The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum of 1599

Translated into English, with an Introduction and Explanatory Notes, by Allan P. Farrell, S.J.,

University of Detroit (1970).

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/ulib/digi/ratio/ratio_web.html

COMMON RULES OF PROFESSORS OF THE HIGHER FACULTIES

1. It should be the set purpose of the teacher, both in his lectures as opportunity offers and on other occasions, to inspire his students to the love and service of God and to the practice of the virtues which He expects of them, for this is the sole purpose of all their activities.

2. To keep this ideal ever before their minds let one of the students recite a short prayer, composed for this purpose, at the beginning of class. The professor and students should follow attentively and with heads uncovered. At least let the professor, with uncovered head, make the sign of the Cross and then begin his lecture.

3. He should also pray frequently for the spiritual welfare of his students and be an example to them by his dedicated life. And he should sometimes exhort them on religious matters, at least prior to the major feasts and the longer vacations. He should especially urge them to pray to God, to examine their consciences in the evening, to receive the sacraments of penance and the holy eucharist frequently and fervently, to attend Mass daily, to listen to sermons on all feast days, to shun bad habits, to hate sin, and to cultivate the virtues worthy of a Christian man.

4. He should obey the prefect of studies in everything that concerns studies and the discipline of the school. He should submit theses to the prefect for review before they are published. He should not undertake to explain any texts or authors not commonly in use, nor introduce innovations in his method of teaching or in the conduct of disputations.

5. In arguing debatable questions, he should defend his view with such modesty and courtesy as to show respect for the contrary view, the more so if it was held by his predecessor. When it is possible to reconcile diverse views, an attempt should be made to do so. He should express himself temperately in naming or refuting authors.

6. Even in regard to doctrines which do not involve danger to faith and piety, no professor should propose novel opinions in matters of serious import, nor espouse views which are not grounded on reputable authority, without first consulting his superiors. He should not teach anything that runs counter to the established doctrines of scholastic theologians and the common teaching of the schools. Rather everyone should follow the masters and, as far as circumstances of the times allow, the accepted teaching of Catholic authorities.

7. He should not bring up worthless, obsolete, absurd, or patently false opinions, nor spend time in commenting on or refuting them. He should seek to establish his conclusions not so much by the number as by the cogency of his arguments. He should not digress into matters foreign to his subject, nor treat his subject diffusely or out of its proper place. Instead of heaping up possible objections, he should bring up briefly only the weightiest of them, unless even these can be easily refuted from the established proof of the proposition.

8. Let him avoid citing the authority of learned men to excess, but if he has the witness of eminent theologians in confirmation of his views, or in particular the authority of Scripture, the Councils, or the Fathers, he should as far as possible quote their own words, but briefly and faithfully. It scarcely becomes the dignity of a professor to cite an authority whose works he himself has not read.

9. If anyone can teach without dictating, yet in such a way that the students can take whatever notes they need, it is better for him not to dictate. Certainly anyone who dictates should do so in continuous sentences and not pause between each word. If need be, he can then repeat the whole sentence in the same words. Nor should he first dictate a whole passage and then explain it, but his dictation should be accompanied by a running commentary.

10. Citations from authors whose books are easily accessible are to be explained but not dictated. In fact, the teacher should give his students references to authors who discuss pertinent points accurately and in detail.

11. After his lecture he should remain in or near his classroom for at least a quarter of an hour so that his pupils may come and ask him questions. He will thus be able occasionally to demand an account of his lectures and to see that they are reviewed.

12. Every day, except Saturdays, holidays, and feast days, an hour is to be assigned the Jesuit students for repetition that thus their minds may be given more exercise and difficult points that arise be better explained. And so one or two students, appointed in advance, should give the repetition from memory for not more than a quarter of an hour. Then discussion should begin, with one or two proposing objections and one or two answering them. Any time remaining is to be given to resolving difficulties. To secure time for this the teacher will insist that the syllogistic form of reasoning be strictly followed. When the objectors have nothing new to advance, he should cut short the discussion.

