[20] WHEREAS careful study of costumes made by the best sports-goods houses and used by the majority of private and public schools and colleges, leads to the conclusion that the necessary requirements for an appropriate costume for the girl and young woman in athletics may be met by the knicker-bloomer of material suited to the season; middie [sic] Blouses for children; tailored shirts with long (or short) sleeves for older girls; sweaters, sleeveless or with sleeves according to season; long stockings and "sneakers;"
BE IT RESOLVED that the National Council of Catholic Women recommend the above costume as best suited to feminine dignity and the best interest of sportsmanship and good health.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council condemn "trunks" and other such objectionable extremes of costume which are as inappropriate and undesirable for women as are the particular forms of athletics with which they are especially associated.
The National Council of Catholic Women directs attention again to the Resolution on "Christian Conduct" passed by the Convention of 1927 and reaffirms its positive opposition to bathing and other "beauty" contests as vulgar and dangerous to the morals of Christian women.
---
NCCW = National Council of Catholic Women
Source: "Resolutions Adopted at the 8th Annual Convention of the N. C. C. W.: Modesty in Dress," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 20
Sunday, November 10, 2019
The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain and What It Should Not (1928)
[409] Coming from the "Land of Sanctuary", and the primatial American See, I have the privilege to speak to-day to those ex partibus infidelium, I wish to draw a clear line between my teaching and preaching, though both functions are mine, and I will differentiate these from my practice, which is a variety of sublimated hedonism for there is real gaiety in Catholic life. I know you subscribe to it and these sessions make for it as well as for an exchange of thought.
The Reverend President of the Parish School Section of the National Catholic Educational Association expended a great deal of energy, some little postage and a vast amount of patience in getting me to write this paper. After the work devoted to gathering together the information that I have incorporated in these pages, I do not know nor can I definitely decide whether Dr. Lawlor is a friend or an enemy.
The subject typed on a sheet of paper looks very simple and easy of treatment. A little study and the consulting of a few references makes the subject assume a certain amount of difficulty. Further labor and delving into the subject-matter causes one to hesitate at attempting to write anything definite on the matter. Knowing the Christian charity and boundless patience of our Catholic teachers from first-hand experience, and probably feeling a little rash and unduly bold, I am going to devote some moments of your precious time to sentencing you to listen to what I have to say about the subject assigned.
"The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain [410] And What It Should Not." If there is any subject in the educational field more written about, any subject more discussed and about which there is more difference I would like to be informed about the same. A rational consideration of the subject forces one to lay down certain restrictions and limited bounds to the present discussion. Really for your benefit and my own peace of mind, I think that I shall partially decapitate the subject and make the limits of this paper deal solely with the content of the curriculum. This will leave virgin soil for the paper of the Reverend Superintendent whose solemn duty it is to follow me with his discussion.
Philosophy teaches that there is an underlying purpose to all things that exist. It will not be a waste of time to digress for a little while and look at the purpose of the curriculum of the elementary school.
Historically, the evolution of our present-day curriculum presents more than a passing interest. A brief and hurried retrospect will not prove uninteresting. Reference here is confined to the elementary school in our own country, though we must always bear in mind that there were well-established European backgrounds for a number of our school activities.
From the curriculum of the so-called religious and properly termed private school of our Colonial period to that of the present-day curriculum, there has been a healthy and well-developed growth. A number of the fundamental characteristics remain the same, though the viewpoint has been considerably altered. The outstanding features of the Colonial curriculum were Reading, Writing, Spelling, Arithmetic and Religion. All schools in those days taught the four R's. In fact the bulk of the work was undertaken in order that the child would be able to cultivate an intelligent knowledge of religious beliefs and doctrines.
The establishment of our Democracy placed a new view on the horizon of school work. With the democratic idea, came the resulting conviction that all who were destined to be members of a free state should be equipped to fulfill their duties and obligations in an intelligent manner. Thus we find a continuous growth in curriculum subject-matter. This has resulted in the very complex [411] curriculum that one finds on hand at the present time. Today we find three divisions of subject-matter in our curriculum plans, drill subjects, content subjects and expression subjects. [1]
DRILL SUBJECTS
Reading
Writing
Spelling
Language
Arithmetic
CONTENT SUBJECTS
Religion
History
Geography
Literature
Civics
Nature Study
Health Work
Agriculture
EXPRESSION SUBJECTS
Kindergarten Work
Music
Drawing
Manual & Domestic Arts
Physical Training
The curriculum reflects life and this is one of the chief reasons why we have a loaded curriculum at the present time. In the Colonial days, life was simple and so was the curriculum. Reading and writing were the fundamentals in those days. It was about 1789 that the first substantial addition was made in school work. Arithmetic became a basic subject. This was due to the growth of commercial life. After the War of 1812, a tremendous change came with the industrial revolution [sic] and the establishment of factory life. Geography demanded attention and in 1826, it was allotted its place in the school curriculum. It was also after the War of 1812 that history claimed its place as a school subject. Massachusetts made history mandatory in 1827. Music was introduced between 1830-1840. After the Civil War physical education came into vogue. Drawing and manual training were introduced into school work as a result of the various expositions which were held in the last century. Nature Study grew up within the schools themselves. In all of these subjects there has been a vast amount of development and this has resulted in the loaded curriculum that presents itself to the educators of the present day. The problem is indeed mountainous and yet it must be attacked if progress is to be made. Many and varied are the attempts which have been made and even now are in process. The elaborate work of men like Charters, Bobbitt, Bonser and Rugg evidence the seriousness of the task. It is not within [412] the realm of this paper to treat the labors of these scientific investigators.
An important note must be sounded here. There is so much diversity of opinion as to what should be part of the elementary school curriculum, and different conditions existing in various sections of our broad country, that the discussion in this paper necessitates my confining my remarks about curriculum content to that portion of the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", South of the Mason and Dixon Line with which I am intimately acquainted.
Will it not be profitable to state the principles which underlie Catholic education? These are:
1. Intellectual education must not be separated from moral and religious training. To impart knowledge or to develop mental efficiency without building up moral character is not only contrary to psychological law, but is also fatal to both the individual and society.
2. Religion should be an essential part of education; for on it morality is based; with the Catholic Church the maxim prevails: "No religion, no morality; no morality, no government"; hence religious instruction should form not merely an adjunct to teaching in other subjects, but should be the center about which these are grouped and the spirit by which they are permeated. [2]
In these principles we have the Magna Charta of the Catholic School; they give us the distinguishing mark which separates the Catholic school from all other schools; adherence to these principles is the means by which the Catholic school stands out as superior to all others.
These principles of Catholic philosophy of education furnish the basis and foundation on which the curriculum of the Catholic school must be builded [sic] and moulded [sic]. In this light one may define the aim of Catholic education, and, after all it is this aim that will function strongest in the make-up of the curriculum of the Catholic elementary school.
Strange as it may seem, this is not the simplest thing to do, especially when one goes browsing into Catholic educational fields [413] to seek what others have written about the matter. Dr. Johnson of the Catholic University, in commenting on this says: "At present (this was written in 1925) there seems to be a lack of anything like a definite consciousness amongst us on this score. (The general aim of Catholic education put in such terms as may contribute to a better understanding of the function of the Catholic elementary school)." [3]
And for this one time at least, the good Doctor gives us the answer to our difficulty. He speaks again, "We might say then that the aim of the Catholic elementary school is to provide the child with those experiences which are calculated to develop in him such knowledge, appreciations and habits as will yield a character equal to the contingencies of fundamental Christian living in American democratic society." [4] After a painstaking examination of this definition, surely all of us interested in the great and grave work of Catholic education, will agree that here we have in concrete form, a well thought out, logical, strong and plain statement of the aim of the Catholic elementary school. Applying our Catholic philosophy of education to the interpretation of this aim, we establish definitely the work that is to be accomplished. With these thoughts before us, let us begin our work.
