truly and solidly, there is none of it. Ex omnibus aliquid, in toto nihil: Something of everything, nothing in the end. In the method of conducting the lower studies, some accessory branches should have time provided for them, especially the vernacular tongues and literatures. But the study of Latin and Greek must always remain intact and be the chief object of attention. As they have always been the principal sources of exhibiting the most perfect models of literary beauty in precept and style, so are they still."
Here it is necessary to meet some objections to the Jesuit system. It is said that, however much the Jesuits insisted on the classical studies, they directed them to a wrong end. They aimed only at "formation of style." "To write in Latin is the ideal they propose to their pupils... They direct the pupil's attention, not to the thoughts, but to the elegancies of language, to the elocutionary effort; in a word, to the form." Thus M. Compayré.[1] Mr. Painter tells us even that the Jesuits' "plan" says: "The study of classic authors can have for us only a secondary end, namely, to form the style, we wish nothing else. Style will be formed essentially after Cicero."[2] What answer can be given to this serious charge? The answer is a very simple one: the first sentence of Mr. Painter's quotation is untrue. That statement of his is nowhere contained in the whole Ratio, neither literally nor equivalently.[3] The Ratio and its commentator Jou-
- ↑ History of Pedagogy, p. 144.
- ↑ History of Education, p. 169.
- ↑ I do not wish to imply that Mr. Painter has consciously committed this blunder. I suspect it is based on an entirely false translation of the first Rule for the Professor of Rhetoric, which says that Latin style should be modeled chiefly after Cicero.