13. Toward the end of the year there is to be a repetition of the yearπs lectures. It is to be so arranged that as far as possible an entire month will be left free from both lectures and repetitions.

14. On Saturday or any other day dictated by local custom, disputations should be held in the classes for two hours, or longer where there are many extern students. If two feast days occur in a week, or one feast day besides the weekly holiday, the disputations will be dropped and regular lectures given; but should this circumstance occur three weeks in succession, one disputation shall be held.

15. Where the approved custom of the school does not interfere, disputations shall be held, in both the morning and the afternoon on a definite day every month, except during the last three months of the summer. If the number of students is small, the disputations shall be held every second month. Each teacher should select a student to defend theses drawn from the subject matter of his class.

16. Other professors of the Society, though they belong to different faculties, should attend the disputations whenever possible. To enliven the discussions, they should press the objections that are proposed, but should not urge an objection while the appointed objector is still arguing his point with vigor and effect. The same privilege may be extended to extern doctors, who may even be invited expressly to take part in the argument, unless in some places this practice does not meet with approval.

17. None but the better students should be allowed to take part in public disputations. The rest should be prepared by private disputations until they are suffi-ciently well trained to appear creditably in public.

18. The professor should consider that a day of disputation demands as much effort and bears as much fruit as a day of class, and that the whole effectiveness and zest of the disputation depend on himself. While presiding he should appear to be arguing with both defendant and objector. He should applaud a point well made and call it to everybodyπs attention. When an un-usually important difficulty is proposed, let him offer some suggestion either to assist the defender or to direct the objector. He should neither keep silent too long nor speak too often, so that the student disputants will be able to demonstrate what they know. He should, however, correct or elaborate the arguments advanced by the disputants. He should urge the objector to keep pressing a difficulty as long as it still has force. In fact, he himself should strengthen its force, and he must block any attempt of the objector to turn aside to another argument. He should not permit an objection already fairly well solved to be pressed on too long nor a weak answer to be defended too long; but after some discussion, he should briefly state and explain the point of the debate. Finally, any other practices introduced in the schools which make the disputation livelier and more popular should be carefully retained.

19. He should occasionally confer with his assistant or beadle,36 who is appointed by the rector,

and question him about the state of the whole class as well as the industry and progress of the extern students. He should see to it that the beadle himself discharges his duties faithfully and well.

20. In sum, the professor, with the help of Godπs grace, should be diligent and unremitting in his work and eager for the advancement of his students in their lectures and other exercises. He must not show himself either partial or unfriendly to anyone. He must give attention to the advancement in studies of the poor and the wealthy with equal solicitude, devoting himself in a special way to the progress of each and everyone of his students.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

1. He should understand that his principal duty will be to explain the Sacred Scriptures reverently, learnedly, and seriously, according to their genuine and exact sense. Thus will true faith in God and the foundations of sound morality be strengthened.

2. Chief among his objectives in teaching Holy Writ will be to defend the version approved by the Church.

3. In order to ascertain the genuine sense of Holy Writ, he must note the idiomatic expressions and figures of speech peculiar to Scripture. He must skilfully compare the passage he is reading not only with that which precedes and follows but also with other passages where the same phrase will have sometimes the same, sometimes a different meaning.

4. For this purpose he should cite pertinent examples from the Hebrew and Greek versions, but he should do so briefly and only when some discrepancy between them and the Vulgate must be harmonized, or when idiomatic expressions of the Hebrew or Greek versions afford clearer meaning and insight.

5. In the study of recent Latin, Chaldaic, and Syriac versions as well as those of Theodotio, Aquila, and Symmachus, he should take up for discussion and refutation only outstanding errors and those which have seeming plausibility. On the other hand, he should not omit any evidence that strongly supports the Vulgate and the mysteries of the faith, especially when such evidence is found in the Septuagint, which must always be spoken of with deference.

