Chapter II (2)

Besides these abuses, affecting the Church at large, there were others threatening Germany in particular. It is true there existed a great love of learning among all classes, and piety and active charity were found among a great number of clergy and laity. As we have seen, in the lower elementary and the advanced middle schools a sound basis of popular education was established; the universities attained a height of distinction never dreamt of in former times. And art developed more rapidly than learning. But there were many dangerous symptoms in religious, social and political life.[111] In all departments perplexity and confusion were visible. A mass of inflammable material was ready everywhere, and it needed but a spark to set the whole mass ablaze. This spark came from Wittenberg.

§ 3. Education under the Influence of the Reformation.

Luther was undoubtedly a man endowed with the highest natural gifts. Still he was not what Protestant tradition has made him.[112] “On the part of the Protestants,” writes one of Germany’s historians, the Protestant K. A. Menzel, “it is an accepted maxim to represent to oneself the Reformers as lords and half saints. This prejudice is indeed broken in circles that are conversant with history, but among the large mass of the evangelical population it is still maintained, not, however, to the preservation of truth. It passes current as ‘cultured’, and is paraded as a mark of ‘scientific investigation’ to undermine with criticism and negation even the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. But woe to him who with the torch of science invades the vestibule of the temple in which prejudice and tradition have erected the throne of the ‘heroes of the Reformation’ and their works. The historical investigator who possesses such a foolhardiness is sure to be decried as a Crypto-Catholic.”[113] Not a few Protestant historians frankly confess that the whole structure of Reformation history must undergo a change from its very foundation. One of them says: “Too great is the rubbish and garbage which, intentionally or unintentionally, the prevailing theological standpoint concerning the Reformation period has inaugurated.”[114] From original documents a picture of the Reformers, very different from the traditional one, has been presented by the “fear-inspiring book of Döllinger” and by “Janssen’s crushing examination of the Luther myth which produced a tremendous uproar in Germany.”[115] A great deal of “rubbish and garbage” has also hidden the truth in regard to the influence of Luther and the Reformation on education.

It is a fact of no little significance that Luther’s first confederates were the radical humanists. In their hatred against scholastic learning and ecclesiastical authority they welcomed Luther’s audacious attacks on the Church. Luther himself had tried at an early date to ingratiate himself with the humanistic confederacy.[116] After the example of Luther the younger humanists, these inveterate enemies of all religion, now accustomed themselves to a Biblical style of language; they even became of a sudden scholars of divinity and delivered lectures on theological subjects. Luther did not shrink from a formal alliance with the most violent of these enemies of the existing order, the gifted but utterly corrupt Ulrich von Hutten, who at that time together with Franz von Sickingen planned a revolution against the Emperor.[117]

This was indeed a remarkable alliance. Prof. Paulsen’s comment on it is worth quoting: “The humanists offered their assistance to the monk whose controversies they had shortly before despised as a monkish quarrel. ‘Evangelical liberty’ became their war-cry instead of ‘learning and humanity’. It is only through this alliance that Luther’s cause, which had begun as a ‘monkish quarrel’, became that tremendous revolutionary movement which unhinged the gates of the Church. A reminder of humanism is that naturalism contained in the pure gospel, that addition which appears so strange in Luther’s writings, when now and then he represents the works of the flesh as divine commandments and continence as well nigh a rebellion against God’s word and will: almost as if the emancipation of the flesh was to be realized through the gospel of Christ. Of course this must not be understood as though these elements had not existed in Luther’s nature, in his views and sentiments, but it was only under the influence of humanism that they developed. Under different circumstances they might have remained latent.”[118] Luther and Loyola have often been contrasted, the one as the leader of the Protestant Revolution, the other as prominent in the counter-reformation. Luther tried to reform by a _revolution_, by a complete break with the past[119]; Loyola by a real _reformation_. Luther changed the doctrine, Loyola saw, as his first companion, Peter Faber, has it, that “not the head, but the heart, not the doctrine, but the life needed a change.” Luther allied himself with the radical humanists, Loyola imitated the earlier conservative humanists.

