accommodate themselves often to new teachers and prefects."[1]
If, for want of a sufficient number of men, some of the regulations laid down for the training of the teacher, were, perhaps, not everywhere and always complied with, the Ratio Studiorum is not to be censured on that account, nor the Society as such, as by wise legislation she endeavored to obviate any such shortcomings.[2] Moreover, the uniformity of the previous training of the Jesuit teachers, as well as the uniform system of teaching in the colleges of the same province, has the effect that, although teachers are changed, there is no change in the method of teaching. Besides, is not every institution, secular or ecclesiastical, however well organized, open to such or similar temporary defects? Exceptional shortcomings must naturally be expected in any system, as there is nothing on earth altogether perfect and ideal. Deficiencies in individual Jesuit teachers, or in single colleges, do not prove anything against the system, no more than the inefficient administration of one Governor or President proves the worthlessness of the constitution of a State or the Republic. Our contention is only that excellent teachers are trained if the regulations of the Jesuit system are followed.
The young teacher has received his appointment, let us say for one of the high school classes, to teach Latin and Greek. He knows his grammar well, he
- ↑ Pachtler I, 415. – Father Ledesma made the regulation that in the beginning of the scholastic year substitutes should be appointed, who had to be ready to step in if a teacher should, by sickness or some other cause, be compelled to discontinue teaching. Mon. Paed., p. 144, 156.
- ↑ Reg. Provinc. 4, 22, 24, 28, 30, etc.