6. If the canons of Popes or Councils, notably the General Councils, declare that a literal sense is

to be attached to any passage, he should defend that literal sense. He should not add any other literal meanings unless led to do so by unusually strong conjectures. If the Popes or Councils explicitly adduce any text to establish a dogma of faith, he should teach that sense, whether literal or mystical, as certain.

7. Let him reverently follow in the footsteps of the Fathers of the Church. If he finds that they are of one mind on a literal or allegorical interpretation, especially if they speak explicitly or in clear terms and refer professedly to the Scriptures or dogmas, he should not differ from them. However, if they disagree, he should choose from their different interpretations the one which the Church has for many years and by general consent favored most.

8. Should a majority of the Fathers or theologians maintain that they can prove some dogma of faith from Holy Writ, he should not say that it cannot be proved from that source.

9. If anything in the rabbinical writings of the Jews is of any value in supporting the Vulgate or Catholic dogma, he should cite it in such a way that he will not lead others astray by seeming to endow it with prestige, especially if it be found in the writings of those authors who lived after the time of Christ.

10. He should not concern himself with searching out other rabbinical lore, or with attacking their errors, unless the authors be of very high repute. He should adopt the same attitude toward certain Christian exegetes who have trusted too much to the rabbinical writers.

11. He should not put overmuch reliance on vowel points, an invention of the rabbis, but he should diligently study how our version or the Septuagint or other ancient interpreters read the passage in the absence of vowel points.

12. He should not delay unduly over single texts of Scriptures, except when one is so important as to be worth the delay. Otherwise progress will be slow. He will save time by passing rapidly over easier texts or omitting them.

13. He should not use the scholastic method in questions peculiar to Holy Writ.

14. He should not dwell long on fine points of chronology, topography or other less useful matters of this kind except when some passage demands such inquiry. It will suffice to mention writers who treat these matters fully.

15. He should not fail to notice allegories and moral passages if they are not commonly known, if they are obviously suggested by the wording of the passage, and especially if they present a striking observation of profound import. In the absence of such values, he should do no more than indicate where the passage is discussed by the Fathers.

16. If he chance upon a passage which is in dispute between ourselves and heretics, or which has been worn threadbare in theological discussions, he should merely explain the passage in a dignified yet vigorous manner, especially if he is disputing against heretics. He should focus his attention on the importance of the topic for this precise context. By omitting all extraneous detail he will show that he is mindful of his sole responsibility, which is to teach Scripture and Scripture alone.

17. Unless for a time some other arrangement be thought better, he should expound the Old and the New Testament in alternate years.

18. Except for a very good reason, he should not carry over into another year the explanation of a book begun the previous year. He should not take up unfinished matter of the previous year until he has almost finished matter assigned to the new term.

19. Besides the repetitions held once a week for our scholastics, pertinent table readings from the Scriptures are to be given occasionally in the refectory, as the rector may decide.

20. In place of the usual lecture, from time to time one of the pupils should be chosen to expound fully and in literary style some more famous passage of Holy Writ. When he has finished, one or two of his fellow students should argue against him. The objector should draw his material only from Scripture itself or from the peculiarities of the language of Scripture or from the interpretations of the Fathers.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF HEBREW

1. He should consider it of the first importance to interpret with complete accuracy the original words of Holy Writ.

2. Among his objectives in teaching the Hebrew language will be the defense of the version of Scripture approved by the Church.

3. In the beginning of the year he is to explain the simplest rudiments of grammar and then, while continuing instruction in the language, he should explain one of the easier books of Scripture.

4. In interpreting Holy Writ, he should not spend so much effort on the content and the thought as on the sense and force of the words, the idiomatic expressions, and the grammatical rules as exemplified in the apt usage of the writers.

5. Finally, he should so plan his teaching techniques as to reduce and relieve by his efforts that outlandish harshness which in the minds of some bedevils the study of this language.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY

1. He should understand that it is his duty to combine keenness of mind in disputation with untarnished faith and sincere love of God so that his professional competence will contribute to his progress in the spiritual life.

