A 437555
UGAN
•
OF
MI
AICI
COF MICHIGA
ARIES
ANIVERSITY
VERSITY
TES
THE
!
PETER RAMUS
AND THE
EDUCATIONAL REFORMATION OF THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY
The My
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK. BOSTON • CHICAGO
DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
E
PETRUS RAMUS

1
Naſcitur
An 1515
Trucidatus 26.au
AERO. 1572
Rame tuis Callis es, quod Latto fuit olim
Romani princeps Tullius eloqui
WPWN
PETER RAMUS 1975 - 15"> bone
AND THE
EDUCATIONAL REFORMATION
OF THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY
BY
FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES
(Ph.D., COLUMBIA)
PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION
IN THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1912
All rights reserved
LB
475
.L 322
678
COPYRIGHT, 1912,
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Set
up and electrotyped. Published September, 1912.
TO
PAUL MONROE
WHO HAS GIVEN TO THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION
ITS PRESENT HIGH STATUS
IN AMERICA
1
PREFACE
It is difficult to understand why Ramus has
been so much neglected by writers upon the six-
teenth century. He was probably the foremost
French philosopher of his century, and he stands
well among the great educators, effective orators,
and lofty characters of the world's history. In
many respects he seems a striking forerunner of
modern times. Alcuin, Abelard, Petrarch, Valla,
Erasmus, Luther, Ramus, and Descartes are mile-
stones that mark the pathway of progress from
medievalism. Yet in few general histories do
the life and work of this remarkable reformer
figure in any detail. In treatises written in Eng-
lish he is barely mentioned, and while there have
been for half a century some extended accounts
of his career by French writers, and of late Ger-
man scholars have been making careful contribu-
tions to elucidate the various phases of his work,
there scarcely exists anywhere a complete account
of his achievements that includes an analysis of
his works.
245033
vii
viii
PREFACE
Yet many pages are devoted in histories of
education to such contemporaries of Ramus in
France as Rabelais and Montaigne. While these
men were of great importance in the develop-
ment of literature and educational theory, they
seem to have had comparatively little effect upon
the schools or the movements of the times.
Ramus, on the other hand, was a practical re-
former, a writer of textbooks, the founder of
a new and influential point of view in subject
matter and method, a popular and successful
teacher, and an active correspondent and per-
sonal acquaintance of the educational leaders of
his day in all countries. No man more fully
embodies the spirit of this age of reconstruction,
the storm and stress period of the sixteenth
century. Aside from the account of his own
contributions to education and theology, the life
and work of Ramus are well worth studying for
the light they shed upon such a critical epoch in
history
In presenting this account of Ramus, I wish to
tender my thanks to Professor Frederic Ernest
Farrington, who first called my attention to the
importance of the subject, to Professor Paul Mon-
roe, who has critically reviewed the whole work,
and to Professor David E. Smith, who furnished
me with written suggestions concerning my treat-
PREFACE
ix
ment of Ramus as a mathematician. I am also
indebted to Miss Betty Joffè, and to my wife,
Helen Wadsworth Graves, for several changes in
the manuscript and assistance in carrying the
book through press.
The engraved likeness of Ramus, which forms
the frontispiece of this book, I also owe to Pro-
fessor Farrington, who sought it out for me, and
to the distinguished M. Chatelain, Conservateur
de la Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne, who photo-
graphed the picture for me from the Bibliothèque
de Boissard and developed the plate with his own
hands.
F. P. G.
AUGUST, 1912.
7
I
1
12
CONTENTS
HAPTER
PAGE
I. THE TIMES OF RAMUS
I
11." THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
19
III. PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
48
IV. CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
71
V. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND THE ORGANIZATION OF
EDUCATION.
108
VI. THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
.
120
VII. CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
160
VIII. HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
173
IX. VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM .
204
SOURCES, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
•
219
PETER RAMUS
CHAPTER I
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
BEFORE undertaking a sketch of the life and
achievements of Ramus, it will be well to gain some
notion of his social and political setting. To under-
stand the work of this leader, we must make a rapid
survey of the forces that were struggling for suprem-
acy during the sixteenth century in northern Europe,
especially in France. This period, in the first place,
witnessed the development of the Renaissance and
of humanism in the countries of the north. Here the
Greek and Latin literature came to enrich the medie-
val ideals and the course in the seven liberal arts.