That a Christian reformer followed the earlier humanists, who were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Christianity, as Vittorino da Feltre, Hegius, Agricola, Wimpheling, is natural. But, as Paulsen remarks, “it is a strange phenomenon that a man (Luther) who seemed to be made to fight with Savonarola against the worldliness of the Church introduced by humanism, had to unite himself with Hutten for the extirpation of monasticism. True, it is stranger still that Hutten could make common cause with Luther against the Papacy whose representative was a Medici, against a Church which raised such patrons of learning as Cardinal Albrecht of Mentz to the highest dignities. Well might one have warned Hutten not to cut the branch on which he was sitting.”[120]

The humanists had, indeed, cut the branch.--Humanism was ruined by its alliance with the Reformation, and as early as 1524 the eyes of the humanists were opened. The universities and schools were almost annihilated in the storms of religious strife. Professor Paulsen shows this in detail in regard to the various German universities,[121] as Wittenberg, Erfurt, Leipsic, Frankfurt, Rostock, Greifswald, Cologne, Vienna, Heidelberg, etc. Ingolstadt, of all German universities, was least affected by the Reformation. Under the leadership of Dr. Eck the Lutheran invasion was energetically combated. The number of students declined somewhat, but not considerably, so that this university shows the most favorable conditions of all universities.[122] The same decline was visible in the lower schools. Döllinger has collected a long list of complaints that could be easily enlarged, about the ruin of the schools consequent upon the religious revolution.[123]

The humanist Eobanus Hessus writes from Erfurt in the year 1523: “Under the cloak of the Gospel the escaped monks here are suppressing all liberal studies. Our university is quite deserted; we are utterly despised.” In the same year the Dean of the Erfurt philosophical faculty complains: “Nobody would have believed it, if it had been predicted that in a short time our university would have fallen so low that scarcely a shadow of its former lustre would remain.” In the same strain lament Melanchthon from Wittenberg, and others from all seats of learning throughout Germany.

Erasmus, an eye-witness of the first scenes in the great drama of the Reformation, the intimate friend of Melanchthon and other Reformers, writes in 1528: “Wherever Lutheranism reigns, there literature perishes. I dislike these gospellers on many accounts, but chiefly, because through their agency literature everywhere languishes, disappears, lies drooping and perishes: and yet, without learning, what is a man’s life? They love good cheer and a wife; for other things they care not a straw.”[124] In a letter to Melanchthon he states that at Strasburg the Protestant party had publicly taught, in 1524, that it was not right to cultivate any science, and that no language should be studied except the Hebrew. In fact, who was to be blamed for this rapid decay of schools but the Reformers themselves? Carlstadt was not only a fanatic in his hatred of Catholic doctrines and customs, but also spoke with contempt of all human learning. He advised the students to return to their homes and resume the spade or follow the plough, and cultivate the earth, because man was to eat bread in the sweat of his brow. George Mohr, master of the boys’ school at Wittenberg, carried away by a similar madness, called from his window to the burghers outside to come and remove their children. Where, indeed, was the use of continuing their studies, since a mechanic was just as well, nay, perhaps better qualified than all the divines in the world, to preach the Gospel.[125]

The Anabaptists in Münster decided that there was only one book necessary to salvation, the Bible, all others should be burned as useless or dangerous. This decision was carried out, and whole libraries with numerous precious manuscripts of Latin and Greek authors perished in the flames. Popes, bishops, and councils during the Middle Ages, had enforced the obligation of establishing schools throughout Christendom. The vandalism of some Reformers destroyed innumerable monasteries and with them schools without number. The funds for the support of these schools had been accumulated by the piety, zeal and liberality of previous ages.

No one is more responsible for this sad change than Luther himself. If, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, Scripture could be interpreted by “a miller’s maid and a boy of nine years better than by all the popes and cardinals,”--these are Luther’s words,--of what value could human learning be in religion? Nay more, according to Luther’s early teaching, higher learning was not only useless, but positively dangerous. He spoke with a fierce hatred against higher schools and human learning. Professor Paulsen admits that the vehemence of tone in which Luther spoke of the universities as the real bulwarks of the devil on earth, has perhaps never been rivalled before or after by any attack on these institutions.[126] A few specimens of these invectives may suffice.