2. Members of our Society shall expressly follow the teaching of St. Thomas in scholastic theology. They should consider him their own teacher and should make every effort to have their students hold him in the highest possible esteem. Still, they are not to consider themselves so restricted to his teaching that they may not depart from him in any single point. Even those who expressly style themselves Thomists sometimes depart from his doctrine. The members of the Society therefore should not be more strictly bound to him than the Thomists themselves.

3. In regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and to the meaning of solemn vows, let them defend the doctrine more cornmonly held in our time and the one generally favored by theologians. In purely philosophical questions and in those which pertain to Scripture and Canon Law, they are at liberty also to follow other authorities who have professedly dealt with these subjects.

4. In matters when the opinion of St. Thomas is ambiguous or not even expressed, it is permitted to choose either side if Catholic scholars are not in agreement, as is stated in the fifth of the common rules.

5. In teaching he should have first regard for strengthening faith and nourishing devotion. So with respect to questions which St. Thomas does not treat professedly, no one should teach any doctrine that does not accord well with the mind of the Church and her traditions or that in any way might bring about a decline in genuine piety. Hence, no one is to quibble about the arguments usually accepted in dealing with matters of faith, even though they are drawn only from the fitness of things. He should not contrive new arguments unless he can base them on solid principles.

6. Opinions, of no matter what author, which are known to be highly offensive to Catholics of a particular province or school of thought, are not to be taught or defended wherever they might arouse resentment. When matters of faith or morals are not involved, a prudent charity dictates that members of our Society should have due regard for the feelings of those among whom they dwell.

7. The full course of theology is to be covered in four years. If there are two professors of scholastic theology:

1. ) The first professor shall explain forty-three questions from the Prima Primae [of St. Thomasπ Summa Theologica] in the first year; in the second year, the matter on the angels and twenty-one questions from the Prima Secundae; in the third year, from Questions 55 or 71 to the end of the Prima Secundae; in the fourth year, the matter on faith, hope, and charity from the Secunda Secundae.

2. ) The second professor shall treat during the first year the questions on justice and right from the Secunda Secundae and the principal questions de religione; during the second year, the questions on the Incarnation from the Tertia, and, if possible, some of the more important articles on the sacraments in general; during the third year, he should treat of baptism and the eucharist and if possible orders, confirmation, and extreme unction; during the fourth year he should take up penance and matrimony.

3. ) Where there are three professors of theology, in the first year the first professor shall explain twenty-six questions from the Prima Primae; in the second year, as many of the remaining questions as he can; in the third year, whatever he can cover from the Prima Secundae to Question eighty-one; in the fourth year, the remainder of the Prima Secundae.

4. ) The second professor shall expound in the first year from the Secunda Secundae the controversies on scripture, tradition, the Church, the Council, the Roman Pontiff; in the second year, questions on faith, hope, and charity; in the third year, whatever he can cover on justice and right, on restitution, usury, and contracts; in the fourth year, whatever remains to be treated on contracts, and St. Thomasπ treatment on religion and the states of life.

5. ) The third professor shall deal with, in the first year, questions on the Incarnation; in the second year, questions on the sacraments in general, and on the eucharist and baptism; in the third year, the questions on penance and matrimony; in the fourth year, questions on ecclesiastical censures and on the rest of the sacraments.

8. Each professor should finish within the year the subject matter he was assigned to teach. If he

cannot complete some part of it, he should not postpone it to another year, but rather omit it altogether and refer the students to a reliable author.

9. To facilitate progress in scholastic theology, it is expedient for the teacher to leave out of consideration, whenever possible, certain types of subject matter, but in particular these four:

1. ) One type concerns questions and commentary on Scripture which may be left to the professor of Scripture.

2. ) Another has to do with controversies with heretics. When these are met in St. Thomas, they should be treated in the scholastic rather than the historical method. It will suffice to bolster the conclusions with two or three solid arguments and to expose two or three of the principal calumnies of the heretics. In each instance, however, the teacher should indicate some author who will give further material to those who want it.