While the preceding century had been marked by
*the growth of the movement in Italy, this vitalizing
development of the Italian peninsula was now senes-
cent and was degenerating into a mere 'Ciceronian'
formalism. The introduction of printing, however,
had given the movement a wider field of action,
>
|
B
I
2
PETER RAMUS
and the renewed spirit of independence and criticism
could not be confined to a single country. The
Renaissance and the classic literatures had leaped
the Alps and had rapidly made their way northward.
Toward the close of the fifteenth century the human-
ists outside of Italy became very numerous, and the
movement came to its height in the northern lands
during the sixteenth century.
Probably the earliest appearance of humanism
beyond the peninsula was in the education furnished
through the religious order of the Hieronymians.
This brotherhood had been founded in Holland for
the purpose of instructing the poor, in religion and
the rudiments, but during the latter half of the
fifteenth century the brethren added humanistic
elements to their course and soon had a chain of
schools extending through the Netherlands, Ger-
many, and France. Connected with this humanistic
development, either as teacher or pupil, were such
men as Agricola (1443-1485), Reuchlin (1455-1522),
and that great leader of northern humanism, Erasmus
(1467-1536). The Hieronymian schools had a pro-
1
1 It is still somewhat mooted whether these Brethren of the
Common Lot actually maintained schools of their own, or fur-
nished colleges' or dormitories near schools already established.
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
3
found effect upon education and tended to introduce
the classics into the universities and other educational
institutions. But there were other schools that
were even more directly the outgrowth of humanism,
chief among which were the Gymnasien and the
Jesuit 'colleges.' The Gymnasien were given their
greatest impulse and more definite form by Sturm
during the generation succeeding the foundation
of his school and university at Strassburg (1538)."
The gymnasial course of ten years, which consisted
largely of Latin and Greek, proved successful and
spread in all directions. Just before the middle of
the century the Jesuit ‘colleges,' also with a purely
humanistic curriculum, were started by Loyola,
and sprang up rapidly throughout Europe.
The universities, though narrow, conservative, and
generally reluctant to admit the classics, were like-
wise feeling the effects of the movement. By 1470,
a professorship of Greek was established at the
University of Paris, and while the new learning met
1 The great repute of this school at Strassburg probably stamped
the name Gymnasium upon the German language as the technical
term for the great secondary schools in which the classics have
ever since formed the basis of the course.
? For the course in full, see Barnard's German Teachers and
Educators, pp. 196-208.
2
4
PETER RAMUS
B
21
of
3<
Re
with formidable opposition, it found an influential
patron in the king, Francis I (r. 1515-1547). He
protected the humanistic scholars' and educators,
and, urged by Budæus (1468-1540) and other
humanists, founded in 1530 the College of France, or
Collège Royal, with its chairs of Greek and Latin, as
a protest against the scholastic and dogmatic course
of the university. It was in this college that Ramus,
who had shown himself an ardent humanist, was
eventually appointed to a professorship. Humanism
also spread in the German universities. By the
early part of the sixteenth century, the course at.
Erfurt, Leipzig, Heidelberg, and Tübingen came
to include the classics, and a number of new human-
istic universities, such as Wittenberg, Königsberg,
and Jena, were started about the middle of the cen-
tury.
Similarly profound changes were being effected
in England. A revival of the classics, which had
been gradually gaining strength, began in earnest
at Oxford toward the end of the fifteenth century
with the work of Grocyn and Linacre, and at Cam-
bridge in the first half of the sixteenth with the
lectures of Erasmus, Cheke, and Ascham. More
and Wolsey also lent substantial aid to the movement
me
and
PIE
th
7
an
20
SE
de
CS
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
5
trough their influence at court. Finally, by Colet's
bundation of his humanistic school at St. Paul's in
509, a successful example was set for secondary
ducation, which resulted in the Latin 'grammar'
chool becoming the typical secondary organization
in England.
