In Greek, the list of authors was shorter as Greek always held a subordinate (though important) position to Latin in the Jesuit educational system. In the first semester, some "easier" (ex facilioribus) were read, v.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, Isocrates, Plato, Synesius, and selections from Plutarch, all prose works. In the second semester, Greek poetry was read: Phocylides, Theognis, Synesius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, et horum similes.[14]

The study of the vernacular authors was naturally not as extensive, or as formal, as it is now. The importance accorded to the vernacular was one of the chief differences between the Ratio Studiorum of 1599 and that of 1832.[15]

So much for the authors studied. The method of teaching was of at least equal importance. It consisted principally of three elements: the prelection, the repetition, and the various exercises in linguistic composition both oral and written. We need here say only a word about the prelection.

Just as the classes were "graded," so the prelection was graded. The manner of prelecting an author in the class of infima grammatica was considerably different from the manner of prelecting a Ciceronian oration in the class of rhetoric.[16] The difference stemmed not so much from the differences of subject-matter, as from the difference in objectives and in emphases: the professor of grammar was interested in getting across to his students the meaning of a passage and its idiomatic excellence; the professor of rhetoric was interested in the marshalling of ideas (dispositio), the adroitness of the arguments, their force, their relevance, etc.

The professor of humanities, in like manner, was to conduct his prelections in a manner suited to the scope and objectives of the class. In explaining a passage, he was to call attention to the niceties of language, the exact force of the words, their etymology—basing his observations on these points upon the practice of the best authors. He should note the [202] elegant turn of phrase, and the versatility of expression which the author commands. He should compare the Latin with the original, drawing attention to the peculiar genius of each language. He should also show the student how to imitate the author's style. All this while, his explanation would be interspersed with interesting facts and comments and explaining the allusions which the passage contains. If the passage under study was an oration or part of one, he was to explain the rhetorical artistry, and cite the rhetorical rules exemplified in it. Finally, when all this explanation was completed, the professor might, if he so desired, translate the entire passage into the vernacular, taking care, however, to produce a flawless translation, the elegance of the latter rivaling that of the original.[17]

It was by these means—wide and careful reading of the classical authors, and the appropriate method of prelections (to say nothing of the frequent and varied exercises in oral and written composition)—that mastery of language was obtained, a necessary groundwork, certainly, to eloquence (praeparare veluti solum eloquentiae).

Aliqua Eruditio

There are several ways of studying the classics. One way is to study them as historical, sociological, archaeological, or other scientific documents. Another way is to study them in search of biographical and psychological data regarding their authors. A third way is to study them merely as examples of grammatical or rhetorical precepts, or as sources for linguistics and philology. A fourth way is to study them as masterpieces of literature, to be understood, appreciated, evaluated, interpreted, and imitated.[18] In the first two of the above-named approaches, the emphasis would naturally fall on factual information—what the Ratio Studiorum calls eruditio. Thus, the sentence "Non in campo, non in foro, non in curia, non denique intra domesticos parietes, etc.," would be [203] explained in such a way as to bring foward as much archaeological and othe rinformation regarding Campus, Forum, Curia, and the Roman home. Since the approach of the Ratio Studiorum is a combination of the third and fourth approaches mentioned above, the emphasis naturally was placed on the literary qualities of the classics, rather than on the factual information to be gleaned from or about them.

The strictly subordinate position accorded to "erudition" by the Ratio Studiorum is easily understood when it is remembered that the students in the studia inferiora were boys in their teens preparing for philosophy and the "higher" (i.e. professional) faculties of theology, medicine, and law; they were not students in a modern graduate school, specializing in some branch of philology. 

