pensed with, and that the oft-refuted calumnies of virulent partisan pamphlets have simply been repeated. Or have the assailants of the educational system of the Jesuits carefully studied the original sources: the Fourth Part of the Constitutions, the Ratio Studiorum, and the numerous other documents of the Society, treating of its educational system? Or have they themselves studied in Jesuit colleges? Have their children, relatives or friends been Jesuit pupils? Have they been sufficiently acquainted with Jesuit teachers? If not, is it fair and conscientious criticism to condemn a system about which they possess no reliable information whatever? If now-a-days one writes on the philosophy of India, on the doctrine of Zoroaster, or on the education of the Greeks and Romans, he adorns his books with an elaborate scientific apparatus. He studies the original languages or consults the best translations and commentaries, and spares no pains to let the reader know that he has drawn from trustworthy sources. How much more care should be taken if, not philosophic systems or nations of a far-off past, but a living institution is concerned? No matter how much opposed it may be to the critic's views, fair treatment and justice should never be denied, even if all sympathy is withheld. But a few years ago a Protestant writer in Germany, reviewing Father Duhr's work on the educational system of the Society, recommended the work most earnestly to the Protestant educators; for, as he said, "even our scholarly works on education betray a shocking ignorance in regard to everything pertaining to the Jesuits."[1] It
- ↑ Central-Organ für die Interessen des Realschulwesens, Berlin.