But the character and the effects of the Renais-
sance and humanism in the north differed greatly
from those in Italy. The people of the north were
of a deeper and more serious temperament than the
brilliant and mercurial Italians. With them the
Renaissance led less to a desire for personal develop-
- ment, self-realization, and individual achievement,
and took on a more social and moral color. The
prime purpose of humanism in the north became
the improvement of society, morally and religiously,
and much less attention was paid to the physical,
intellectual, and ästhetic elements in education.
The classical revival here pointed the way to obtain-
ing a new and more exalted meaning from the Scrip-
tures. Through the revival of Greek, northern
scholars sought to get away from the ecclesiastical
doctrines and traditions, and turned back to the
essence of Christianity by studying the New Testa-
ment in the original. This suggested a similar in-
6
PETER RAMUS
sight into the Old Testament, and an interest in
Hebrew was thereby aroused. To most people
in the North a renewed study of the Bible became
as important a feature of humanism as an apprecia-
tion of the classics, and the purer religious and theo-
logical conception that resulted mark the Reforma-
tion as an accompaniment of the Renaissance. In
consequence, most of the humanists of the north
were also religious reformers, and in Germany, the
Netherlands, France, and England humanism passed
over into the Reformation. Erasmus differed from
.
Luther only in believing that education would
eventually effect the desired changes. So Melanch-
thon is ranked as a reformer, but he was fully as
much a humanist, while the great humanistic educa-
tor, Sturm, was in hearty sympathy with the Ref-
ormation. Lefèvre and others gave the first im-
pulse to French Protestantism through a new trans-
lation of the Bible. Colet endeavored to dethrone
dogma and tradition by a better interpretation of
the Pauline Epistles and the pseudo-Dionysius.
And it was evidently his humanistic bent and insight
that caused Ramus, the educational reformer under
consideration, to cast in his lot with the oppressed
religious reformers.
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
7
Undoubtedly it was the support lent the cause of
religious and theological reform by the awakened
social and moral, as well as intellectual, attitude of
humanism in the north, that enabled the series
of revolts which arose against papal authority
in the sixteenth century, to be more successful
than were those of the Albigenses and Waldenses,
Wyclif and Huss, in the preceding centuries. Luther's
revolt (1517-1521) was primarily the result of his
spiritual struggles and of his intellectual desire to
formulate a better doctrine, but his persistence and
success must be attributed to the sympathetic
attitude of the times. Zwingli actually got his
start (1519) by learning from Erasmus and other
humanists how little basis there was in the Bible for
the traditional theology and ritual. Calvin (1535)
was among those who, after the work of Lefèvre,
were led to reject the traditional doctrines and forms
through the influence of northern humanism and
the study of the Greek Testament. While the im-
mediate cause of Henry VIII's revolt (1533) in
England was personal advantage and statecraft,
it was somewhat the result of the northern Renais-
sance, for without the aid of the independence and
individualism that had been growing up in England
8
PETER RAMUS
as the concomitant of humanism, even the king could
not have successfully contested with the pope.
Hence there is a close connection in the northern
countries between the Renaissance and the Reforma-
tion; they are, in truth, but different phases of the
same movement.
Such was the general intellectual and religious
situation of the sixteenth century. The more
specific political and social conditions and problems
in the different countries during this period are
equally important and interesting in the history of
civilization. This century marked the climax of
the Hapsburg power. In 1516 Charles V inherited
from four grandparents, each a sovereign in his own
right, dominion over Burgundy, the Netherlands,
Spain and the Spanish possessions in America, por-
tions of Italy, and the Austrian territories, and three
years later he was, in keeping with precedent, elected
emperor. But his imperial control was mostly
nominal. As an inheritance from feudalism, Ger-
many still consisted of two or three hundred states,
differing greatly from one another in size and
character, but all independent, and it was not in-
tended that the emperor, who was elected on each
occasion by a mixed commission of seven powerful
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
9
princes, should be, outside his own realm, much
more than a figurehead. This condition of things
accounts for the inability of the Diet of Worms (1521)
and the succeeding imperial legislation to enforce
its decrees against Luther, and for the eventual
acceptance by the emperor of the Peace of Augsburg
(1555), whereby each German state was allowed
to choose for itself between the Lutheran and
Catholic confessions. The next year the gouty
Charles laid down the cares of government, after
transferring his eastern possessions to his brother,
Ferdinand, and the western to his son, Philip II.