According to Luther, everything instituted by the papacy was only intended to augment sin and error, so also were the universities. It is the devil himself who has introduced study; there reigns the damned, haughty and wicked Aristotle, from whose works Christian youth is instructed.[127] And yet “a man who boasts the title of philosopher cannot be called a Christian.” “The Moloch to which the Jews offered up their children, are the higher schools (_hohen Schulen_ = universities), in which the best part of youth is sacrificed as a burnt offering. There they are instructed in false heathen art and godless human knowledge: this is the fire of Moloch which no one can weep over enough, through which the most pious and most clever boys are miserably ruined.”[128] “The higher schools all deserve to be ground to dust; nothing more hellish, nothing more devilish has appeared on earth, nor will ever appear. These schools have been invented by no one else than the devil.”[129] Luther hated the universities because they exalted reason, “the light of nature”, too much. To Luther reason is only “the devil’s bride, a beautiful prostitute of the devil.”[130] “Human reason is sheer darkness.” The faithful strangle reason and say: “Hearest thou, a mad blind fool thou art, understandest not a bit of the things that are God’s. Thus the believers throttle this beast.”[131]

It is surprising to see that Melanchthon fell in with the tone of Luther.[132] He denounced universities, philosophy, and ethics, almost as violently as his master, but only for a time; he soon abated the violence of his sentiments, whereas Luther to the end of his life preserved his bitterness against natural reason. Innumerable other preachers began to vie with each other in pouring forth virulent abuse against all enlightened knowledge and secular learning.

Can we then wonder that the parents, prejudiced by such inflammatory declamations, became averse not only to higher learning, as it had existed before the religious disturbances, but to schools in general? No wonder that the lower schools also began to be neglected, so that contemporary writers say: “About the year 1525 schools began to decline, and no one wanted to send his children to school, as people had heard so much from Luther’s writings of how the priests and the learned had so pitiably seduced mankind.” The official report of the inspectors of the district of Wittenberg, the centre and starting point of Luther’s “reform”, informs us in the year 1533: “The city schools which, in addition to the instruction they imparted, had given the children a material maintenance, are alarmingly decreasing.”[133]

Luther himself was appalled at this desolation, for he knew full well the importance of the school. With bitter invective and reproach he lashes the indifference of the people and the avarice of the princes who, after having squandered the property of the Church and the funds of the schools, refused to do anything for establishing new schools or even for maintaining those in existence. “Formerly”, he says, “when we were the slaves of Satan, and profaned the blood of Christ, all purses were open; then nothing was spared to put children in the cloister or to send them to school. But now when we must establish good schools (_rechte Schulen_)--establish, did I say, no, but only preserve the buildings in good condition--the purses are closed with iron chains. The children are neglected, no one teaches them to serve God, while they are joyfully immolated to Mammon.” But herein Luther was inconsistent. Had he not taught people again and again that good works were useless? Why should they make any sacrifice of money for a pious work like that of education? And was it a good and pious work at all? This might have been asked by those who remembered Luther’s reckless invectives against higher schools.

Luther was absolutely powerless to remedy the evil which grew worse daily. Therefore he appealed earnestly to the Protestant princes and magistrates to found and support schools. He told them that it was their right, nay, their duty to oblige their subjects to send their children to school. As is evident, Luther had been forced to this step because his voice, always “omnipotent when it preached destruction and spoliation, now fell powerless when it was at length raised to enforce the necessity of liberal contribution for the rearing of institutions to replace those which had been wantonly destroyed.”[134] _Compulsory education_, accordingly, is a child of the Reformation; so is also the _state-monopoly_ which gradually developed in European countries.[135]

The princes and magistrates to whom Luther appealed for establishing new schools, were slow in following these admonitions, whereas they had been most docile when told to confiscate the rich abbeys and monasteries which had maintained many educational institutions. Luther himself complained that so little heed was paid to his words. In 1528 a new “Order” for the cities of Saxony was prepared by Melanchthon. In 1559 appeared the “Church and School Order of Württemberg.”[136] Very different from the attitude of Luther was that of Melanchthon towards higher studies. Luther saw in humanistic studies only a weapon for theological purposes; but Melanchthon was himself a humanist and believed that study of the ancient languages and literature offered immediate educational benefit to the student.[137] Melanchthon has been called _Praeceptor Germaniae_, and this he was for the Protestant part of that country. His system was an adaptation of the humanistic principles of Erasmus, and especially of Rudolph Agricola,[138] who was prominent among the earlier conservative humanists.

