"Like Butter Scraped Over Too Much Bread"

Evaluating Why Classical Curricula Overstretch Themselves

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam, +JMJ+

May Mary and the soul of Fr. Robert Schwickerath pray to God that I may speak well of Classical Education and how to restore it.

Photo by Seriously Low Carb on Unsplash

“Why, I feel all thin, sort of stretched, if you know what I mean: like butter that has been scraped over too much bread. That can’t be right. I need a change, or something.” -Bilbo in The Fellowship of the Ring

This week, in response to

Christopher Perrin

’s excellent post, Piling It On: Why Classical Schools Have Too Many Periods and Teach Too Many Subjects, I intend to defer most of this post to a true masterpiece excavated from the not too distant past, Fr. Robert Schwickerath S.J.’s Jesuit Education: Its History and Principles Viewed in the Light of Modern Educational Problems published in 1903. In it, a Jesuit priest walks through both the history and educational model of the Jesuits starting with the state of schooling before the Protestant Reformation and walking through the Jesuit institutions that were built based on the pedagogical systems developed throughout the Renaissance. From there, he describes the pedagogical theory of the Jesuit schools as well as many nitty-gritty curricula and classroom management policies¹ that were instituted internationally by the Jesuits.

This book is such a joy to read as Fr. Schwickerath mixes classical education with deeply pious goals for a Catholic formation among the students. At the same time, he maintains a focus on the need for classical studies and non-utilitarian education in opposition to the, at that time, growing (but now dominant) influence of figures like John Dewey throughout the book. What struck me most was how Fr. Schwickerath could have been writing a response to Dr. Perrin in the pages that I reference below. Dr. Perrin’s main thesis in his article is that Classical schools tend to overdo their curriculum. Instead of staying true to a Classical model, we tend to try to add Classical onto a regular school’s curriculum. As Fr. Schwickerath illuminates so well, this sort of education emphasizes cramming broader information into the school day instead of going deeper. 

“It may be safely said that one of the worst features of the modern educational system is the tendency to cram too much into the courses of study, too much that is considered ‘practical’ in one way or other. As Professor Treitschke of Berlin has expressed it, ‘the greatest danger that threatens the education of modern man lies in the infinite distraction of our inner life, in the superabundance of mental impressions of every sort that rush upon us and hamper the one prerequisite of all great work: recollection of soul, concentration of mind.’ Hence he thinks it absolutely necessary that youth should be educated as simply as possible, and should not be mentally overfed by many and various things. It is, indeed, a most serious mistake to think that a person who knows all sorts of things is educated; no, sciolism is not culture. Consequently, that school is by no means the right one which ‘coaches’ or ‘crams’ for the future profession,--we are not speaking of the professional schools,--but that which trains the man, trains the mental faculties, develops clear logical thinking, cultivates the imagination, ennobles the sentiments, and strengthens the will. This, indeed, is educating, that is, ‘drawing out’ what lies hidden and undeveloped in the soul. Instead of this, many modern schools aim at further expansion, which, considering the limited capacity of the youthful mind, is inseparable from shallowness. What is gained in extent of knowledge, is necessarily lost in depth, thoroughness, and mastery of the knowledge acquired. What is sadly needed now-a-days is concentration, a wise restriction of subjects which leads to depth and interior strength.

“The educational system of the Society always aimed at a thorough general training in a few branches. Four characteristic points are discernable in this training: it is to be thorough, prolonged, general, simple. It is to be thorough; for superficial knowledge, smattering, is not training. It must be prolonged ; for thoroughness cannot be effected in a short time. Time is as essential for maturing a man’s mind and character, as it is for ripening a choice fruit; one may bake an apple in a few moments, but one cannot ripen it in that time. Education must, in this regard, follow the laws of nature. Time and prolonged and patient efforts are absolutely necessary in order to produce any success in education. In the third place this training is to be general, not professional; its aim is the man, not the specialist; it is the foundation on which the professional training is to be built up. It is, in other words, a liberal training; it has to cultivate the ideal, that which is really human and permanent in life. What is useful and practical will be cared for in time, and, as a rule, is sufficiently looked after. Lastly, this training must be simple, that is, it must be based on a few well-related branches; if too many disconnected subjects are treated, thoroughness becomes absolutely impossible.”²

Revisiting these four pillars: thorough, prolonged, general, and simple. In future posts, I will be walking through Fr. Schwickerath’s ideal implementation as it was performed by the Society of Jesus once upon a time, and, by our prayers, may once again. 

In the meantime, if you haven’t had a chance to read my own vision for education in imitation of what Fr. Schwickerath refers to above, you can do so by clicking here: Part 1 and Part 2.

Discussion Questions:

1. What has been your experience with Classical Schools? Did they tend to stretch themselves too thin, or did you generally agree with their approach?

2. Were you aware that many schools in either the public or Catholic systems are required by the state or the bishops’ conference to meet a minimum amount of hours in certain subjects, institutionalizing shallow learning contrary to the desire of some of those schools?

3. For homeschoolers, how have you maintained academic rigor while still avoiding doing too much, or have you noticed this trend even in co-ops?

For those who may be interested in the book recommendation list, please know that I haven’t been able to find a text copy of my mentor’s version that I worked in part with her on, and she has given me permission to publish it here. Therefore, it’s been slow going as I manually copy the extensive list. However, this delay has given me the opportunity to play with several formatting options, so there’s the potential for there to be several download options as well as the online version. Please look forward to that post some time next week!

1. To anticipate any comments about the often exaggerated descriptions of the implementation of corporal punishment in Jesuit schools, I would like to share both Fr. Schwickerath’s comments as well as the official policy of the Jesuits based on their 1599 manual for teaching, the Ratio Studiorum 1599. Any personal experience of corporal punishment at a Jesuit school is welcome to be shared if necessary, but let us keep in mind that offenses against an instituted policy or corruptions from that policy are not indicative of the whole of the educational system as it was known for nearly 400 years.

After arguing that corporal punishment should be maintained as an element in schools, Fr. Schwickerath proceeds: “The Ratio Studiorum allowed the infliction of punishment only under rigid regulations; it forbids the teacher absolutely to strike a boy. Corporal punishment, if, after calm deliberation, thought necessary, is to be administered either by a trusty servant, as was the custom in former times, or by the Prefect of Discipline. At any rate, this system prevents many an indeliberate act of the teachers, as there is always danger of excess in the immediate punishment of an offence. Although the rod was applied in Jesuit schools, its use was by no means as frequent as in nearly all other schools” (617). He then lists several examples of other schools’ policies on corporal punishment from preceding centuries and how much more severe they were which is shocking.

The Ratio Studiorum of 1599, referencing teachers, states, “[he] should not be quick to punish nor overly eager about finding things out. Rather he should look the other way when he can do so without harm to anyone. And not only should he whip no one himself (for the disciplinarian ought to take care of that) but he should abstain altogether from insulting treatment in word or in deed. And he should not call anyone by a name other than the person’s own name or surname. And by way of a punishment it will occasionally be useful to add some kind of written work beyond the daily assignment. However, he should leave to the prefect unusual and more severe penalties, especially for those misdeeds that they have committed outside of class, just as he should pass on to the prefect those who refuse to take a whipping, especially if they are rather fully grown” (paragraph 364).

2. Schwickerath, Robert. Jesuit Education: Its History and Principles Viewed in the Light of Modern Educational Problems. United States: B. Herder, 1903. pp 300-301