3. ) To the third type belong philosophical questions. He should not deal with these questions expressly, nor discuss them, but simply indicate where the students may find explanations worked out by himself or others.

4. ) The fourth type concerns cases of conscience. He should merely point out certain general moral principles, which are usually discussed in theological disputations, and pass over the more subtle and minute explanation of the cases.

10. When it happens that St. Thomas treats of the same problem in several distinct treatises, the problem should not be studied first in one context and then in another, but the several treatments should be synthesized, or, if the scope of the subject matter permits, reduced to a brief synopsis. This procedure is definitely provided for in the catalogue of questions appended to these rules. It must be remembered, however, that no point of any significance in any of the treatises is to be overlooked in this procedure.

11. The teacher should skim rapidly over the articles that are easily understood. Thus, after read-

ing the title, he should at once indicate in a few words the conclusion of St. Thomas, or say: St. Thomas answers by denying or affirming. In questions of greater difficulty, he is to proceed somewhat as follows: he should first explain the title of the article in case it is not altogether clear. He should then point out the different elements in the main proposition which may be responsible for the drawing of divergent conclusions. Finally,he should set forth St. Thomasπ several conclusions, beginning with the most significant. He should then point out the reasoning process which led up to each conclusion, unless of course they are quite obvious. In this way the students will realize that St. Thomasπ logic possesses more cogency than at first sight would appear.

12. After explaining a proposition, he should discuss its various implications, but not at great

length, except in such matters as are not treated in St. Thomas or are treated but would profit from a fuller explanation.

13. It is not enough for him to report the opinions of the doctors without committing himself. Let

him either defend the views of St. Thomas, as has been said, or omit the question altogether.

14. In the monthly disputations there should be as many disputants as there are teachers. Generally, three should argue in the morning and three in the afternoon. Whosoever pleases may argue against the defendants, and if nothing interferes, the first defendant at the morning session should be second in the afternoon.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF CASES OF CONSCIENCE

1. He must direct all his efforts and skill to the training of competent pastors and administrators

of the sacraments.

2. One professor should spend two years on the explanation of all the sacraments, the censures, and the different states of life and their duties. The other professor should likewise spend two years on theten commandments, including under the seventh the subject of contracts, but always touching only light-ly on matters of less importance and those not pertinent to the course, such as removal from office, loss of rank, magic, and similar topics.

3. He should refrain entirely from treating of theological questions which have no essential connection with cases of conscience. It will be expedient, however, for him to discuss very briefly certain theological points on which the doctrinal aspects of the cases depend, as, for example, what the sacramental character is, whether there is one or many, what mortal and venial sin are, what constitutes consent, and the like.

4. Short of using the scholastic formalities, each difficulty is to be handled by proposing a difficulty and resolving it. The solution should be based on not more than two or three arguments, and authorities for it should not be heaped up. Three particular cases will suffice to illustrate a general precept or rule.

5. He should substantiate his own opinions in such a way that if another opinion seems probable and is supported by good authority, he shall recognize it as also probable.

6. Every Saturday the lecture shall be dropped and a disputation on proposed solutions of cases will be held before the teacher for a period of two hours, or a little less, depending on the decision of the provincial and the size of the class. The disputation should be conducted by means of questions, that is, by asking the solution of some difficulty, by proposing a new case with some changed circumstances, by citing a canon or the opinion of a noted authority against some conclusion. Sometimes a short discussion pro and contra may be introduced to lend more dignity to the occasion, but it should be done with moderation and on a different level from the usual philosophical disputation.

7. If he has been appointed by the rector at the provincialπs bidding to take charge of the discussion of cases in the community, he should observe the following order. First, he should choose a subjectfor discussion, sometimes a subject bearing on actual practice, such as the manner of questioning a penitent, the remedies to be applied and penances to be imposed, and the like. Second, he should briefly discuss the subject matter chosen, indicating the principles and precepts involved, so as to give a general view of the subject and to throw light on all its various aspects. Lastly, he should choose three or four cases dealing with the proposed subject matter. These he should have posted in the place where the discussion is to be held and he should indicate the day for the meeting.