It is evident that Luther’s merits in regard to education have been exaggerated. The words of the Protestant Hallam deserve to be more universally known: “Whatever may be the ideas of our minds as to the truth of Luther’s doctrines, we should be careful ... not to be misled by the superficial and ungrounded representations which we sometimes find in modern writers. Such is this that Luther, struck by the absurdity of the prevailing superstitions, was desirous of introducing a more rational system of religion ..., or, what others have been pleased to suggest, that his zeal for learning and ancient philosophy led him to attack the ignorance of the monks and the crafty policy of the Church, which withstood all liberal studies. These notions are merely fallacious refinements, as every man of plain understanding who is acquainted with the writings of the early reformers, or has considered their history, must acknowledge. The doctrines of Luther, taken altogether, are not more rational than those of the Church of Rome; nor did he even pretend that they were so ... nor, again, is there any foundation for imagining that Luther was concerned for the interests of literature. None had he himself, save theological; nor are there, as I apprehend, many allusions to profane studies, or any proof of his regard to them, in all his works. _On the contrary_, it is probable that both the principles of this great founder of the Reformation, and the natural tendency of so intense an application to theological controversy, checked for a time the progress of philological and philosophical literature on this side of the Alps.”[139] As regards the much vaunted intellectual and religious liberty of the Reformers, it is well known that they very soon exercised an unbearable tyranny. Hallam was honest enough to admit this, however reluctantly.[140]

On the eve of the Reformation, England possessed a great number of secondary schools. Both these and the universities suffered greatly from the Reformation and the events connected with it. When by the order of Henry VIII. the monasteries were suppressed, numberless precious manuscripts and other contents of monastic libraries disappeared, and are now lost to the world beyond recovery. Grocers and soap-sellers bought them for their business purposes.[141] Learning, both secular and religious, rapidly declined, and deterioration was felt in all grades of education. Most of the schools at this time were closed, without provision for a substitute. Moreover, the monasteries and convents had supported scholars at the universities, or provided for young clerics until their ordination, when they supplied them with a title. This change was felt immediately. From 1506 to 1535 the average number of yearly degrees granted at Oxford had been 127. In 1535 the number was 108. In that year the operations against the monasteries were commenced. In the following year the number of graduates fell to only 44; the average number till 1548 was less than 57, from 1548 till 1553 not more than 33, but it rose again under Queen Mary to 70.[142] The University of Cambridge suffered not less than Oxford.

The scholars of Cambridge, in 1545, petitioned King Henry for privileges, as they feared the destruction of the monasteries would altogether annihilate learning.[143] For a time these great homes of learning were threatened with nothing less than ruin. Thus it is undeniable that the dissolution of monasteries, in 1536 and the next two years, gave a great temporary check to the general state of letters in England.

Hallam attempts to palliate this charge, but in vain. Let us contemplate the picture which Latimer, the fanatic opponent of Catholicism, drew in 1550 of the state of education in England. His words are almost identical with those of Luther.[144] “In those days (before the suppression of monasteries), what did they when they helped the scholars? Marry! They maintained and gave them livings that were very Papists and professed the Pope’s doctrine; and now that the knowledge of God’s word is brought to light, and many earnestly study and labour to set it forth, now almost no man helpeth to maintain them.”... “Truly it is a pitiable thing to see schools so neglected; every true Christian ought to lament the same; to consider what has been plucked from abbeys, colleges and chantries, it is a marvel no more to be bestowed upon this holy office of salvation. Schools are not maintained, scholars have no exhibitions.... I think there be at this day twenty thousand students less than within these twenty years and fewer preachers.” Anthony Wood, in his History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, writes: “Most of the halls and hostels in Oxford were left empty. Arts declined and ignorance began to take place again.”[145]

This sketch of the status of education previous to the foundation of the Society of Jesus warrants us to draw the following conclusions. _First_, a reform was urgently needed, not only in the religious and moral sphere but also in education. There was a great literary activity all over Christendom. In the countries most affected by the Reformation, this activity was checked for a time, in Germany almost annihilated. In those countries which were less affected by the religious revolution, the educational work was not formed into a well balanced system of instruction and discipline. Further, the teaching of the classics was in many cases carried on in a pagan spirit. The Catholic reform centres around the Council of Trent. The members of a Commission preparatory to this Council, mostly refined humanists and university scholars, pointed out as one of the great abuses in the Church, that “in the public schools, especially of Italy, many teach impiety.” This was stated in 1538, two years before the approbation of the Society of Jesus. In this Society “the Church of Rome, deeply shaken by open schism and lurking disaffection, was to find an unexpected strength. The Jesuits were speedily to acquire a vast influence by the control of education.”[146] In fact, the Jesuits were to give to Catholic countries a uniform system of education, which was so sadly needed at the time. They were to purify and elevate the teaching of the classics, so as to make it a useful means of Christian education as well as of mental training.

