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.