Everywhere one hears the demand for a complete education of the child, hence the variety of items that have from time to time bedecked the curriculum of the elementary school. A cursory glance at some of the things which have engaged the attention of some educators in the past few years will demonstrate how far afield they have wandered. Basket weaving, purposing; tooth-brush drills; aesthetic dancing; construction of bird houses; soap carving; chinning the bar; making beds and biscuits; first aid; these and many others have strutted their time upon the educational stage of the elementary school. The meaning of a complete education has been lost sight of entirely. The result has been that many curricula have served not to enlighten but to befuddle the minds of the children. "Tinkeritis" has been the [414] disease that has affected so many of our present-day Pestalozzis [Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) was a Swiss pedagogue and education reformer] who, in their own minds have settled the question of the curriculum content of the elementary school.
As a result, the 4 R's of yesterday have a batch of step-children. Amateurish experts by cross breeding or hand pollination or something of the kind have succeeded in making ten R's where only three or four grew before. Reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic of tender memories are now in a pitiful minority.
Included among the R's of a newer and happier education they have found the following:
Rhythm
Right
'Rong
recreation
Remedial Measures for the Handicapped
Readiness
Resourcefulness
Is it any wonder then that the R's of the elementary school have fallen upon the sere and yellow leaf? What is to be hoped for against competition like that? Will a pupil read when he might indulge in Rhythm, Right or 'Rong? Can a pupil 'Rite when Remedial Measures for the Handicapped offer exciting speculation? Will he do 'Rithmetic when he may choose Readiness or Resourcefulness? And so on and so on according to the proponents of the newer and happier education. But let us on to more serious things.
Again let me remind you, these comments and statements are not universal in character. They aim simply at being thought-provoking. Our suggestions are to be confined to that terrestrial portion of our country that lies along the banks of the Chesapeake and the Potomac.
To say that religion is the foundational and primary unit in our curriculum scarcely seems necessary. To repeat this is just as foolish as attempting to "paint the lily". Religion in our scheme occupies the position laid down in the principles of Catholic education which have already been enunciated.
With religion established as the center of our curriculum, one may pass on to the other subjects that are to be embraced, bearing [415] in mind the fact that religion must be the active principle that energizes all of the others.
"Most present-day educators agree on certain basic subjects that are to be included in the elementary school curriculum. Elementary education has developed in response to certain fundamental and obvious social needs." "When people live together and work together in certain large groups, the arts of communication and especially the language arts become of very great importance. The development of oral language was one of the first steps in human progress. It not only made group life possible, it also enabled each generation to profit by the experiences of its predecessor, and so paved the way for succeeding generations." [5]
An examination of the foregoing statements gives us a lead in developing our thesis. Every one realizes that while oral language has its importance, at the same time it has its limitations. The spoken word is important, but as such it has no permanence. The realization of this led to the invention of writing. Some have termed it the greatest event in human progress. It made possible the accurate preservation of the experiences of various generations. The acquiring by succeeding generations of these facts collected and preserved in writing, gave rise to the teaching of reading. No one hesitates for a single instant to include these fundamental operations in every elementary school curriculum since they are the essential tools by which all knowledge is acquired.
As I have already stated, the Eighteenth Century, with its industrial revolution and the growth of democracy, was the cause of the introduction of arithmetic as a basic subject in the make-up of the curriculum. The very nature of our present-day existence, its complex nature, the obligations and duties which everyone is bound to assume, demands the presence of reading, writing and arithmetic as prima facie essential parts of any plan that looks to the instruction of human beings. It is almost childish to take up your time with discussing this, still one must be thorough when called on to appear before an assemblage of this type.
[416] The next step is to speak of the growth of the curriculum from these humble but all-important origins. In our scheme of education, the next subjects are geography, literature and history and this is the chronological order in which these subjects made their appearance. Geography was introduced soon after the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Literature owes its growth to the development of the school "readers." History came in about the middle of the Nineteenth Century. These subjects serve to broaden the horizon of the child. Geography carries them beyond their own local neighborhood and makes them acquainted with their country as a whole, as well as other countries of the world. Literature opens up the field of great minds. History broadens the time-horizon just as geography broadens the space-horizon. It reveals to the child some appreciation of his position in the political world of which he is an integral part.
Thus far I have spoken of units of curriculum as we find it to-day. These also are found in the elementary school for the past seventy-five years. We might say that these units are the legacy which we have received from early school practice.
Health education is a part of our elementary curriculum. This subject made its premier shortly after the Civil War. However, one might demand its presence in the school in virtue of that old principle, mens sana in corpore sano. At the present day, this subject has received most prominent consideration, due no doubt to the development of scientific emphasis on physiology and hygiene. Is not the presence of the school clinics, the school nurse and the school dentist ample proof of this?
Civics too, has found a place in our midst. I mean that aspect of civics which concerns itself with the manner in which cities and towns manage their affairs and especially with the concrete problems of community life in which every citizen should have a vital interest.
Nature study has a place too. I have already said that this is one of the auricular subjects that grew up in the school itself.
Music, art, drawing and physical training find a place in the curriculum of the elementary school of the Maryland "Free State." We must predicate here that their place while important, [417] is supplementary and accessory rather than central or fundamental. This should not cause us to underestimate these subjects, because they do much to enrich and vitalize the work of the elementary school.
One further thought and I am finished. A perusal of some of the Courses of Study of our Catholic elementary schools, will evidence the presence of subjects other than those that I have mentioned. Again let me reiterate the fact that this paper deals with our own little but all-important Archdiocese. You will find for example, agriculture and sciences listed as elementary school subjects. (Here I have to watch my step, if the Reverend Superintendent of Toledo is present). For us, agriculture has no part in our curriculum, possibly due to the fact that we have not a very large rural population. One author in speaking about the presence of natural sciences among the elementary school subjects, says: "Generally speaking, however, the effort to teach the natural sciences in the elementary schools has not been thoroughly successful — in part because teachers have not been trained for the work and in part because of the lack of well-organized materials." [6] This may or may not explain the absence of this subject in our elementary school curriculum.
I am finished. The subject is a difficult one and if this treatment does not appeal to certain individuals, I would suggest that they attack the problem for themselves, with my sincere wishes for better results. God giveth the increase.
DISCUSSION
REV. LEON A. MCNEILL: Discussion of Dr. Barrett's excellent paper may be a solemn duty, but it is also somewhat of a pleasant task. The Rev. Doctor prudently limited his subject to the content of the elementary school curriculum, and furthermore confined his remarks to the Archdiocese of Baltimore with whose schools he is intimately acquainted. Among the commendable features of Dr. Barrett's paper, we may mention the following: his historical sketch of the development of the curriculum, his insistence on Catholic principles which must underlie and permeate a curriculum suitable for our schools, and finally his scoring of the modern tendency to overcrowd the curriculum with irrelevant material.
All will agree that Dr. Barrett has accomplished his avowed purpose of [418] provoking thought. In this brief discussion, we shall comment on a few points suggested by his paper. To determine the content of the elementary curriculum, and to define its materials and activities in such form that the teacher may present them in learning units to her pupils, is no easy task. To draw up a curriculum in even one field of elementary education demands a sound philosophy of education, an understandinng [sic] of the relation of the subject at hand to the other branches of the elementary curriculum, an acquaintance with the reliable findings of scholars and with the rich experience of educators, serious study and dependable experiment in selecting and testing curricular materials, and finally, the ability to break up the matter into units so that the teacher can use them effectively in the classroom.