By this time the Council of Trent (1545-1546 and
1562–1563) and the rise and spread of the Jesuits
were bringing the religious controversy in Europe to
an acute stage, and Philip soon showed himself the
most ardent supporter of the pope
and the persecutor
of all Protestants, especially in his Netherland
dominions. Meanwhile the revolt of the English
church had taken place during the reigns of Henry
VIII (1533-1547) and Edward VI (1547-1553), and
after a brief return to Catholicism and Protestant
persecution under Mary (1553-1558), Elizabeth
greatly widened the breach (1558). Before the end
of the century she had assisted the Protestant
IO
PETER RAMUS
*
Netherlands, frustrated the attempt of Philip to
land troops in Ireland, and beaten off the Spanish
Armada (1588).
But of more direct importance to our understand-
ing of the career of Ramus (1515-1572) is the situation
in France itself. Here the religious controversy took
the form of civil wars between the Catholics and
Protestants, which lasted beyond the lifetime of our
reformer. The Protestants were protected by Mar-
garet of Navarre, sister of Francis I (r. 1515-1547),
but the king himself was stirred up by the theologians
of the University of Paris against the reformers. He
consented to the burning of heretics in 1535, which
led to the flight of Calvin to Basel. Here the
great reformer prepared the defense of his belief
in The Institutes of Christianity (1536). Shortly
after this he was called to the spiritual and civic
directorship of Geneva, which, except for a brief
interval, he held until his death (1564). His
successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza (1519-1605), had
displayed great ability in the defense of Protestantism
at the Colloquy of Poissy (1561), and both on this
occasion and later was destined to play an important
part in the life of Ramus. Francis I meanwhile
w more and more intolerant, and two years be-
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
II
fore his death had some three thousand Waldenses
massacred. His successor, Henry II (r. 1547-1559),
also pledged himself to exterminate the Protestants,
but did not hesitate to ally himself with their co-
religionists in Germany when he wished to wrest
away part of the dominions of Charles V. Under the
short reign of the weak sons of Henry – Francis II,
Charles IX, and Henry III — there was an era of
almost constant civil war. Francis II (r. 1559–1560)
had married Mary, Queen of Scots. During his
brief occupancy of the throne, the government was
controlled by his wife's two powerful French uncles,
Francis, Duke of Guise, and Charles, Cardinal of
Lorraine, and even after the death of the young
king, the Guises never surrendered their influence.
The Guise cardinal is most prominent in the life
of Ramus, first as his patron and protector, and,
after the reformer's conversion to Calvinism (1561),
as his inveterate enemy. During the reign of Charles
IX (r. 1560-1574), his mother, Catherine de' Medici,
was virtually the sovereign, and affairs were further
complicated by the union of the Bourbons, or younger
branch of the reigning family, with the ‘Huguenots,' as
the French Calvinists had come to be known. Many
of the Huguenots belonged to noble families, as in
I 2
PETER RAMUS
a
the case of the Prince of Condé, who represented a
collateral branch of the Bourbons, and of Admiral
Coligny, whose father had been a marshal of France
and his mother a Montmorency. These leaders were
generally ‘Huguenots of state,' and their connection
with Protestantism came to confuse politics with
religion, and often proved embarrassing to such
'Huguenots of religion'as Ramus. For a time it
seemed as if the Huguenot party might control the
government, and the queen-mother was forced to
issue the Edict of Toleration (January 17, 1562),
permitting the Protestants to assemble for worship
during the day in all places outside the towns.