8. Certain individuals should privately study these proposed cases, each taking one case and reading up on it in authorities furnished by the presiding officer.

9. On convening, it would be useful for each to explain briefly the opinion of his authority on the

case he is handling. Next, the presiding officer should call upon three or more (who should be forewarned and should be chosen in rotation) to give their opinion on the first case, so that he may arrive at a prudent and more probable solution. He should follow the same procedure with the other cases. Finally, after summing up the discussion and solution of the cases as is customary in a disputation on cases, he should call for questions to be answered by one of the three appointed for the discussion. In the end he should give his own judgment.

10. If anyone comes across a case outside the matter ordinarily discussed in these conferences, he should report it to the presiding officer, if circumstances allow, so that it can be discussed at a later conference.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY

1. Since the humanities or natural sciences prepare the intellectual powers for theology and assist

in the perfect understanding and practical application of religious truth and by virtue of their content contribute to the attainment of this goal, the teacher whose heart is set on advancing the honor and glory of God, should teach these secular subjects in a spirit which will prepare his students, and especially his Jesuit students, for the study of theology. He should above all lead them to a knowledge of their Creator.

2. He shall not depart from Aristotle in matters of importance, unless he find some doctrine contrary to the common teaching of the schools or, more serious still, contrary to the true faith. If he does find such contrary doctrines in Aristotle or any other philosopher, he shall be at pains thoroughly to refute them as the Lateran Council prescribes.

3. He shall be very careful in what he reads or quotes in class from commentators on Aristotle who are objectionable from the standpoint of faith, and he must be cautious lest his pupils come under their influence.

4. For this reason he shall not give separate treatment to the digressions of Averroes (and this holds for others like him). But if he quotes something of value from his writings, he should do so without praising him and, if possible, should show that Averroes has borrowed it from another source.

5. He shall not attach himself or his students to any philosophical sect, such as the Averroists, the Alexandrists, and the like, and he should not cloak over their errors or those of similar sects, but should sharply question and minimize their authority because of these errors.

6. On the other hand, he should always speak favorably of St. Thomas, following him readily when he should, differing from him with respect and a certain reluctance when he finds him less acceptable.

7. He should teach the full course of philosophy in not less than three years, lecturing for two hours daily, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, unless in his particular university a different arrangement has been prescribed.

8. Thus the term will never be completed before, or not much before, the vacation period which falls at the end of the school year.

9.

1. ) He should explain the principles of logic the first year, devoting the first two months to a digest of it, not by dictating but by discussing pertinent passages from Toledo or Fonseca.

2. ) In the introduction to logic he should discuss only such questions as: its claim to be a science, its proper subject matter, and the general concept of universal ideas. He should postpone the full discussion of universals until metaphysics, being contented here to give no more than a general idea of them.

3. ) Similarly he should discuss only the easier of the predicables, which are usually taken from Aristotle, and should defer a larger discussion of them until the second year. But in logic he should explain as fully as need be the notions of analogy and relations, since these very frequently occur in philosophical discussions.

4. ) He should cursorily cover the second book On Interpretation and both books of the Prior Analytics, except the first eight or nine chapters of the first book. Even in these chapters he should explain what is pertinent and treat only very briefly the notion of contingency and not at all the question of free will.

5. ) In order to give the whole second year to the physical sciences, he should begin a fuller discussion of science at the end of the first year and in it he should include the major topics of the introduction to physics, such as the divisions of science, abstractions, theoretical and practical science, subordination, the difference of method in mathematics and physics,which is treated by Aristotle in the second book of the Physics, and finally what Aristotle says about definition in the second book On the Soul.