The body of our discussion will contain two points: first, that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic; and second, that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.
I. We need a thoroughly Catholic curriculum for our schools. Our curriculum must be based upon Catholic philosophy of education, a philosophy essentially different from that of the so-called neutral schools. As Dr. Barrett so well insists, intellectual and moral education belong together, and religion should be, not merely a separate branch of formal instruction and training, but the very center for all the branches of the curriculum. It necessarily follows that the curriculum of the public schools is not suitable for Catholic schools, nor can the mere addition of religion transform a secular curriculum into a Catholic curriculum. It is well known to all of us that secular courses of study, outlining the curriculum of the public schools, are being followed in hundreds of our parochial schools throughout the United States. This may be due to any number of circumstances, e. g., to lack of a Catholic course of study, to a false conception of Catholic education, or to State requirements; but, whatever the cause, let us agree in defining the only goal with which we can ultimately be satisfied: i. e., a thoroughly Catholic curriculum in every Catholic school and an equally Catholic and genuinely useful course of study for every teacher in a Catholic school.
II. The curriculum of the Catholic elementary school must be scientifically constructed. We can no longer afford to dally with haphazard methods of selecting the materials which will be given to the little ones in our schools. The day when a lone superintendent sat down before a number of imported courses of study and assembled a paste-pot and scissors curriculum is past. The day when one curriculum served all schools alike, in big city and in rural hamlet, in established East and in pioneering West, is past. The day when a curriculum was looked upon as a permanent thing, to endure unchanged from year to year and from decade to decade, is also past. Under this heading of the scientific construction of the curriculum, we should like to emphasize especially four [419] points: 1. Constructing a curriculum must be a cooperative task on which superintendent, supervisors, and teachers work together according to a well-organized plan. 2. Curriculum builders must utilize the worthwhile contributions of scholars and the rich experience of educators at large. 3. The curriculum must be adapted to the needs of the particular group of children for whom it is intended. 4. Although based upon philosophy and permeated with principle, it must be built up by experiment and tested thoroughly in actual practice.
This closes the body of our discussion, in which we have stated and briefly commented upon two propositions: that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic, and that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.
We shall now append a number of pertinent conclusions which are the result of some months of study; conclusions which we should be only too glad to support with objective data which cannot be given within the limits of this paper:
1. It is encouraging to note the progress made by certain dioceses in the earnest construction of Catholic curricula and courses of study.
2. Catholic educators must give a larger share of attention to the construction of curricula and to the preparation of courses of study, if they are to attain the only goal with which they can in conscience be satisfied.
3. Catholic educators should cooperate in isolating and solving the more general problems of the curriculum, pooling the results of their educational research, experiment, thought, and practice, and making them available for educators at large.
4. A national committee should make an intensive study of Catholic curricula and courses of study and suggest feasible next steps in this important field of educational endeavor.
---
Footnotes:
1. Cubberly, Introduction to Study of Education.
2. Monroe, A Cyclopedia of Education.
3. Paper read at Superintendents' Section of the N. C. E. A, April, 1925.
4. Ibid.
5. The Classroom Teacher, Vol. 1, pg. 9.
6. Wm. C. Bagley in Classroom Teacher, vol. 1, page 15.
---
Source: Fr. John I. Barrett, "The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain and What It Should Not," The National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 35, no. 1 (November 1928): 409–419.
The Reverend President of the Parish School Section of the National Catholic Educational Association expended a great deal of energy, some little postage and a vast amount of patience in getting me to write this paper. After the work devoted to gathering together the information that I have incorporated in these pages, I do not know nor can I definitely decide whether Dr. Lawlor is a friend or an enemy.
The subject typed on a sheet of paper looks very simple and easy of treatment. A little study and the consulting of a few references makes the subject assume a certain amount of difficulty. Further labor and delving into the subject-matter causes one to hesitate at attempting to write anything definite on the matter. Knowing the Christian charity and boundless patience of our Catholic teachers from first-hand experience, and probably feeling a little rash and unduly bold, I am going to devote some moments of your precious time to sentencing you to listen to what I have to say about the subject assigned.
"The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain [410] And What It Should Not." If there is any subject in the educational field more written about, any subject more discussed and about which there is more difference I would like to be informed about the same. A rational consideration of the subject forces one to lay down certain restrictions and limited bounds to the present discussion. Really for your benefit and my own peace of mind, I think that I shall partially decapitate the subject and make the limits of this paper deal solely with the content of the curriculum. This will leave virgin soil for the paper of the Reverend Superintendent whose solemn duty it is to follow me with his discussion.
Philosophy teaches that there is an underlying purpose to all things that exist. It will not be a waste of time to digress for a little while and look at the purpose of the curriculum of the elementary school.
Historically, the evolution of our present-day curriculum presents more than a passing interest. A brief and hurried retrospect will not prove uninteresting. Reference here is confined to the elementary school in our own country, though we must always bear in mind that there were well-established European backgrounds for a number of our school activities.
From the curriculum of the so-called religious and properly termed private school of our Colonial period to that of the present-day curriculum, there has been a healthy and well-developed growth. A number of the fundamental characteristics remain the same, though the viewpoint has been considerably altered. The outstanding features of the Colonial curriculum were Reading, Writing, Spelling, Arithmetic and Religion. All schools in those days taught the four R's. In fact the bulk of the work was undertaken in order that the child would be able to cultivate an intelligent knowledge of religious beliefs and doctrines.
The establishment of our Democracy placed a new view on the horizon of school work. With the democratic idea, came the resulting conviction that all who were destined to be members of a free state should be equipped to fulfill their duties and obligations in an intelligent manner. Thus we find a continuous growth in curriculum subject-matter. This has resulted in the very complex [411] curriculum that one finds on hand at the present time. Today we find three divisions of subject-matter in our curriculum plans, drill subjects, content subjects and expression subjects. [1]
DRILL SUBJECTS
Reading
Writing
Spelling
Language
Arithmetic
CONTENT SUBJECTS
Religion
History
Geography
Literature
Civics
Nature Study
Health Work
Agriculture
EXPRESSION SUBJECTS
Kindergarten Work
Music
Drawing
Manual & Domestic Arts
Physical Training
The curriculum reflects life and this is one of the chief reasons why we have a loaded curriculum at the present time. In the Colonial days, life was simple and so was the curriculum. Reading and writing were the fundamentals in those days. It was about 1789 that the first substantial addition was made in school work. Arithmetic became a basic subject. This was due to the growth of commercial life. After the War of 1812, a tremendous change came with the industrial revolution [sic] and the establishment of factory life. Geography demanded attention and in 1826, it was allotted its place in the school curriculum. It was also after the War of 1812 that history claimed its place as a school subject. Massachusetts made history mandatory in 1827. Music was introduced between 1830-1840. After the Civil War physical education came into vogue. Drawing and manual training were introduced into school work as a result of the various expositions which were held in the last century. Nature Study grew up within the schools themselves. In all of these subjects there has been a vast amount of development and this has resulted in the loaded curriculum that presents itself to the educators of the present day. The problem is indeed mountainous and yet it must be attacked if progress is to be made. Many and varied are the attempts which have been made and even now are in process. The elaborate work of men like Charters, Bobbitt, Bonser and Rugg evidence the seriousness of the task. It is not within [412] the realm of this paper to treat the labors of these scientific investigators.