But the Guises had no intention of allowing
matters to rest. In the same year, by a brutal
massacre of one thousand Huguenots, who were wor-
shiping at Vassy, they precipitated the first of the
civil wars. During the life of Ramus there were
three such outbreaks (1562, 1567, and 1572), which
were characterized by the utmost savagery upon
both sides. In the first two conflicts Ramus and
other Protestants were driven into temporary exile.
In 1570 peace was declared, and the Calvinists were
allowed, for their protection, to fortify certain towns,
such as La Rochelle, Montauban, and Nîmes.
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
13
!
Coligny became a sort of privy councilor to the king
and queen-mother, but the Guises soon led the
queen to believe that this Huguenot leader was
plotting against her, and they eventually brought
about the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day
(August 23–25, 1572). In the course of this butchery
Coligny was slain, Condé barely escaped by recanting,
and Ramus suffered a most horrible death. After
the massacre, civil war again broke out, and the
Guises, with the aid of the pope and the Parlement
of Paris, formed the Holy League for their own inter-
ests and the crushing of Protestantism, and nearly
succeeded in winning the throne. Not until the
time of Henry IV and the Edict of Nantes (1598)
were the Huguenots ever free from persecution.
Throughout this series of internecine religious
conflicts Ramus was principal of the College of
Presles, as well as a professor in the College of France.
It may, therefore, be well at this point to examine
the academic foundations of Paris, in order to get
the educational background of our reformer. The
colleges of which the University of Paris was com-
posed in the sixteenth century, in some instances
dated back three or four hundred years. They had
started as boarding-houses, with resident masters,
14
PETER RAMUS
who conducted their students to the Rue du Fouarre,
or street upon which the university schools were
located and where the instruction was given. Among
these colleges' was the famous one founded by
Robert Sorbon 1 in 1257 for lay students in theology,
and the College of Presles, established in 1322, of
which Ramus was so long the head. The various
colleges were intended originally for students from
the same district, province, or nation, and owed
their foundation to public munificence, private
benefaction, or, as in the case of the Sorbonne,
to both these sources. Now in time it became more
convenient to teach the students at home in the
colleges than to take them up to the Rue du Fouarre
for lectures, and the schools were, by the close of the
fifteenth century, practically replaced by the colleges
as the centers of instruction in the University of
Paris. Some of these institutions afforded only
secondary training in grammar, rhetoric, elementary
dialectic, and the rudiments of arithmetic, but
others combined with this the higher work of the
‘arts' faculty of the university, which now con-
1 From this sprang the Sorbonne, or College of Liberal Arts of
the University of Paris. In the sixteenth century it was the
stronghold of conservative theology.
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
15
sisted almost entirely of logic to the minimizing of
the other liberal arts. “Grammar' schools, or sec-
ondary schools proper, had also grown out of the
cathedral schools and spread to the various parishes,
so that there was some confusion between secondary
and higher education. It will later be seen that one
of the reforms recommended by Ramus dealt with
a more careful definition of these two grades of
education.2
[The way in which the College of France came to
be called into being in opposition to the traditional
'arts' curriculum of the university has already been
described in the account of humanism. This new
college was really an association for independent
thought and research. Salaries from the king's
treasury were paid to a body of royal lecturers or
professors, of whom Ramus became one through the
influence of the Cardinal of Lorraine, and, quite
contrary to the usage of the university colleges, no
fees were required of the students. The new founda-
tion was bitterly opposed by the university and the
spread of humanism was fought at every turn. The
1
Joly, Traité historique des écoles episcopales et ecclésiastiques,
p. 304.
2 See his Advice on the Reformation of the University, on pp. 78-84.
16
PETER RAMUS
Z
contest that arose may, therefore, be described as
between the conservative forces of scholasticism,
ecclesiasticism, and the masters of the university
colleges, on the one hand, and the progressive al-
liance of humanism, Protestantism, and the royal
lecturers, on the other. Thus Ramus, who through
most of his career was a member of both faculties,
found himself between two fires. As an avowed
humanist and opponent of Aristotle from the begin-
ning, he was, we shall see, eventually forced by the
logic of the situation to declare publicly and at awful
sacrifice his adhesion to Protestantism.