_Secondly_: The foregoing sketch proves that it is false to say: the Jesuits availed themselves, in the interest of the Catholic Church, of the zeal for learning which the Protestants had awakened.[147] It can be proved over and above that a great zeal for learning had existed before the Reformation,[148] and that this zeal was well-nigh extinguished by this movement. Melanchthon, Sturm and other reformers who worked for the establishment of schools, had received their literary education, their zeal for learning, and the greater part of their educational principles from the schools flourishing before the outbreak of the religious revolution. Their efforts were directed towards re-establishing what the religious disturbances had destroyed. Of course, we are far from denying that the Reformers introduced many improvements into the Protestant schools; but they and the Jesuits drew from the same sources.

The preceding sketch of the condition of education previous to the foundation of the Society of Jesus may seem disproportionately long. However, it was necessary to dwell on this point at some length, in order to expose one of the fundamental errors concerning the origin of the educational system of the Jesuits. It would not have sufficed to make a few general assertions--as has been done by some non-Catholic writers on the history of education--but it was necessary to quote details, in order to refute this erroneous view.

FOOTNOTES:

[23] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart._ Leipzig, 1885, p. 281 foll. (2. ed. I, p. 408.)

[24] _German Higher Schools_, p. 47.

[25] “_Ut a nostris fontibus derivata esse videatur._” See Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 7.

[26] _American Cyclopedia_ (ed. 1881), article: “_Education_”.

[27] _L. c._, p. 47.--So also Seeley, _History of Education_, p. 182.

[28] The following works are the chief ones consulted: Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart_. Leipzig 1885.--Specht, _Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens in Deutschland bis zur Mitte des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts_. Stuttgart, Cotta, 1885.--Janssen, _History of the German People_, London, Kegan Paul, 1896, vol. I.--Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, New York, Putnam’s Sons, 1900.--Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_. 2 vols. Oxford 1895.--See also West, _Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools_. New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1892. (The _Great Educators Series_.)

[29] See Maitland, _The Dark Ages_.

[30] Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. I, p. 27.

[31] _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, vol. II, p. 602.

[32] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 11.--Professor Harnack of the University of Berlin, speaking of the achievements of the Roman Church, says: “In the first place it educated the Romano-Germanic nations, and educated them in a sense other than that in which the Eastern Church educated the Greeks, Slavs, and Orientals.... It brought Christian civilization to young nations, and brought it, not once only, so as to keep them at its first stage--no! it gave them something which was capable of exercising a progressive educational influence, and for a period of almost a thousand years it itself led the advance. Up to the fourteenth century it was a leader and a mother; it supplied the ideas, set the aims, and disengaged the forces.” The same author admits that even at present the Catholic Church has an important share in the movement of thought. _What is Christianity?_ (Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1901.) Lecture XIV, p. 247.--Well has Cardinal Newman said: “Not a man in Europe now, who talks bravely against the Church, but owes it to the Church, that he can talk at all.” _Historical Sketches_, vol. III, p. 109.

[33] On the schools of Charles the Great and of the centuries following see Specht, _Geschichte des Unterrichtswesens_.--West, _Alcuin and the Rise of Christian Schools_.

[34] See Specht, _op. cit._--Russell, _German Higher Schools_.

[35] Vol. I. (English translation), pp. 25-60.

[36] _Ib._, pp. 26-27.

[37] At present the number of elementary schools in Germany is less than 60,000; there were 56,563 in 1892.

[38] “In its origin, the primary school is the child of Protestantism, and its cradle was the Reformation.” Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, p. 112.--Similarly Professor Beyschlag of Halle.

[39] _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1888-89, vol. I, p. 32.

[40] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article: “Education.”

[41] See _Ireland’s Ancient Schools and Scholars_, by the Most Rev. John Healy, D. D.--Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. III, pp. 116-129.

[42] Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, pp. 44-46.--Woodward, _Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators_, N. Y., Macmillan.

[43] Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_ (New York, the Columbia University Press, 1902), p. 4.

[44] _Ib._, p. 53.