An important note must be sounded here. There is so much diversity of opinion as to what should be part of the elementary school curriculum, and different conditions existing in various sections of our broad country, that the discussion in this paper necessitates my confining my remarks about curriculum content to that portion of the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", South of the Mason and Dixon Line with which I am intimately acquainted.
Will it not be profitable to state the principles which underlie Catholic education? These are:
1. Intellectual education must not be separated from moral and religious training. To impart knowledge or to develop mental efficiency without building up moral character is not only contrary to psychological law, but is also fatal to both the individual and society.
2. Religion should be an essential part of education; for on it morality is based; with the Catholic Church the maxim prevails: "No religion, no morality; no morality, no government"; hence religious instruction should form not merely an adjunct to teaching in other subjects, but should be the center about which these are grouped and the spirit by which they are permeated. [2]
In these principles we have the Magna Charta of the Catholic School; they give us the distinguishing mark which separates the Catholic school from all other schools; adherence to these principles is the means by which the Catholic school stands out as superior to all others.
These principles of Catholic philosophy of education furnish the basis and foundation on which the curriculum of the Catholic school must be builded [sic] and moulded [sic]. In this light one may define the aim of Catholic education, and, after all it is this aim that will function strongest in the make-up of the curriculum of the Catholic elementary school.
Strange as it may seem, this is not the simplest thing to do, especially when one goes browsing into Catholic educational fields [413] to seek what others have written about the matter. Dr. Johnson of the Catholic University, in commenting on this says: "At present (this was written in 1925) there seems to be a lack of anything like a definite consciousness amongst us on this score. (The general aim of Catholic education put in such terms as may contribute to a better understanding of the function of the Catholic elementary school)." [3]
And for this one time at least, the good Doctor gives us the answer to our difficulty. He speaks again, "We might say then that the aim of the Catholic elementary school is to provide the child with those experiences which are calculated to develop in him such knowledge, appreciations and habits as will yield a character equal to the contingencies of fundamental Christian living in American democratic society." [4] After a painstaking examination of this definition, surely all of us interested in the great and grave work of Catholic education, will agree that here we have in concrete form, a well thought out, logical, strong and plain statement of the aim of the Catholic elementary school. Applying our Catholic philosophy of education to the interpretation of this aim, we establish definitely the work that is to be accomplished. With these thoughts before us, let us begin our work.
Everywhere one hears the demand for a complete education of the child, hence the variety of items that have from time to time bedecked the curriculum of the elementary school. A cursory glance at some of the things which have engaged the attention of some educators in the past few years will demonstrate how far afield they have wandered. Basket weaving, purposing; tooth-brush drills; aesthetic dancing; construction of bird houses; soap carving; chinning the bar; making beds and biscuits; first aid; these and many others have strutted their time upon the educational stage of the elementary school. The meaning of a complete education has been lost sight of entirely. The result has been that many curricula have served not to enlighten but to befuddle the minds of the children. "Tinkeritis" has been the [414] disease that has affected so many of our present-day Pestalozzis [Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) was a Swiss pedagogue and education reformer] who, in their own minds have settled the question of the curriculum content of the elementary school.
As a result, the 4 R's of yesterday have a batch of step-children. Amateurish experts by cross breeding or hand pollination or something of the kind have succeeded in making ten R's where only three or four grew before. Reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic of tender memories are now in a pitiful minority.
Included among the R's of a newer and happier education they have found the following:
Rhythm
Right
'Rong
recreation
Remedial Measures for the Handicapped
Readiness
Resourcefulness
Is it any wonder then that the R's of the elementary school have fallen upon the sere and yellow leaf? What is to be hoped for against competition like that? Will a pupil read when he might indulge in Rhythm, Right or 'Rong? Can a pupil 'Rite when Remedial Measures for the Handicapped offer exciting speculation? Will he do 'Rithmetic when he may choose Readiness or Resourcefulness? And so on and so on according to the proponents of the newer and happier education. But let us on to more serious things.
Again let me remind you, these comments and statements are not universal in character. They aim simply at being thought-provoking. Our suggestions are to be confined to that terrestrial portion of our country that lies along the banks of the Chesapeake and the Potomac.
To say that religion is the foundational and primary unit in our curriculum scarcely seems necessary. To repeat this is just as foolish as attempting to "paint the lily". Religion in our scheme occupies the position laid down in the principles of Catholic education which have already been enunciated.
With religion established as the center of our curriculum, one may pass on to the other subjects that are to be embraced, bearing [415] in mind the fact that religion must be the active principle that energizes all of the others.
"Most present-day educators agree on certain basic subjects that are to be included in the elementary school curriculum. Elementary education has developed in response to certain fundamental and obvious social needs." "When people live together and work together in certain large groups, the arts of communication and especially the language arts become of very great importance. The development of oral language was one of the first steps in human progress. It not only made group life possible, it also enabled each generation to profit by the experiences of its predecessor, and so paved the way for succeeding generations." [5]
An examination of the foregoing statements gives us a lead in developing our thesis. Every one realizes that while oral language has its importance, at the same time it has its limitations. The spoken word is important, but as such it has no permanence. The realization of this led to the invention of writing. Some have termed it the greatest event in human progress. It made possible the accurate preservation of the experiences of various generations. The acquiring by succeeding generations of these facts collected and preserved in writing, gave rise to the teaching of reading. No one hesitates for a single instant to include these fundamental operations in every elementary school curriculum since they are the essential tools by which all knowledge is acquired.
As I have already stated, the Eighteenth Century, with its industrial revolution and the growth of democracy, was the cause of the introduction of arithmetic as a basic subject in the make-up of the curriculum. The very nature of our present-day existence, its complex nature, the obligations and duties which everyone is bound to assume, demands the presence of reading, writing and arithmetic as prima facie essential parts of any plan that looks to the instruction of human beings. It is almost childish to take up your time with discussing this, still one must be thorough when called on to appear before an assemblage of this type.
[416] The next step is to speak of the growth of the curriculum from these humble but all-important origins. In our scheme of education, the next subjects are geography, literature and history and this is the chronological order in which these subjects made their appearance. Geography was introduced soon after the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. Literature owes its growth to the development of the school "readers." History came in about the middle of the Nineteenth Century. These subjects serve to broaden the horizon of the child. Geography carries them beyond their own local neighborhood and makes them acquainted with their country as a whole, as well as other countries of the world. Literature opens up the field of great minds. History broadens the time-horizon just as geography broadens the space-horizon. It reveals to the child some appreciation of his position in the political world of which he is an integral part.
Thus far I have spoken of units of curriculum as we find it to-day. These also are found in the elementary school for the past seventy-five years. We might say that these units are the legacy which we have received from early school practice.
Health education is a part of our elementary curriculum. This subject made its premier shortly after the Civil War. However, one might demand its presence in the school in virtue of that old principle, mens sana in corpore sano. At the present day, this subject has received most prominent consideration, due no doubt to the development of scientific emphasis on physiology and hygiene. Is not the presence of the school clinics, the school nurse and the school dentist ample proof of this?
Civics too, has found a place in our midst. I mean that aspect of civics which concerns itself with the manner in which cities and towns manage their affairs and especially with the concrete problems of community life in which every citizen should have a vital interest.
Nature study has a place too. I have already said that this is one of the auricular subjects that grew up in the school itself.
Music, art, drawing and physical training find a place in the curriculum of the elementary school of the Maryland "Free State." We must predicate here that their place while important, [417] is supplementary and accessory rather than central or fundamental. This should not cause us to underestimate these subjects, because they do much to enrich and vitalize the work of the elementary school.