6. ) The discussion of the grounds of proof and fallacies from the Topics and the Elenchi, rearranged in more convenient order, should preferably be explained in the digest given at the beginning of logic.

10.

1. ) In the second year he should explain the eight books of the Physics, the books On the Heavens, and the first book On Generation. He should treat the text of the sixth and seventh books of the Physics compendiously, and likewise that part of the first book which discusses the opinions of the ancients. In the eighth book he should omit discussion of the number of intelligences, of liberty, and of the infinity of the prime mover. These matters will be explained in metaphysics according to the views of Aristotle.

2. ) The text of the second, third, and fourth books On the Heavens will be summarized and for the most part omitted. In these books he should deal only with the elements and with the substance and influences of the heavens. The rest can be left to the professor of mathematics or reduced to a summary.

3. ) What is contained in the Meteorology will be gone through in the summer months during the last hour of the afternoon class. Where possible it should be taught by the regular professor of philosophy, or by a special teacher, unless another arrangement seems more convenient.

11.

1. ) In the third year he is to explain the second book On Generation, the books On the Soul, and the Metaphysics. He should merely summarize the opinions of the ancient philosophers that are discussed in the first book On the Soul, and when he is discussing the sense organs in the second book he should avoid digressing into anatomy and similar topics which are the concern of medical science.

2. ) In the Metaphysics he should pass over the questions on God and on the types of intelligence, which depend entirely or in great part on truths derived from revelation. The preface and the text of the seventh and twelfth books are for the most part to be thoroughly explained. From each of the other books he should select certain principal texts which are basic to the discussion of questions found in the Metaphysics.

12. He should make it his chief aim to interpret well the text of Aristotle and be as painstaking in this interpretation as in discussing the subject matter itself. He should likewise convince his students that their philosophy will be weak and wanting if they do not value highly this study of the texts.

13. Whenever he comes upon celebrated texts that are often argued in disputations, he must examine them carefully by comparing the more noted interpretations so as to judge which is to be preferred. He should base his judgment on a study of the context, on the special force of the Greek expression, on a comparison with other texts, on the authority of eminent commentators, or finally, on the conclusiveness of the reasons advanced. He will then come to certain minor questions of interpretation which are not to be gone into too deeply nor omitted if they are of any importance.

14. He should have available a large selection of topics for discussion. If, however, any of these do not have their origin in the Aristotelian text at hand, but are suggested by some axiom he himself uses as a passing remark in his argument, they are to be deferred until they are met in their proper place in other books, provided they are treated there. Otherwise they are to be explained immediately following the text by which they were suggested.

15. Questions that come up in the reading of Aristotle are to be treated only after all the passages touching on this matter have been explained, unless indeed the passages are too numerous to be expounded in one or another lecture. But if passages being read are too lengthy, such as those on principles, causes, and motion, then the emerging questions are to be neither treated exhaustively nor entirely postponed to the end of the reading. Rather let reading and discussion be suitably intermingled.

16. At the conclusion of a lecture, the students in small groups of about ten each should spend half an hour reviewing among themselves the lecture just given. One of the students, preferably a member of the Society, should be put in charge of each group.

17. Monthly disputations are to be held, in which not less than three students should pose objections in the morning and as many in the afternoon. The first should argue for an hour and the others for about three-quarters of an hour. In the morning disputation some theologian (if there are enough theologians) should open the argument against a student of metaphysics; a student of metaphysics against a student of physics; a student of physics against a student of logic. In the afternoon a student of metaphysics, physics, and logic respectively should propose arguments against another student of each of these disciplines. In the morning also a student of metaphysics and in the afternoon a student of physics should briefly substantiate one or other conclusion by philosophical arguments.

18. While the professor is teaching the elements of logic, neither he nor his students are to attend

these disputations. In fact, during the first week or two the logicians will have no disputations but will be content with the explanation of their subject. Thereafter they can hold disputations in their own class on Saturdays.

