as history, were entirely neglected, "Preoccupied before all else with purely formal studies, and exclusively devoted to the exercises which give a training in the use of elegant language, the Jesuits leave real and concrete studies in entire neglect. History is almost wholly banished from their programme. It is only with reference to the Greek and Latin texts that the teacher should make allusion to the matters of history, which are necessary for the understanding of the passage under examination. No account is made of modern history, nor of the history of France. 'History', says a Jesuit Father, 'is the destruction of him who studies it'."[1] This last remark strikes us, and perhaps also other readers of M. Compayré's work, as ridiculous. We ask: Who is this Jesuit Father that made such a silly statement? Is he one of the framers of the Ratio Studiorum, or one of its commentators, or a Superior of the Order? No; no one knows who he is – if ever a Jesuit has said such nonsense. But granted one has said it, must not every fair-minded reader ask: Can the Jesuit Order be said to hold and defend all the views which every individual Jesuit has uttered? If a Professor of Harvard or Yale University made a foolish remark, would it be fair to hold up the two universities to ridicule?
But let us examine the facts. History is taught in Jesuit schools and was taught in the Old Society, it matters little whether this and other branches were called accessories or side branches – they were called so because much less time was devoted to them than to the study of language and literature. It is true, the historical studies were not then cultivated, neither in
- ↑ Compayré, History of Pedagogy, pp. 144-145.