Like most things in the studia inferiora, the imparting of factual information was "graded." In the grammar classes, it was to be done sparingly, and only when necessary for the understanding of the text.[19] In the class of humanities, a much greater place was to be accorded to "erudition"; not only what was needed for the understanding of the text, but also such as would enliven the class, excite intellectual curiousity [sic], or (perhaps even) create a laugh.[20] In the class of rhetoric, finally, erudition comes into its own. The professor of rhetoric was to draw from every available source—ex historia, ex moribus gentium, ex auctoritate scriptorum, et ex omni doctrina—for material to illustrate and enliven his prelections.[21]

Thus, though held strictly subordinate, "erudition" was given its due importance. For erudition is important, not only for the understanding of literature, whether classic or modern (how much erudition, for instance, is needed to understand Milton or T. S. Eliot!), but also for the specific purpose of the class of humanities—praeparare veluti solum eloquentiae. And on the need that the orator has for vast stories of learning, none has spoken more emphatically than Cicero himself.[22]

Brevis Informatio Praeceptorum

The student of humanities was expected to read literature not only with an eye to language (cognitio linguae) and factual information (aliqua eruditio), but also with an eye to technique. Hence, the direction [204] praecepta artis exploret: let the professor of humanities, in prelecting an author (particularly of oratorical prose), draw attention to the author's rhetorical technique.[23]

To this end, (and also to serve as an introduction to the more detailed study of rhetorical art in the next class), the precepts of rhetoric were to be explained briefly in the class of humanities: brevis informatio praeceptorum ad rhetorican spectantium. The textbook for this was that of Father Cyprian Soarez, based on Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian.[24] It should be noted that by praetepta ad rhetoricam spectantia were probably meant not only rhetorical precepts strictly so-called, but also other precepts de arte dicendi, for instance those concerning prosody and the genres of poetry.[25]

Two things might be noted before we leave the subject. One was the emphasis, in the Ratio Studiorum, on prose rather than verse, on oratory rather than poetry. This had its practical as well as its historical reasons. From the practical standpoint, the Jesuit colleges were designed to educate not recluses but men of affairs, in both the clerical and the lay state, and in both the republic of affairs as in that of letters—and men of affairs, whether they be professors or politicians, diplomats or preachers, usually speak in prose and not in verse. From the historical standpoint, the emphasis on prose was a characteristic of the Renaissance, with its enthusiasm for Cicero—an enthusiasm, incidentally, which was shared in no small degree by the Jesuits.[26] There was also the spirit of the times—the zeitgeist—of the Renaissance and the Age of Baroque—the age of public buildings and public spectacles, the age not so much of ornateness as of exuberance, an exuberance (on the Continent at least) more conducive to the displays of oratory than to the quiet meditativeness of poetry. Whatever the source, the emphasis was on prose rather than on verse; and in this respect (among others), the class of humanities of the Ratio Studiorum [205] differed from its modern counterpart in present-day American Jesuit colleges, where the class of humanities is generally known as the "class of poetry."

The second thing to be noted was the emphasis, throughout the Ratio Studiorum on composition, both written and oral. The classes of humanities and of rhetoric were not theoretical courses in literary criticism. They were formative courses in which the student's powers of thought, emotion, imagination, memory, and expression were exercised and developed. In reading the authors, the student was expected not only to understand, appreciate, interpret, and judge, but also, as much as possible, to attempt to rival them.

Conclusion

The Jesuit system of studies was a system with a plan, a pattern, of which the fundamental structural principle was that of "grading." It was this principle that enabled the authors of the Ratio Studiorum to define with precision the level, scope, objectives (gradus) of every class. And it was this principle which enabled the student to advance in his studies, mastering one thing at a time in ordered progression.

In this pattern, the class of humanities occupied a strategic position, midway between the classes of grammar on the one hand, and that of rhetoric on the other. The class of humanities, therefore, had a twofold function to perform: on the one hand, to put the finishing touches to the work of the grammer [sic] classes; on the other, to prepare the soil for the class of rhetoric.

This twofold function was performed by placing before the student three objectives for his endeavors: cognitio linguae, aliqua eruditio, brevis informatio praeceptorum ad rhetoricam spectantium.

Whatever accusations might be hurled against Jesuit pedagogy (and there have been many), it cannot be accused of being vague in its aims, or of wanting system in its methods.

---

Footnotes:

* Adapted from the introductory chapter of a doctoral dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Yale University, 1951.