19. Where there is only one professor of philosophy, he is to hold more impressive disputations three or four times a year on a feast day or other holiday, surrounding them with pomp and ceremony and inviting religious and other doctors to take part in the arguments. In this way our philosophical studies will receive a fruitful stimulus.

20. The young philosophers are to be trained from the very beginning of logic to consider it a matter of shame to deviate in a disputation from the use of the scholastic form. The teacher should be most vigorous in demanding of them the observance of the laws of argumentation and the proper order to be followed by the disputants. Accordingly, one who defends in a disputation must first repeat the full objection without replying to the separate premises. Next he is to repeat each premise of the argument and reply ≥I deny≤ or ≥I concede the major, minor, or conclusion.≤ Occasionally, too, he should distinguish, but rarely interject explanations or reasons, particularly if unasked.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

1. He is to understand that it is not at all his concern to digress into theological questions. He

should follow his text and explain briefly and in a scholarly and serious manner the principal topics of moral science as contained in the ten books of Aristotleπs Ethics.

2. When the course of ethics is not handled by the professor of philosophy himself, the man who teaches ethics should expound to the students of metaphysics the more important topics of this course for three quarters of an hour or for half an hour daily.

3. Repetitions of ethics must be conducted at least every two weeks at a time set by the rector, even though one repetition of metaphysics must on this account be omitted.

4. When the class of metaphysics has its monthly disputations privately at home or publicly in class, some thesis in ethics is to be added to the other theses for disputation, and the student of metaphysics who is objecting should argue against this thesis for a quarter of an hour.

RULES OF THE PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS

1. He should spend about three quarters of an hour of class time in explaining the elements of Euclid to the students of physics. After two months, when his students are somewhat familiar with the subject, he should add some geography or astronomy or similar matter which the students enjoy hearing about. This added material is to be given on the same day with Euclid or on alternate days.

2. Every month, or at least every second month, he should have one of the students solve some celebrated mathematical problem in the presence of a large gathering of students of philosophy and theology. Afterwards, if he wishes, the solution may be discussed.

3. Once a month, generally on a Saturday, the class period should be given over to a review of the subject matter completed that month.

RULES FOR WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

1. It is to be understood that absentees on the day assigned for composition will receive no consideration in the examination unless their absence was owing to exceptional circumstances.

2. All should come early to class so that they can take down accurately the theme of the composition and the instructions given by the prefect or his substitute, and thus be able to finish within the class period. After silence has been enjoined, no one may speak to another, not even to the prefect or his substitute.

3. All should come supplied with books and necessary writing materials so that there will be no need to ask anything of another during the time of writing.

4. The papers should be up to the standards of each oneπs class and clearly written in the vocabulary and style demanded by the theme. Ambiguous expressions will be construed unfavorably, and words omitted or hastily altered to avoid a difficulty will be counted as errors.

5. Seat-mates must be careful not to copy from one another; for if two compositions are found to be identical or even alike, both will be open to suspicion, since it will be impossible to discover which one was copied from the other.

6. As a precaution against dishonesty, any student who for good reason is permitted to leave the room after writing has begun, must deposit with the prefect or his substitute his theme outline and whatever he has written.

7. After a student has finished his writing assignment, he should remain at his deak and carefully

check over his work, make corrections and revisions until he is satisfied. Once he has handed in his composition it will be too late to make changes. Under no circumstances must his paper be returned to him.

8. Each one must fold his composition as the prefect directs and write on the back his full name in Latin. This will facilitate arranging the papers in alphabetical order.

9. When a student brings his composition to the prefect, he should bring all his books along and be ready to leave the classroom at once and in silence. Those who remain should not change their places, but finish their work at their own desks.

10. If anyone has not finished his composition in the time allotted, let him hand in what he has written. Accordingly, all should know precisely how much time is allowed for writing and how much for rewriting and revising.

11. When the students come to the oral examination, they should bring with them the textbooks which contain the subject matter of the course. While one student is being examined, the others should listen attentively and refrain from prompting in any way, and from offering corrections unless called upon to do so.