well as esteem of his contemporaries. We find no exaggeration in the epigraphic lines of George Buchanan

“Aschamum extinctum patriæ, Graiæque Camenæ

Et Latiæ, vera cum pietate, dolent ;
Principibus vixit carus, jucundus amicis,

Re modica, in mores dicere fama nequit."


1. Among the educational treatises of note during this century was that of Hieronymus Wolf, “Docendi discendique ratio,” published about 1576.

2. The student of Education would do well to read in connexion with the whole period of the Renaissance Guizot's Lectures on Civilization in Europe, and Hallan's Literary History of the Middle Ages, and to consult Symonds' exhaustive work.

3. The two passages on which Ascham confessedly bases his system of “Double Translation" are Cic. de Orat. I. 34, and Plin. Epistol. vii. 9. In the passage from the De Oratore the words are put into the mouth of M. Licinius Crassus, the most illustrious of Roman orators before the time of Cicero. The latter was not only trained by Crassus when a boy (de Oratore, 11. I, 2) but appears to have selected him as the mouthpiece of his own views in the dialogue. The passage referred to is as follows:

Cicero de Orat. I. 34. “But in my daily exercises I used, when a youth, to adopt chiefly that method which I knew that Caius Carbo, my adversary, generally practised; which was, that having selected some nervous piece of poetry, or read over such a portion of a speech as I could retain in my memory, I used to declaim upon what I had been reading in other words, chosen with all the judgment that I possessed. But at length I perceived that in that method there was this inconvenience, that Ennius, if I exercised myself on his verses, or Gracchus, if I laid one of his orations before me, had forestalled such words as were peculiarly appropriate to the subject, and such as were the most elegant and altogether the best ; so that if I used the same words, it profited nothing: if others, it was even prejudicial to me, as I habituated myself to use such words as were less eligible. Afterwards I thought proper, and continued the practice at a rather more advanced age, to translate the orations of the best Greek orators; by fixing upon which I gained this advantage, that while I rendered into Latin what I had read in Greek, I not only used the best words, and yet such as were of common occurrence, but also formed some words by imitation, which would be new to our countrymen, taking care, however, that they were unobjectionable.”

Watson's Translation (Bohn's series). 4. The letter of Pliny (VII. 9) referred to in the text is addressed to Fuscus, one of his many literary friends, who had been asking him for advice as to his studies. The whole letter is exceedingly interesting.

5. The most important English writers of the period after Ascham were Mulcaster, d. 1611, who wrote Positions (vide Quick's edition) and The Elementarie ; and Brinsley, who wrote on the Grammar School.

6. The most important of the men omitted is probably the German Wimpheling, whose book, Guide for the German Youth, was published in 1497, followed by Die Jugend in 1500. The writings of this distinguished educationalist would, I have no doubt, repay a study which I have not time to give to him. The man who wrote (Janssen's History oy the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, p. 80) “Let cultivation be for the quickening of independent thought” was far removed from the Mediaeval school



Order founded in 1534.


some respects the greatest educational movement generated during the second period of the Renaissance was that of Ignatius of Loyola (born 1491, died 1556), the founder of the Jesuit Order. To this I have already adverted; but it merits a fuller notice, because it was a scheme of university as well as of secondary instruction. This order, founded in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola and five associates, knew what it wanted; the Protestant Humanists did not. As recognized by Papal Bull in 1540, it was primarily a missionary organization. Adapting themselves to the urgent wants of the time, the members devoted themselves to education and to the cultivation of learning. Primary education certainly received its great impulse from the Reformers, dogma and the “godly upbringing” of the young being the governing aim. We cannot say the same of secondary instruction, although there were many excellent secondary schools of a Protestant character. But the higher education generally was left to the Jesuits to undertake.

It was not the Renaissance as a literary and aesthetic, but as a theological movement, which led to the institution of the

[ocr errors]

Jesuit schools. They were bulwarks of the Faith. They adopted as much of Humanism as served their purpose. To say what a Jesuit school was as compared with a cathedral or monastery school is not difficult. Latin formed in the former, as in the latter, the central subject of instruction, but now it was the Latin of classical antiquity. Eloquence in the restricted sense of Latin style was the aim. The main purpose of this system apart from its governing religious idea was to give command of Latin as a medium of communication no less than of personal culture. The service of the Church was the end of all learning. Orators and poets were studied with a view to this. A marked advance on the mediaeval studies was thus a conspicuous feature of the school system, and as Lord Bacon says in The Advancement of Learning "partly in themselves, partly by the emulation and provocation of their example, they quickened and strengthened the state of learning." One hundred Colleges and Houses were established within fifteen years of the foundation of the Order. In 1640 they numbered 372. Prior to the French Revolution there were ninety Colleges (secondary schools, and high schools or “Academies ”) in France alone. And these secondary schools and universities were far in advance of Protestant and State institutions. If we add the elements of Greek to Latin oratory. we say all that there is to be said as to the central subjects of secular instruction. There is no record of any Jesuit school, so far as I know, which approached in its breadth of study or in the organization of school work the Protestant Gymnasium of Sturm at Strassburg, much less the school of Neander or of Trotzendorf-examples however which were not largely followed by Protestants.

How was it then that the Jesuit schools so far excelled the Humanistic secondary schools of the Reformation as wholly to eclipse them and to evoke the approval of Bacon and other Protestant men of eminence? The answer is contained in one word, organization.

(1) There was a ratio studiorum deliberately laid down and carried out.

(2) There was an organization of the teaching staff so conceived as to attain the objects of the school and suited to a system of carefully graded classes. The work was thorough throughout (3) There was a ratio docendi et discendi.

A great many sensible rules of method in teaching were adopted and put into practice. All parts of the school were subjected to one idea and to one unquestioned authority. The school worked as an organism.

To these characteristics we must add that the discipline was comparatively mild (always a consequence of good organization). There were unwholesome elements in the discipline, it is truetoo much emulation and a tendency to espionage and its consequent evils; but it was freed from the harshness that characterized other schools. Great attention also was paid to the health and bodily vigour of the pupils. If we add to this that all the schools were everywhere alike as being under one Order, and thus commanded the confidence of parents, we can easily see that success was certain. The Protestant schools had too much individualism about them. Their educational theory was larger, their course of instruction for a time theoretically wider, the spirit that animated them was more that of Humanism and freedom, but against such characteristics, admirable as they are, organization and recognized system will always carry the day.

It was, then, not only by their activity in politics and Church work that the Jesuits arrested the tide of Protestantism, but also and chiefly by their schools. They believed in education as moulding the future man, and had a conviction of its power, which even to this day Protestants do not share, spite of all their platform talk.

At one time it almost appeared as if the whole secondary and university education of the Continent of Europe would fall into their hands, and had it not been for the


« ForrigeFortsett »