No doubt before that time several factors had
combined to shape his point of view. His own educa-
tion at the College of Navarre was of the traditional
sort, with its word for word interpretation of Priscian,
Donatus, and Alexander of Villedieu in grammar, and
its abstractions, trivialities, and hair-splitting dis-
putations, depending absolutely upon the authority
of the medieval Aristotle. But, like most great
minds, Ramus was 'the heir to all the ages.' Abe-
lard, who moderated the crudities of scholasticism
with selections from the classical poets and opposed
Plato to the dialectic of Aristotle; Erasmus, the
open enemy of barbarism and the old formulas that
THE TIMES OF RAMUS
17
Į
held thought captive; and many of the other human-
ists, such as Valla, Vives, Agricola, and Sturm, must
all be considered his spiritual forbears. In the
preface to his Studies in the Liberal Arts, he says
of the visit of Sturm to Paris in 1529:-
“Since the fair days of Greece and Rome, Rudolph
Agricola is the first to recover the usage of logic
and invite the youth to search the poets and orators,
not only as the masters of style and eloquence, but as
models of reasoning and the art of thinking. Formed
at the school of Agricola, Johannes Sturm first made
Paris recognize these splendid applications and
excited in the university an incredible ardor for
the art of which he had revealed the utility. It was
in the lessons of this great master that I first learned
the use of logic and then taught it to the youth in
quite a different spirit from the sophists, relegating
to them their furor for disputation.”
But the greatest master of Ramus was Aristotle
himself, whom in the medieval form he so bitterly
opposed. It will be seen that his logic and spirit
were based upon those of the great Stagyrite, when
properly comprehended. Undoubtedly, too, Ramus
owed much, as he frankly confesses, to Socrates,
Plato, Galen, and the Stoics, and even to Cicero and
18
PETER RAMUS
Quintilian, whose absolute authority he by no means
admitted. In his general attitude it is likely that he
was indebted to Lefèvre and Jean le Masson ('La-
tomus'), and in certain parts of his work to Oronce
Finée, the mathematician, and to Etienne Dolet,
Louis Meigret, Jacques Dubois, and other gramma-
rians of his own time and land. But we shall have
further opportunity to witness these influences
fairly as we follow out the life and work of our re-
former. We have now surveyed his intellectual,
political, and social setting, and can hold him some-
what in perspective.
1 See pp. 42 ff.
2 See p. 59.
CHAPTER II
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
1
2
PIERRE DE LA RAMÉE, later known as Petrus
Ramus, was born in 1515,3 at Cust,4 Picardy.
His struggles to secure an education remind us of the
early days of many a more recent scholar and educator.
1 The chief sources for the life of Ramus are the accounts of his
three disciples, — John Thomas Freigius, in a preface to his
Commentaries on Ramus's Discourse on Cicero; Theophilus Banosius,
in a preface to Ramus's Posthumous Commentaries on the Christian
Religion; and especially Nicholas of Nancel, in his Life of Peter
Ramus. Most of the works of Ramus himself also furnish us with
a great deal of information. Waddington, Desmaze, and others
have endeavored to unify these accounts.
2 He assumed this Latinized name upon entering college. It is
not an exact translation and should rather have been Rameus or
a Ramo.
3 Joly and Goujet give the date of his birth as 1502 on the basis
of a note upon the poem, Navarride, by Palma Cayet in 1604, but
this former pupil of Ramus had not been associated with him for
half a century, and, to judge from the evidence of Freigius and
Banosius, his memory played him false.
4 An ancient town on the border of the department of the Oise,
a short distance from Noyon, where Calvin was born. It is also
spelt Cultia, Cusia, Cus, Cuz, Cuth, Cut, and in half a dozen other
ways.
a
19
20
PETER RAMUS
N.B
He
He was descended from a noble family, but the
conquest of Charles the Bold had driven his grand-
father from the estate in Burgundy and forced him
to become a charcoal burner in an obscure village.
The father of Ramus passed his life in labor on a
small farm near the same place, and died when Peter
was little more than a child. The boy early showed
a marked taste for study, and soon exhausted the
meager learning of the village schoolmaster. He
then pushed on to Paris in pursuit of further knowl-
edge, but was twice forced by poverty to return home.