1. The principle of "grading" was part of the heritage which the first Jesuits, Masters of Arts of the University of Paris, inherited from their Alma Mater. St. Ignatius insisted that the "method of Paris" be followed in Jesuit schools. See Allan P. Farrell, The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education, (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1938), pp. 30–27 and elsewhere passim.

2. "Generalis solemnisque promotio semel in anno post anniversarias vacationes facienda est. Si qui tamen longe excelant, atque in superiore schola magis quam in sua profecturi videantur . . . nequaquam detineantur, sed quocumque anni tempore post examen ascendant. Quamquam a suprema grammatica ad humanitatem, et ab humanitate ad rhetoricam vix patet ascensus." Ratio Studiorum (1832; cf. 1599), Reg. praef. stud. inf. 13.

3. Reg. prof. inf. gram. 1; med. gram. 1; sup. gram. 1. Unless otherwise indicated all references to the Ratio Studiorum will be to the 1599 edition, cited simply as R. S.

4. "Class in American university language," says Professor Morison, "means the persons who enter college the same year, and presumably graduate at the same time." (Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of President Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 1930, p. xl). In the Jesuit system of studies, "class" is equivalent to "grade" and refers primarily to the grade itself, not to the persons in it.

5. R. S., Reg. prof. hum. 1.

6. The Jesuit college had ordinarily two "faculties": the "lower" (grammar, humanities, rhetoric) and the "higher" (philosophy, theology).

7. The term Ratio Studiorum is ambiguous. It refers both to the principles and methods of Jesuit pedagogy, and to the books in which these principles and methods have been codified. There have been five such codifications: 1586, 1591, 1599, 1832, and the partial codification of 1941. Of these, only the codification of 1599 was definitive, and it enjoyed the force of law in the Society of Jesus from that date till the Society's suppression in 1773. The texts of the editions of 1586, 1599, and 1832 have been edited by G. M. Pachtler, Ratio studiorum et institutiones scholasticae Societatis Iesu per Germaniam olim vigentes, (4 vols., Berlin: 1887–1894), Vol. II These four volumes are parts of the series, Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, ed. Karl Kehrbach. The Ratio of 1591 is reprinted in part in T. Corcoran's Renatae litterae saeculo a Christo XVI in scholis Societatis Iesu stabilitae, (Dublin 1927).

8. The term "grammar" as used in the Ratio Studiorum should be understood in its classical sense. Cf. Cicero, De oratore, I. 42. 187; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, II, 1. 4. See also the six "parts" of "grammar" according to Dionysius Thrax, apud J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, Vol. I (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1906), pp. 7–8.

9. Forcellini defines the sensus proprius of proprietas as: "propria vis et natura cuiusque rei, quialitas facultas, quae ab aliis differt." The term proprietas verborum he defines as "conjunctio illorum ati et apta cum rebus ipsis, quas significant." He cites Quintilian, 8. 2. 1. (Lexicon totius Latinitatis, ed. Corradini et Perin, Patavii, 1864–1890, reprinted 1940, Vol. III, p. 923). Harper's Latin Dictionary cites a passage which is probably more to our point: Quintilian 5. 14. 33–35.

10. For instance, in the Third Exercise of the First Week: "para que sienta interno conoscimiento de mis peccados y aborrescimiento dellos." This is translated by the Versio Vulgata as: "ut internam criminum nostrorum cognitionem ac detestationem sentiamus," by the Versio Prima as "ut habeam sensum internum. . . ," (Exercitia spiritualia sancti Ignatii de Loyola el eorum directoria, "Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu," Monumenta Ignatiana, series secunda, Madrid 1919, pp. 290–291). It is significant that the exercitant prays for this "interior knowledge" after he has presumably obtained a considerable amount of knowledge in the three previous Exercises.