[45] _Ib._, p. 20.

[46] Bellesheim, _History of the Catholic Church of Scotland_, vol. II, pp. 326, 346.

[47] See the article: _Medieval Grammar Schools_, in the _Dublin Review_, 1899, vol. CXXV, pp. 153-178.

[48] The Rev. Hastings Rashdall, _Harrow School_, chap. II, p. 12. (_Dublin Review_, _l. c._, p. 156.)

[49] _English Schools at the Reformation_, p. 6; (_l. c._, p. 157).

[50] _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, vol. I, p. 165. (_Dublin Review_, _l. c._, p. 162.)

[51] Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_, pp. 18-57.--Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, pp. 36-50.

[52] On their character see _Report of the Commissioner of Education_, 1897-98, vol. I, pp. 20-23.

[53] A. T. Drane, _Christian Schools and Scholars_, vol. II, p. 335.

[54] Janssen, _Hist. of the German People_, vol. I, ch. 3.

[55] Drane, _Christian Schools and Scholars_, vol. II, p. 339.

[56] This is for instance the opinion of Boulay, the historian of the University of Paris.

[57] Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 61-62. In most of these schools the Brethren had charge only of the religious training of the pupils, while the classical instruction was given by teachers not belonging to the Fraternity. Paulsen, _l. c._, I, 158-160.

[58] See Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. V, chapter I: “Humanism in Germany.”

[59] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 68.

[60] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, p. 42, (vol. I, p. 67). Further details are given by Janssen, _History of the German People_: “The Higher Schools and the Older Humanists.” (English translation, vol. I, pp. 61-85.)

[61] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 107.

[62] _Ib._, p. 80.

[63] _L. c._, pp. 80-81. Erasmus wrote to Luiz Vives: “_In Germania tot fere sunt academiae quot oppida. Harum nulla paene est, quae non magnis salariis accersat linguarum professores._” _Opera_, III, 689.

[64] Janssen, _l. c._, p. 81.

[65] Einstein, _l. c._, pp. 51-54.

[66] Schmid, _Geschichte der Erziehung_, vol. II, 2, p. 140.

[67] See the present work, Appendix I, Additions to chap. II.

[68] _History of Education_, pp. 135-136.

[69] Rashdall, _Universities of the Middle Ages_, vol. I, p. 5.

[70] Of the forty-four universities founded by charters before 1400, there are thirty-one which possess papal charters. Denifle, O. P., _Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400_, p. 780.

[71] On this subject see: Denifle, _l. c_.; Rashdall, _The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, 2 vols.--_Dublin Review_, July 1898: _The Church and the Universities_, by J. B. Milburn.--Newman, _Rise and Progress of Universities_, in _Historical Sketches_, vol. III.--For further literature see Guggenberger, S. J., _A General History of the Christian Era_, vol. II, pp. 126-129.

[72] Rashdall, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 546.

[73] Burton, _History of Scotland_, vol. IV, p. 109. (Bellesheim, _History of the Catholic Church of Scotland_, vol. II, p. 346.)

[74] _L. c._, vol. II, pp. 523-524.

[75] Compayré enumerates 75 universities existing in 1482, the year before Luther’s birth. “Who could deny,” he says, “after merely glancing over this long enumeration, the importance of the university movement in the last three centuries of the Middle Ages?” _Abelard_, pp. 50-52.

[76] See _Report of Com. of Ed._, 1897-98, vol. II, p. 1741.

[77] Janssen, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 86.

[78] Janssen, vol. I.--Compayré, _Abelard and the Origin and Early History of Universities_ (Scribner’s Sons, New York).--Rashdall, vol. II, pp. 211-280; on the universities of Poland, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, and Scotland, pp. 283-315.

[79] See Rashdall, vol. II, pp. 65-107.

[80] _Epist._ 977. (Hefele, _Life of Ximenez_, p. 115.)

[81] Hefele, _The Life of Cardinal Ximenez_, translated by the Rev. Canon Dalton, p. 115.--Rashdall remarks on this fact: “Salamanca is not perhaps precisely the place where one would look for early precedents for the higher education of women. Yet it was from Salamanca that Isabella, the Catholic, is said to have summoned Doña Beatriz Galindo to teach her Latin long before the Protestant Elizabeth put herself to school under Ascham.” _Univ. in the M. A._, vol. II, p. 79. The education of women was not so entirely neglected as is commonly believed. See Specht, _l. c._, ch. XI, “_Education of Women_.” Further Janssen’s _History of the German People_, vol. I, pp. 82-85.