At length, however, he obtained employment as a
servant' to a rich student at the College of Navarre,
and thus secured the scholastic opportunities he
craved. Though but twelve years of age, young
Ramus was large and strong, and undertook to at-
tend his master by day and pursue his own studies
at night. By attaching a stone to a lighted cord,
he provided an automatic alarm for awakening after
a few hours of sleep, and, although troubled at
2
1 This was not an uncommon procedure with poor students
at Paris. Cf. Mullinger, University of Cambridge, 346 f., for a
similar situation at that institution.
2 This institution was founded in 1304 by the queen, Jeanne de
Navarre, wife of Philip the Fair, upon the height of Sainte Géné-
See pp. 13 f.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
21
times with his eyes, his courage was never daunted.
In time he passed through the secondary curriculum,
and then spent three years and a half upon the higher
course of the day in dialectic. This latter period
exercised a decisive influence upon his whole career
He soon conceived a high esteem for dialectic, to- t
gether with a disgust for the way it was being taught
in the colleges, and began his attack upon Aristotle
and scholasticism. What repelled him most was
the barrenness of the current dialectic method for
any real use in the ‘arts' or in life. “When I came
十
​to Paris,” he tells us, “I fell into the subtleties of
the sophists, and they taught me the liberal arts
through questions and disputes, without ever show-
ing me a single thing of profit or service.” In his
Studies in Dialectic ? he gives a much more detailed
and graphic picture of the whole formal and useless
method of instruction then in vogue, together with
the way in which a new point of view and freedom
in thinking eventually came to him. He declares :
“Never amidst the clamors of the college where I
passed so many days, months, years, did I ever hear
a single word about the applications of logic. I I
1 Remonstrance au conseil privé, p. 24.
2 Book IV, 151.
22
PETER RAMUS
had faith then (the scholar ought to have faith,
according to Aristotle) that it was not necessary to
trouble myself about what logic is and what its
purpose is, but that it concerned itself solely with
creating a motive for our clamors and our disputes.
I therefore disputed and clamored with all my might.
If I were defending in class a thesis according
to the categories, I believed it my duty never to
yield to my opponent, were he one hundred times
right, but to seek some very subtle distinction, in
order to obscure the whole issue. On the other
hand, were I disputant, all my care and efforts
tended not to enlighten my opponent, but to beat
him by some argument, good or bad: even so had I
been taught and directed. The categories of Aris-
totle were like a ball that we give children/to play
with, and that it was necessary to get back by our
clamors when we had lost it. If, on the other hand,
we should get it, we should not through any outcry
allow it to be recovered. I was then persuaded that
all dialectic reduced itself to disputing with loud
and vigorous cries.
Perhaps you will ask me when and how I finally
stumbled upon a better method. I will tell you
freely and candidly, in order that, if the remedy that
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
23
rescued me may be useful in your situation, you
may use it liberally. I do not seek at all to convince
I
you by argument; I only wish to explain simply and
directly how I emerged from that darkness. After
having devoted three years and six months to scholas-
tic philosophy, according to the rules of our university;
after having read, discussed, and meditated on the
various treatises of the Organon (for of all the books
of Aristotle those especially which treated of dialectic
were read and reread during the course of three
years); even after, I say, having put in all that time,
reckoning up the years completely occupied by the
study of the scholastic arts, I sought to learn to
what end I could, as a consequence, apply the knowl-
edge I had acquired with so much toil and fatigue.
I soon perceived that all this dialectic had not ren-
dered me more learned in history and the knowledget t
of antiquity, nor more skillful in eloquence, nor
a better poet, nor wiser in anything. Ah, what a
stupefaction, what a grief! How I did accuse my
deficiencies ! How I did deplore the misfortune of
my destiny, the barrenness of a mind that after so
much labor could not gather or even perceive the
fruits of that wisdom which was alleged to be
found so abundantly in the dialectic of Aristotle !