One further thought and I am finished. A perusal of some of the Courses of Study of our Catholic elementary schools, will evidence the presence of subjects other than those that I have mentioned. Again let me reiterate the fact that this paper deals with our own little but all-important Archdiocese. You will find for example, agriculture and sciences listed as elementary school subjects. (Here I have to watch my step, if the Reverend Superintendent of Toledo is present). For us, agriculture has no part in our curriculum, possibly due to the fact that we have not a very large rural population. One author in speaking about the presence of natural sciences among the elementary school subjects, says: "Generally speaking, however, the effort to teach the natural sciences in the elementary schools has not been thoroughly successful — in part because teachers have not been trained for the work and in part because of the lack of well-organized materials." [6] This may or may not explain the absence of this subject in our elementary school curriculum.
I am finished. The subject is a difficult one and if this treatment does not appeal to certain individuals, I would suggest that they attack the problem for themselves, with my sincere wishes for better results. God giveth the increase.
DISCUSSION
REV. LEON A. MCNEILL: Discussion of Dr. Barrett's excellent paper may be a solemn duty, but it is also somewhat of a pleasant task. The Rev. Doctor prudently limited his subject to the content of the elementary school curriculum, and furthermore confined his remarks to the Archdiocese of Baltimore with whose schools he is intimately acquainted. Among the commendable features of Dr. Barrett's paper, we may mention the following: his historical sketch of the development of the curriculum, his insistence on Catholic principles which must underlie and permeate a curriculum suitable for our schools, and finally his scoring of the modern tendency to overcrowd the curriculum with irrelevant material.
All will agree that Dr. Barrett has accomplished his avowed purpose of [418] provoking thought. In this brief discussion, we shall comment on a few points suggested by his paper. To determine the content of the elementary curriculum, and to define its materials and activities in such form that the teacher may present them in learning units to her pupils, is no easy task. To draw up a curriculum in even one field of elementary education demands a sound philosophy of education, an understandinng [sic] of the relation of the subject at hand to the other branches of the elementary curriculum, an acquaintance with the reliable findings of scholars and with the rich experience of educators, serious study and dependable experiment in selecting and testing curricular materials, and finally, the ability to break up the matter into units so that the teacher can use them effectively in the classroom.
The body of our discussion will contain two points: first, that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic; and second, that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.
I. We need a thoroughly Catholic curriculum for our schools. Our curriculum must be based upon Catholic philosophy of education, a philosophy essentially different from that of the so-called neutral schools. As Dr. Barrett so well insists, intellectual and moral education belong together, and religion should be, not merely a separate branch of formal instruction and training, but the very center for all the branches of the curriculum. It necessarily follows that the curriculum of the public schools is not suitable for Catholic schools, nor can the mere addition of religion transform a secular curriculum into a Catholic curriculum. It is well known to all of us that secular courses of study, outlining the curriculum of the public schools, are being followed in hundreds of our parochial schools throughout the United States. This may be due to any number of circumstances, e. g., to lack of a Catholic course of study, to a false conception of Catholic education, or to State requirements; but, whatever the cause, let us agree in defining the only goal with which we can ultimately be satisfied: i. e., a thoroughly Catholic curriculum in every Catholic school and an equally Catholic and genuinely useful course of study for every teacher in a Catholic school.
II. The curriculum of the Catholic elementary school must be scientifically constructed. We can no longer afford to dally with haphazard methods of selecting the materials which will be given to the little ones in our schools. The day when a lone superintendent sat down before a number of imported courses of study and assembled a paste-pot and scissors curriculum is past. The day when one curriculum served all schools alike, in big city and in rural hamlet, in established East and in pioneering West, is past. The day when a curriculum was looked upon as a permanent thing, to endure unchanged from year to year and from decade to decade, is also past. Under this heading of the scientific construction of the curriculum, we should like to emphasize especially four [419] points: 1. Constructing a curriculum must be a cooperative task on which superintendent, supervisors, and teachers work together according to a well-organized plan. 2. Curriculum builders must utilize the worthwhile contributions of scholars and the rich experience of educators at large. 3. The curriculum must be adapted to the needs of the particular group of children for whom it is intended. 4. Although based upon philosophy and permeated with principle, it must be built up by experiment and tested thoroughly in actual practice.
This closes the body of our discussion, in which we have stated and briefly commented upon two propositions: that a suitable curriculum for our elementary schools must be genuinely and distinctively Catholic, and that it must be scientifically constructed and embodied in a working manual for the teacher.
We shall now append a number of pertinent conclusions which are the result of some months of study; conclusions which we should be only too glad to support with objective data which cannot be given within the limits of this paper:
1. It is encouraging to note the progress made by certain dioceses in the earnest construction of Catholic curricula and courses of study.
2. Catholic educators must give a larger share of attention to the construction of curricula and to the preparation of courses of study, if they are to attain the only goal with which they can in conscience be satisfied.
3. Catholic educators should cooperate in isolating and solving the more general problems of the curriculum, pooling the results of their educational research, experiment, thought, and practice, and making them available for educators at large.
4. A national committee should make an intensive study of Catholic curricula and courses of study and suggest feasible next steps in this important field of educational endeavor.
---
Footnotes:
1. Cubberly, Introduction to Study of Education.
2. Monroe, A Cyclopedia of Education.
3. Paper read at Superintendents' Section of the N. C. E. A, April, 1925.
4. Ibid.
5. The Classroom Teacher, Vol. 1, pg. 9.
6. Wm. C. Bagley in Classroom Teacher, vol. 1, page 15.
---
Source: Fr. John I. Barrett, "The Elementary School Curriculum, What It Should Contain and What It Should Not," The National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 35, no. 1 (November 1928): 409–419.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Igor Stravinsky on Revolution and The Rite of Spring
[11] I am well aware that there is a point of view that regards the period in which The Rite of Spring appeared as one that witnessed a revolution. A revolution whose conquests are said to be in the process of assimilation today. I deny the validity of that opinion. I hold that it was wrong to have considered me a revolutionary. When The Rite appeared, many opinions were advanced concerning it. In the tumult of contradictory opinions my friend Maurice Ravel intervened practically alone to set matters right. He was able to see, and he said, that the novelty of The Rite consisted, not in the "writing," not in the orchestration, not in the technical apparatus of the work, but in the musical entity.
I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself. Now, revolutionary outbreaks are never completely spontaneous. There are clever people who bring about revolutions with malice aforethought . . . It is always necessary to guard against being misrepresented by those who impute to you an intention not your own. For myself, I never hear anyone talk about revolution without thinking of the conversation that G. K. Chesterton tells us he had, on landing in France, with a Calais innkeeper. [12] The innkeeper complained bitterly of the harshness of life and the increasing lack of freedom: "'It's hardly worth while,' concluded the innkeeper, 'to have had three revolutions only to end up every time just where you started.'" Whereupon Chesterton pointed out to him that a revolution, in the true sense of the word, was the movement of an object in motion that described a closed curve, and thus always returned to the point from where it had started . . .
The tone of a work like The Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established conventions would be known as revolutionary. Why burden the dictionary of the fine arts with this stertorous term, which designates in its most usual acceptation a state of turmoil and violence, when there are so many other words better adapted to designate originality?
In truth, I should be hard pressed to cite for you a single fact in the history of art that might be qualified as revolutionary. Art is by essence constructive. [13] Revolution implies a disruption of equilibrium. To speak of revolution is to speak of a temporary chaos. Now art is the contrary of chaos. It never gives itself up to chaos without immediately finding its living works, its very existence, threatened.