[82] Prescott, _Ferdinand and Isabella_, Part I, ch. XIX.--Peter Martyr’s _Epist._, 57.--Hefele, p. 116.

[83] Rashdall, _l. c._, vol. II, p. 77.

[84] _Epist._ 755. (Hefele, _l. c._, p. 122.)

[85] On the _Trivium_ and _Quadrivium_, see West, _Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools_, pp. 1-39.

[86] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, p. 460.

[87] On the authors studied or known during the Middle Ages see Comparetti, _Virgil in the Middle Ages_.--Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la connaissance de l’antiquité classique au treizième siècle_, in _Revue des Questions Historiques_, vol. XVII, pp. 5-57.--An adequate history of the use of the classics during this period does not exist. A pretty full bibliography of monographs is given by Taylor, _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, pp. 363-365.

[88] Windelband, _A History of Philosophy_, p. 310.

[89] On Scholasticism see also Alzog, _History of the Church_, vol. II, pp. 728-784.

[90] See _Dublin Review_, 1899, vol. CXXIV, p. 340.

[91] Alzog, _l. c._, vol. II, p. 783.

[92] Translation from _The Review_, St. Louis, May 23, 1901.

[93] See Boutaric, _Vincent de Beauvais et la connaissance de l’antiquité classique au treizième siècle_. (_Revue des Questions Historiques_; vol. XVII, pp. 5-57.)

[94] Willmann, _Didaktik_, vol. I, p. 289.

[95] The Vulgate is quoted or referred to more than 500 times; Aristotle more than 300; Virgil about 200; Ovid about 100; Cicero and Lucan about 30 and 40 each, etc. Taylor, _l. c._, p. 365.

[96] Creighton, _History of the Popes_, vol. II, p. 332.--Baumgartner, _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, p. 469.

[97] For the history of this movement see Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vols. I and V.--Burckhardt, _History of the Renaissance in Italy_; Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_; A. Baumgartner, S. J., _Geschichte der Weltliteratur_, vol. IV, pp. 469-623.--On the Renaissance in England see Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, chapter II, and especially Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_.

[98] _Epist. rer. fam._ VI, 2.--Pastor, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 2.

[99] Pastor, vol. I, p. 25.

[100] See below chapter XVII.

[101] For instance by Paulsen, _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 29-31, (I, 51 foll.), and _passim_. Baumgartner, vol. IV, pp. 487 foll.--On Erasmus see Janssen, vol. III, p. 11.

[102] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, p. 20. (I, p. 36).

[103] Quoted by Willmann, _Geschichte des Idealismus_, vol. III, p. 855. For an excellent criticism of scholasticism see vol. II, pp. 321-652.

[104] See above p. 30; cf. Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, chapter II, _The Revival of Letters in England_, pp. 14-50.--Einstein, _The Italian Renaissance in England_, pp. 18-57.

[105] _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 44-127. (I, 74-170).

[106] On this subject see Creighton, _History of the Papacy_, vol. V. _The German Revolt_, ch. I. “Humanism in Germany,” pp. 1-49.

[107] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 1-2. For the following see the same volume, pp. 1-79, and Guggenberger, S. J., _A General History of the Christian Era_, vol. II, p. 133.

[108] A much kindlier view of Erasmus is taken in the highly interesting chapter on “Erasmus”, in Gasquet’s _The Eve of the Reformation_, pp. 155-207. There his attitude towards Luther and his loyalty to the Catholic Church are admirably set forth.

[109] Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, p. 12.

[110] Guggenberger, vol. II, p. 147. However, it is fair to mention that there were not only deep shadows in this period but also gleams of sunshine. The pagan tendencies were not absolutely general. The religious orders gave to the Church a line of saintly, brilliant, and truly apostolic preachers, who fearlessly raised their voices against the sins and failings of high and low, ecclesiastics and laymen. Nor were their efforts in vain, as may be seen from the conversion of whole towns and provinces, effected by Vincent Ferrer, Bernardine of Siena, John Capistran, Savonarola, and others. And beside the many unworthy prelates and priests of the period, the historian meets, in every country of Christendom, with a great number of men distinguished alike for virtue and learning. The number of Saints of this period, especially in the Franciscan and Dominican Orders, is exceedingly great, a proof that the Church had not lost her saving and sanctifying power. See Pastor, _History of the Popes_, vol. I, pp. 32-38.

