vancy state expressly that various things are to be considered in these studies: knowledge of language, of grammar, of syntax, precepts of rhetoric, style, and varied erudition.[1] Jouvancy, in the schemata for explaining the authors, has five or six points, the first is always the interpretation of the meaning, the contents, the linguistic and logical explanation; then rhetorical or poetical precepts, then general erudition, and lastly Latinity.[2] This proves how untrustworthy are the quotations of Mr. Painter and of other critics of the Ratio. The perusal of the commentary of Jouvancy refutes also in general the charge of "mere formalism." However, if by "formal" is meant the general linguistic training,[3] the Society has always laid great stress on it. Many scholars begin to deplore the fact that this "formal" training is being neglected too much in the new schools. "The great linguistic and logical training which results from solid and properly conducted instruction in grammar, especially in another language, particularly in Latin and Greek, has of late been undervalued – the nemesis for it has come already."[4]
It is true that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Jesuits did not enter as fully into the explanation of the contents as is demanded at present. But who can blame them for this? It is true also that
- ↑ See below chapter XVI, also Reg. Prof. Rhet. I. – Reg. Hum. I., etc.
- ↑ Ratio Docendi, ch. II, art. 4. See below ch. XVI, § 1.
- ↑ This is the meaning of the term "formal" in many letters of the Generals, as in that of Father Beckx quoted by M. Compayré, page 145, where this author misinterprets the phrase "pure form".
- ↑ Dr. Hirzel, in Neue Jahrbücher, 1902, vol. X, p. 53.