The quality of being revolutionary is generally attributed to artists in our day with a laudatory intent, undoubtedly because we are living in a period when revolution enjoys a kind of prestige among yesterday's elite. Let us understand each other: I am the first to recognize that daring is the motive force of the finest and greatest acts; which is all the more reason for not putting it unthinkingly at the service of disorder and base cravings in a desire to cause sensation at any price. I approve of daring; I set no limits to it. But likewise there are no limits to the mischief wrought by arbitrary acts.
To enjoy to the full the conquests of daring, we must demand that it operate in a pitiless light. We are working in its favor when we denounce the false wares that would usurp its place. Gratuitous excess spoils every substance, every form that it touches. In its blundering it impairs the effectiveness of the most valuable discoveries and at the same time corrupts the taste of its devotees—which explains why their taste often plunges without [14] transition from the wildest complications to the flattest banalities.
A musical complex, however harsh it may be, is legitimate to the extent to which it is genuine. But to recognize genuine values in the midst of the excesses of sham one must be gifted with a sure instinct that our snobs hate all the more intensely for being themselves completely deprived of it.
Our vanguard elite, sworn perpetually to outdo itself, expects and requires that music should satisfy the taste for absurd cacophony.
I say cacophony without fear of being classed with the ranks of conventional pompiers, the laudatores temporis acti. And in using the word I am certain I am not in the least reversing myself. My position in this regard is exactly the same as it was at the time when I composed The Rite and when people saw fit to call me a revolutionary. Today, just as in the past, I am on my guard against counterfeit money and take care not to accept it for the true coin of the realm. Cacophony means bad sound, contraband merchandise, uncoordinated music that will not stand up under serious criticism. Whatever opinion one may hold about the music of Arnold Schoenberg (to take as an example of a composer evolving along lines essentially different from mine, both aesthetically and technically), whose works have frequently given rise to violent [15] reactions or ironic smiles—it is impossible for a self-respecting mind equipped with genuine musical culture not to feel that the composer of Pierrot Lunaire is fully aware of what he is doing and that he is not trying to deceive anyone. He adopted the musical system that suited his needs and, within this system, he is perfectly consistent with himself, perfectly coherent. One cannot dismiss music that he dislikes by labeling it cacophony.
Equally degrading is the vanity of snobs who boast of an embarrassing familiarity with the world of the incomprehensible and who delightedly confess that they find themselves in good company. It is not music they seek, but rather the effect of shock, the sensation that befuddles understanding.
So I confess that I am completely insensitive to the prestige of revolution. All the noise it may make will not call forth the slightest echo in me. For revolution is one thing, innovation another. And even innovation, when not presented in an excessive form, is not always recognized by its contemporaries. Let me take as an example the work of a composer whom I choose purposely because his music, the qualities of which have long been clearly recognized, has become so universally popular that barrel-organs everywhere have made it their own.
I am speaking of Charles Gounod. Don't be surprised at my lingering over Gounod for a moment. [16] It is not so much the composer of Faust who holds my attention as it is the example that Gounod offers us of a work whose most obvious merits were misunderstood when they were still new by the very people whose mission it is to be exactly informed about the realities they have to judge.
Take Faust. The first critics of this famous opera refused to acknowledge in Gounod the melodic inventiveness that today seems to us the dominant trait of his talent. They even went so far as to question whether he had any melodic gift at all. They saw in Gounod "a symphonist astray in the theater," a "severe musician," to use their own terms, and, of course, more "learned" than "inspired." Naturally, they reproached him with having "achieved his effects not through the voices, but through the orchestra."
In 1862, three years after the first performances of Faust, the Gazette musicale of Paris declared quite flatly that Faust, as a whole, "was not the work of a melodist." As for the famous Scudo [Pierre Scudo (1806–1864) was a famous conservative French music critic], whose word was law for the Revue des Deux Mondes, this Scudo in the same year turned out the following historical masterpiece, which I should never forgive myself for not quoting to you in full:
Because the literature that springs up on every side of music has not changed in the last [18] seventy years and because, while music is constantly changing, the commentators who refuse to take note of these transformations do not themselves change—we must naturally take up cudgels.
Therefore, I am going to be polemical. I am not afraid to admit this. I shall be polemical not in my own defense, but in order to defend in words all music and its principles, just as I defend them in a different way with my compositions.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 11–18.
I was made a revolutionary in spite of myself. Now, revolutionary outbreaks are never completely spontaneous. There are clever people who bring about revolutions with malice aforethought . . . It is always necessary to guard against being misrepresented by those who impute to you an intention not your own. For myself, I never hear anyone talk about revolution without thinking of the conversation that G. K. Chesterton tells us he had, on landing in France, with a Calais innkeeper. [12] The innkeeper complained bitterly of the harshness of life and the increasing lack of freedom: "'It's hardly worth while,' concluded the innkeeper, 'to have had three revolutions only to end up every time just where you started.'" Whereupon Chesterton pointed out to him that a revolution, in the true sense of the word, was the movement of an object in motion that described a closed curve, and thus always returned to the point from where it had started . . .
The tone of a work like The Rite may have appeared arrogant, the language that it spoke may have seemed harsh in its newness, but that in no way implies that it is revolutionary in the most subversive sense of the word.
If one only need break a habit to merit being labeled revolutionary, then every musician who has something to say and who in order to say it goes beyond the bounds of established conventions would be known as revolutionary. Why burden the dictionary of the fine arts with this stertorous term, which designates in its most usual acceptation a state of turmoil and violence, when there are so many other words better adapted to designate originality?
In truth, I should be hard pressed to cite for you a single fact in the history of art that might be qualified as revolutionary. Art is by essence constructive. [13] Revolution implies a disruption of equilibrium. To speak of revolution is to speak of a temporary chaos. Now art is the contrary of chaos. It never gives itself up to chaos without immediately finding its living works, its very existence, threatened.
The quality of being revolutionary is generally attributed to artists in our day with a laudatory intent, undoubtedly because we are living in a period when revolution enjoys a kind of prestige among yesterday's elite. Let us understand each other: I am the first to recognize that daring is the motive force of the finest and greatest acts; which is all the more reason for not putting it unthinkingly at the service of disorder and base cravings in a desire to cause sensation at any price. I approve of daring; I set no limits to it. But likewise there are no limits to the mischief wrought by arbitrary acts.
To enjoy to the full the conquests of daring, we must demand that it operate in a pitiless light. We are working in its favor when we denounce the false wares that would usurp its place. Gratuitous excess spoils every substance, every form that it touches. In its blundering it impairs the effectiveness of the most valuable discoveries and at the same time corrupts the taste of its devotees—which explains why their taste often plunges without [14] transition from the wildest complications to the flattest banalities.
A musical complex, however harsh it may be, is legitimate to the extent to which it is genuine. But to recognize genuine values in the midst of the excesses of sham one must be gifted with a sure instinct that our snobs hate all the more intensely for being themselves completely deprived of it.
Our vanguard elite, sworn perpetually to outdo itself, expects and requires that music should satisfy the taste for absurd cacophony.