[111] These symptoms are summed up by Janssen, vol. II, _passim_, especially pp. 285-302.--Guggenberger, vol. II, pp. 146-151.

[112] See: _Luther and his Protestant Biographers_, by the Rev. H. G. Ganss in the _American Catholic Quarterly Review_, July 1900; also _The Messenger_, Nov. 1902.

[113] _Neue Geschichte der Deutschen_, vol. II, p. 44, quoted by Ganss, _l. c._, p. 599, where similar statements of other Protestants may be found.

[114] Professor Maurenbrecher of the Königsberg University, _ib._

[115] London _Athenaeum_, Dec. 1884, p. 729.

[116] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 100-101.

[117] Janssen, vol. III, pp. 106 foll.

[118] _Gesch. des gel. Unt._, pp. 128-29. (2. ed. I, 174 foll.).

[119] Protestants frequently object to the appellation “revolution”, as applied to the Reformation. However, men like Harnack openly declare that it was a revolution. See _What is Christianity?_ Lecture XV, pp. 277-281. Paulsen, _l. c._

[120] _L. c._, p. 129. (1. ed.; cf. 2. ed. I, p. 174 foll.)

[121] Paulsen, _l. c._, pp. 133-144. (I, pp. 184-195.)

[122] _Ibid._, p. 143. (I, p. 194.)

[123] _Die Reformation_, vol. I, pp. 418-545; see also Janssen, vol. III, pp. 355-365; vol. VII, p. 11 foll.

[124] Hallam, _Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries_, vol. I, chapter VI, p. 189, note (Harper’s ed. 1842).--Janssen, vol. III, p. 357.--Döllinger, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 470 foll.

[125] See Archbishop Spalding’s _The Reformation in Germany_, chap. XIII.--Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 423.

[126] _L. c._, p. 134. (I, p. 185.)

[127] Paulsen, _ib._

[128] _Luther’s Werke_, ed. Walch XIX, 1430. See Döllinger, _l. c._, vol. I, p. 475 foll.--Janssen, vol. II (German ed. 18), pp. 211-213.

[129] _Ib._, XII, 45; XI, 459.

[130] See Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I (2nd ed.), pp. 477 foll.

[131] _Ib._, p. 479.

[132] Paulsen, pp. 135 foll.

[133] Döllinger, _Die Reformation_, vol. I, p. 466 foll.--Numerous contemporary testimonies to the same effect may be seen in Janssen’s _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes_ (German edition, 18), vol. II, p. 322; vol. VII, pp. 11-211.

[134] Spalding, _The Reformation in Germany_, ch. 14.

[135] Another result of the Reformation has been pointed out by President Butler of Columbia University, New York: “The separation of religious training from education as a whole is the outgrowth of Protestantism and democracy.” _Educational Review_, December 1899, p. 427.--Why democracy should be a cause of this separation is not clear to me, nor are the arguments, adduced by President Butler, convincing.

[136] On the development of the Protestant schools see Paulsen, _l. c._, p. 145 foll. (I, 209).--Ziegler, _l. c._, p. 61 foll.

[137] Dr. Nohle, in _Rep. of Com. of Ed._, 1897-98, vol. I, p. 30.

[138] Ziegler, _Geschichte der Pädagogik_, p. 69.

[139] _Introduction to the Literature of Europe_, vol. I, p. 165 (Harper’s ed. 1842).--Hence it is utterly false to say that the reform of the studies in the sixteenth century was, in the first place, a Protestant work. And yet this statement is repeated again and again.

[140] _Ib._, p. 200. Also _Döllinger, Die Reformation_, vol. I, pp. 546-563, and especially Paulsen I, 212-214.

[141] Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, vol. II, p. 423.

[142] Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, p. 41 foll.

[143] Fuller’s _History of the University of Cambridge_, in Gasquet, _Henry VIII._ etc., vol. II, p. 519.

[144] See above, p. 65-66.

[145] Gasquet, _Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries_, vol. II, pp. 519-520.

[146] Hallam, _Literature of Europe_, vol. I, p. 196.

[147] See page 20.

[148] See the words of Mr. Einstein, above p. 37.