11. Cf. R.S., Reg. prof. sup. gram. 1 and passim.

12. In the European educational system, then as now, the student of humanities or rhetoric would be considerably younger than his modern American counterpart. Jose Rizal, the Filipino national hero, was a student of humanities at the age of thirteen, of rhetoric at fourteen, and of philosophy at fifteen, at the Jesuit Ateneo Municipal de Manila (now the Ateneo de Manila, at present under the direction of American and Filipino Jesuits). He attended that college from 1872 to 1877, graudating in the latter year with the B.A. degree before his sixteenth birthday. See J. Rizal, Memorias de Un Estudiante de Manila, Spanish text and English translation by Leon Ma. Guerrero, (Manila 1950), pp. 36–40.

13. ". . .  in quotidianis praelectionibus explicetur ex Oratoribus unus Cicero, iis fere libris, qui philosophiam de moribus continent. . ." Reg. prof. hum. 1 (1599). Compare however, the same rule in the 1832 edition.

14. Loc. cit.

15. "In lingua vernacula ediscenda, eadem fere methodo procedatur ac in linguae latinae studio." R.S. (1832), Reg. com. prof. class. inf. 12, sect. 2. Although no formal provision was made for the vernacular in the 1599 edition, it was sufficiently implied in those prescriptions concerning translation. On the vernacular in the Ratio, see R. Schwickerath, Jesuit Education: Its History and Principles (2nd. ed., St. Louis 1904), pp. 351–360 and elsewhere passim.

16. Cp. Reg. prof. inf. gram. with those for the professor of rhetoric.

17. "Praelectio eruditionis ornamentis leviter aspersa sit, quantum loci explicatio postulat: se totum potius Magister effundat in latinae et vernaculae linguae observationes, in vim etymologiamque verborum, quam ex probatis petet auctoribus; in locutionum usum ac varietatem, in collationem indolis utriusque linguae, in auctoris imitationem. Quando autem orationem explicat, praecepta artis exploret. Ad extremum licebit, si videatur, omni patrio sermone, sed quam elegantissimo vertere."—R.S. (1832), Reg. prof. hum. 5.

18. This is true not only of the study of the Greek and Latin classics, but of all literature. It is only recently that the study of English literature has veered away from the biographical and historical approaches, and has tended to concentrate on literary criticism proper. See for instance, Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature, (New York 1949), chapters I, VII–XX. See also Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, Understanding Poetry, revised ed., (New York 1950), pp. xi–xxvi.

19. ". . . et quae ad eruditionem pertinent, si qui incidant, brevi expediat." Reg. prof. sup. gram. 5.

20. "Praelectio eruditionis ornamentis leviter aspersa sit, quantum loci explicatio postulat. . . . Eruditio modice usurpetur, ut ingenium excitet ac recreet. . . ." Reg. prof. hum. 1.

21. Reg. prof. rhet. 1.

22. De oratore, I. 4 and 5. Also Brutus, 93 and 94.

23. Reg. prof. hum. 1

24. Cf. Reg. prof. hum. 8. Father Cyprian Soarez (also spelled Suarez) was born in Spain 1524 and died 1593. He taught Humanities and Rhetoric first, then, for twenty years Sacred Scripture. His book was entitled, De Arte Rhetorica Libri III ex Aristotele, Cicerone et Quintiliano deprompti. First published at Coimbra in 1560, it went through more than twenty editions. It was ordinarily printed in octavo, of some 200 pages. See A. Astrain, Historia de la Compañia de Jesus en la Asistencia de España, Vol. IV (Madrid 1913), pp. 112–113.

25. A standard Jesuit textbook of rhetoric is J. Kleutgen's Ars dicendi priscorum potissimum praeceptis et exemplis illustrata, 12th. ed., (Turin and Rome, 1935). This work was first published at Rome in 1847.

26. See, for instance, Blessed Edmund Campion's treatise, De imitatione rhetorica, written at Prague (1577 or 1578), and included in the posthumous collection of his works: Beati Edmundi Campiani e Societate Iesu Martyris in Anglia Opuscula, Barcinone: Excudebat Franciscus Rosalius, 1888, 333 pp. The De imitatione occupies pp. 264–282.

---

Source: Miguel A. Bernad, S.J., "The Class of 'Humanities' in the Ratio Studiorum," Jesuit Educational Quarterly 15, no. 4 (March 1953): 197–205.