I say cacophony without fear of being classed with the ranks of conventional pompiers, the laudatores temporis acti. And in using the word I am certain I am not in the least reversing myself. My position in this regard is exactly the same as it was at the time when I composed The Rite and when people saw fit to call me a revolutionary. Today, just as in the past, I am on my guard against counterfeit money and take care not to accept it for the true coin of the realm. Cacophony means bad sound, contraband merchandise, uncoordinated music that will not stand up under serious criticism. Whatever opinion one may hold about the music of Arnold Schoenberg (to take as an example of a composer evolving along lines essentially different from mine, both aesthetically and technically), whose works have frequently given rise to violent [15] reactions or ironic smiles—it is impossible for a self-respecting mind equipped with genuine musical culture not to feel that the composer of Pierrot Lunaire is fully aware of what he is doing and that he is not trying to deceive anyone. He adopted the musical system that suited his needs and, within this system, he is perfectly consistent with himself, perfectly coherent. One cannot dismiss music that he dislikes by labeling it cacophony.
Equally degrading is the vanity of snobs who boast of an embarrassing familiarity with the world of the incomprehensible and who delightedly confess that they find themselves in good company. It is not music they seek, but rather the effect of shock, the sensation that befuddles understanding.
So I confess that I am completely insensitive to the prestige of revolution. All the noise it may make will not call forth the slightest echo in me. For revolution is one thing, innovation another. And even innovation, when not presented in an excessive form, is not always recognized by its contemporaries. Let me take as an example the work of a composer whom I choose purposely because his music, the qualities of which have long been clearly recognized, has become so universally popular that barrel-organs everywhere have made it their own.
I am speaking of Charles Gounod. Don't be surprised at my lingering over Gounod for a moment. [16] It is not so much the composer of Faust who holds my attention as it is the example that Gounod offers us of a work whose most obvious merits were misunderstood when they were still new by the very people whose mission it is to be exactly informed about the realities they have to judge.
Take Faust. The first critics of this famous opera refused to acknowledge in Gounod the melodic inventiveness that today seems to us the dominant trait of his talent. They even went so far as to question whether he had any melodic gift at all. They saw in Gounod "a symphonist astray in the theater," a "severe musician," to use their own terms, and, of course, more "learned" than "inspired." Naturally, they reproached him with having "achieved his effects not through the voices, but through the orchestra."
In 1862, three years after the first performances of Faust, the Gazette musicale of Paris declared quite flatly that Faust, as a whole, "was not the work of a melodist." As for the famous Scudo [Pierre Scudo (1806–1864) was a famous conservative French music critic], whose word was law for the Revue des Deux Mondes, this Scudo in the same year turned out the following historical masterpiece, which I should never forgive myself for not quoting to you in full:
Monsieur Gounod, to his misfortune, admires certain outmoded portions of Beethoven's [17] last quartets. They constitute the muddied wellspring from which issue the bad musicians of modern Germany: the Liszts, the Wagners, the Schumanns, and even Mendelssohn in certain questionable aspects of his style. If Monsieur Gounod has really made his own the doctrine of continuous melody, of the melody of the virgin forest and of the setting sun, that constitutes the charm of Tannhäuser and of Lohengrin, a melody that may be compared to Harlequin's letter: "as for periods and commas, I don't give them a thought, I leave it to you to put them wherever you wish"—Monsieur Gounod in that case, which I should like to believe impossible, will be irrevocably lost.But even the Germans corroborated the good Scudo after their fashion. As a matter of fact, one could read in the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten that Gounod wasn't French, but Belgian, and that his compositions did not bear the stamp of the contemporary French and Italian schools, but precisely that of the German school in which he had been educated and formed.
Because the literature that springs up on every side of music has not changed in the last [18] seventy years and because, while music is constantly changing, the commentators who refuse to take note of these transformations do not themselves change—we must naturally take up cudgels.
Therefore, I am going to be polemical. I am not afraid to admit this. I shall be polemical not in my own defense, but in order to defend in words all music and its principles, just as I defend them in a different way with my compositions.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 11–18.
Igor Stravinsky on Creativity and Dogmatic Principles
[6] In fact, we cannot observe the creative phenomenon independently of the form in which it is made manifest. Every formal process proceeds from a principle, and the study of this principle requires precisely what we call dogma. In other words, the need that we feel to bring order out of chaos, to extricate the straight line of our operation from the tangle of possibilities and the indecision of vague thoughts, presupposes the necessity of some sort of dogmatism. I use the words dogma and dogmatic, then, only insofar as they designate an element essential to safeguarding the integrity of [7] art and mind, and I maintain that in this context they do not usurp their function.
The very fact that we have recourse to what we call order—that order which permits us to dogmatize in the field we are considering—not only develops our taste for dogmatism: it also incites us to place our own creative activity under the aegis of dogmatism. That is why I should like to see you accept the term.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 6–7.
The very fact that we have recourse to what we call order—that order which permits us to dogmatize in the field we are considering—not only develops our taste for dogmatism: it also incites us to place our own creative activity under the aegis of dogmatism. That is why I should like to see you accept the term.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 6–7.
Igor Stravinsky on Artistic Taste and Tradition
[57] One cannot force one's self to love; but love presupposes understanding, and in order to understand, one must exert one's self.
The same problem was posed in the Middle Ages by the theologians of pure love. To understand in order to love; to love in order to understand: we are here not going around in a vicious circle; we are rising spirally, providing that we have made an initial effort, have even just gone through a routine exercise. [...]
The faculty of observation and of making something out of what is observed belongs only to the person who at least possesses, in his particular field of endeavor, an acquired culture and an innate taste. A dealer, an art-lover who is the first to buy the canvases of an unknown painter who will be [58] famous twenty-five years later under the name of Cézanne—doesn't such a person give us a clear example of his innate taste? What else guides him in his choice? A flair, an instinct from which this taste proceeds, a completely spontaneous faculty anterior to reflection.
As for culture, it is a sort of upbringing which, in the social sphere, confers polish upon education, sustains and rounds out academic instruction. This upbringing is just as important in the sphere of taste, and is essential to the creator who must ceaselessly refine his taste or run the risk of losing his perspicacity. Our mind, as well as our body, requires continual exercise. It atrophies if we do not cultivate it.
It is culture that brings out the full value of taste and gives it a chance to prove its worth simply by its application. The artist imposes a culture upon himself and ends by imposing it upon others. That is how tradition becomes established.
Tradition is entirely different from habit, even from an excellent habit, since habit is by definition an unconscious acquisition and tends to become mechanical, whereas tradition results from a conscious and deliberate acceptance. A real tradition is not the relic of a past that is irretrievably gone; it is a living force that animates and informs the present. In this sense the paradox that banteringly [59] maintains that everything that is not tradition is plagiarism is true. . . .
Far from implying the repetition of what has been, tradition presupposes the reality of what endures. It appears as an heirloom, a heritage that one receives on condition of making it bear fruit before passing it on to one's descendants.
Brahms was born sixty years after Beethoven. From the one to the other, and from every aspect, the distance between them is great; they do not dress the same way, but Brahms follows the tradition of Beethoven without borrowing one of his habiliments. For the borrowing of a method has nothing to do with observing a tradition. "A method is replaced; a tradition is carried forward in order to produce something new." Tradition thus assures the continuity of creation. The example that I have just cited does not constitute an exception but is one proof out of a hundred of a constant law. This sense of tradition that is a natural need must not be confused with the desire the composer feels to affirm the kinship he finds across the centuries with some master of the past.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 57–59.
The same problem was posed in the Middle Ages by the theologians of pure love. To understand in order to love; to love in order to understand: we are here not going around in a vicious circle; we are rising spirally, providing that we have made an initial effort, have even just gone through a routine exercise. [...]
The faculty of observation and of making something out of what is observed belongs only to the person who at least possesses, in his particular field of endeavor, an acquired culture and an innate taste. A dealer, an art-lover who is the first to buy the canvases of an unknown painter who will be [58] famous twenty-five years later under the name of Cézanne—doesn't such a person give us a clear example of his innate taste? What else guides him in his choice? A flair, an instinct from which this taste proceeds, a completely spontaneous faculty anterior to reflection.
As for culture, it is a sort of upbringing which, in the social sphere, confers polish upon education, sustains and rounds out academic instruction. This upbringing is just as important in the sphere of taste, and is essential to the creator who must ceaselessly refine his taste or run the risk of losing his perspicacity. Our mind, as well as our body, requires continual exercise. It atrophies if we do not cultivate it.
It is culture that brings out the full value of taste and gives it a chance to prove its worth simply by its application. The artist imposes a culture upon himself and ends by imposing it upon others. That is how tradition becomes established.
Tradition is entirely different from habit, even from an excellent habit, since habit is by definition an unconscious acquisition and tends to become mechanical, whereas tradition results from a conscious and deliberate acceptance. A real tradition is not the relic of a past that is irretrievably gone; it is a living force that animates and informs the present. In this sense the paradox that banteringly [59] maintains that everything that is not tradition is plagiarism is true. . . .
Far from implying the repetition of what has been, tradition presupposes the reality of what endures. It appears as an heirloom, a heritage that one receives on condition of making it bear fruit before passing it on to one's descendants.
Brahms was born sixty years after Beethoven. From the one to the other, and from every aspect, the distance between them is great; they do not dress the same way, but Brahms follows the tradition of Beethoven without borrowing one of his habiliments. For the borrowing of a method has nothing to do with observing a tradition. "A method is replaced; a tradition is carried forward in order to produce something new." Tradition thus assures the continuity of creation. The example that I have just cited does not constitute an exception but is one proof out of a hundred of a constant law. This sense of tradition that is a natural need must not be confused with the desire the composer feels to affirm the kinship he finds across the centuries with some master of the past.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 57–59.
On Mixed Marriages (1929)
[214] The widely noticed article "What it Means to Marry a Catholic," by a non-Catholic woman in the June Forum, simply confirms the wisdom of the attitude taken by the Church. As our readers know, the Church regards mixed marriages as an evil and permits them only in exceptional cases, under certain safeguards designed to protect the faith of the Catholic party and to insure the religious training of the children. The discrepancies between the Catholic and the Protestant points of view are irreconcilable, and the case could be made even stronger than it is stated by this non-Catholic woman, who regrets her mistake in marrying a Catholic man who apparently tries to be faithful to his religion by avoiding contraceptive practices, attending to his religious duties, and insisting on having his children trained in Catholic schools—all things which the Protestant wife does not believe in, and for which she has nothing but prejudiced contempt. It is strange that so many Catholics, even at an age when they should know better, fail to see the incompatibility of the Catholic with the Protestant conception of marriage and the impossibility of either a sincere Catholic or a convinced Protestant being truly happy in such a relationship.
---
Source: Anonymous editorial, The Catholic Fortnightly Review 36, no. 11 (August 1929): 214.
---
Source: Anonymous editorial, The Catholic Fortnightly Review 36, no. 11 (August 1929): 214.
The Age of the Human Race (1929)
[192] The Catholic Anthropological Conference has issued in pamphlet form ''The Age of the Human Race in the Light of Geology" by Stephen Richarz [sic], S.V.D., Ph.D., which inspires new hope for the intellectual future of Catholicism in the United States. Catholic anthropological work, as inspired and directed by this Conference, provides at least one sound reason for believing that intellectual activity among American Catholics is not entirely stagnant.
Father Richarz, whose work in this field has received due recognition, presents us in this monograph with a splendid statement of the age of the human race. According to him it is an established fact that man witnessed the glaciation in northern and central Europe; second, that man was in Europe even before the last period of severe cold, and, finally, that man was in Europe during a rather genial climate preceding the last glaciation and witnessed this process of glaciation from its beginning to the complete disappearance of the ice.
What does this indicate with regard to the age of the human race? The author concludes that "there are many uncertainties which block any attempt to assign a definite figure for the age of mankind. On the other hand it would be unreasonable and unscientific to reject all figures as uncertain and unreliable. There are facts which are obvious and accepted unanimously by all geologists, and these facts warrant the conclusion that man was undoubtedly in Europe 30,000 years ago. Of this number of millenniums the first half is determined by exact methods, while the other half is based partly on an estimate of the recession of the ice where this recession can not yet be measured directly, partly on a conservative estimate of the time required for the advance of the ice front from northern to central Europe. Future development of these methods as well as new discoveries may raise this minimum figure considerably and place [193] on a more solid basis the theories of those who believe in a much higher age of mankind. However, it seems impossible to the author that the figure of 30,000 years will ever turn out to be too high as a reasonable estimate of the minimum age of the human race. In any case, the present essay shows that it is impossible to reconcile the well-known facts of human antiquity with such figures as 6,000 or 8,000 years.
It may be added in conclusion that no theological problem is involved. Theologians, even the more conservative, acknowledge full liberty to deviate from the figures of the older exegesis and declare that the problem of the age of mankind, like that of the age of the earth and of the universe, is one which has to be solved by secular science.
The presentation of the proof for these statements is made in an exceptionally pleasing and understandable form. We commend to all educated Catholics the careful reading of this excellent monograph. May Father Richarz be permitted to continue his scholarly work and thus help to bring the Catholic cause in the United States into repute among the educated and intellectual classes!
---
Source: Anonymous, "The Age of the Human Race," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 36, no. 10 (July 1929): 192–193.
Father Richarz, whose work in this field has received due recognition, presents us in this monograph with a splendid statement of the age of the human race. According to him it is an established fact that man witnessed the glaciation in northern and central Europe; second, that man was in Europe even before the last period of severe cold, and, finally, that man was in Europe during a rather genial climate preceding the last glaciation and witnessed this process of glaciation from its beginning to the complete disappearance of the ice.
What does this indicate with regard to the age of the human race? The author concludes that "there are many uncertainties which block any attempt to assign a definite figure for the age of mankind. On the other hand it would be unreasonable and unscientific to reject all figures as uncertain and unreliable. There are facts which are obvious and accepted unanimously by all geologists, and these facts warrant the conclusion that man was undoubtedly in Europe 30,000 years ago. Of this number of millenniums the first half is determined by exact methods, while the other half is based partly on an estimate of the recession of the ice where this recession can not yet be measured directly, partly on a conservative estimate of the time required for the advance of the ice front from northern to central Europe. Future development of these methods as well as new discoveries may raise this minimum figure considerably and place [193] on a more solid basis the theories of those who believe in a much higher age of mankind. However, it seems impossible to the author that the figure of 30,000 years will ever turn out to be too high as a reasonable estimate of the minimum age of the human race. In any case, the present essay shows that it is impossible to reconcile the well-known facts of human antiquity with such figures as 6,000 or 8,000 years.
It may be added in conclusion that no theological problem is involved. Theologians, even the more conservative, acknowledge full liberty to deviate from the figures of the older exegesis and declare that the problem of the age of mankind, like that of the age of the earth and of the universe, is one which has to be solved by secular science.
The presentation of the proof for these statements is made in an exceptionally pleasing and understandable form. We commend to all educated Catholics the careful reading of this excellent monograph. May Father Richarz be permitted to continue his scholarly work and thus help to bring the Catholic cause in the United States into repute among the educated and intellectual classes!
---
Source: Anonymous, "The Age of the Human Race," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 36, no. 10 (July 1929): 192–193.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)