24
PETER RAMUS
“I finally came upon a book of Galen on the
thoughts of Hippocrates and Plato. That parallel of
Plato with Hippocrates furnished me much enjoy-
ment, but it inspired me with a much greater desire
to read all the dialogues of Plato which treated of
dialectic. Then it was, to speak the truth, that I
found the haven so long desired. . . . That which I
especially enjoyed and even loved in Plato was the
method by which Socrates refuted false opinions,
attempting first of all to raise his hearers above the
senses, prejudices, and traditions of men, in order
to lead them to their own natural sense of right and
liberty of judgment. For it appeared to him insane
that a philosopher should allow himself to act
according to the opinions of the masses, which for
the most part are false and deceitful, rather than
++
1 Ramus refers to the Περί των Ιπποκράτους και Πλάτωνος
doyuárwy. See Galeni Opera (Kuhn ed.), V, 181 ff. Plato believed
that the nature of the mind could be discovered by a method
similar to that by which Hippocrates investigated the nature of
the body. Probably Ramus was little acquainted with Greek at
the time, and was indebted for his knowledge to a Latin trans-
lation of Galen by Theodoric Gerard, which Sturm had published.
See Guggenheim, Beiträge zur Biographie des Ramus, p. 141.
Ramus later admitted this, as we find from the preface to his
Pročme des Mathématiques (1567) and at the beginning of his
Scholæ in liberales artes (1569).
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
25
.
apply himself to ascertaining only the facts and their
true causes. In short, I began to say to myself (I
should have hesitated to say it to another): 'Well
what hinders me from ‘socratizing' a little, and
examining, independently of the authority of Aris
totle, whether that doctrine of his dialectic is the
most true and useful? Perhaps that philosopher has
abused us by his authority, and in that case, I need
not have been surprised at having studied his books
without deriving any profit from them, when they
contained none. :::
And what if that whole doc-
trine should prove a delusion ?'”
Thus Ramus gradually broke with the scholastic
philosophy and the Aristotelianism of the day. But,
owing to his impulsive nature and the impetuosity
of youth, as well as to the immoderate and con-
troversial temper of the times, Ramus, once con-
vinced, pushed his opposition to an extreme, and
became straightway an ardent reformer, if not a
revolutionist. He attacked without discretion the
great idol of the day, whose word was revered as that
of an oracle and upon the basis of whose dialectic
the Church had built her doctrine. But his very
1 Aristotle several times narrowly escaped being canonized in
the Middle Ages. See Cousin, Cours, 2 série, t. II, p. 240.
>
26
PETER RAMUS
3
vehemence attracted attention and enlisted a large
number of partisans. His first opportunity for a
public combat came with his master's examination
in 1536,1 when he formulated as his subject for dis-
putation the audacious proposition: “All that
Aristotle has said is false.”2 In developing his
subject, he maintained in the first place that the
writings attributed to Aristotle were spurious, and
secondly that they contained only errors. His
disputants, the judges, were impaled on the horns of
a dilemma, since they could not, as was their wont,
appeal to the authority of Aristotle without begging
the question. They were unable to make any head-
way against the youthful disputant. As a result,
after assailing his thesis for a whole day and having
their arguments refuted with great spirit, subtlety,
and directness, they were at length obliged to admit
the candidate to the degree with honors.
This paradox of the young scholar startled all
the universities of France, and quickly spread to
Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. The academic
world stood aghast at his audacity. If Ramus were
1 According to custom, this probably occurred in Lent.
2 Quæcumque ab Aristotele dicla essent, commentitia esse.
• Freigius, op. cit., pp. 9 ff.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
27
right, all the universities of Europe were wrong. He
was denounced by many scholars as an ingrate on
the ground that he had used the weapons supplied
by Aristotle to attack the donor himself. To this
he replied in the very words of Aristotle, when that
philosopher declared that he preferred the truth
even to his master, Plato: “Had my own father
promulgated those errors, my attack should not
lack force and persistency. The truth is more
precious and dear to me than my father himself,
and I shall hold myself guilty to let my regard for
a single person stand in the way of all.” 1
Thus when barely twenty-one, the son of a poor
widow became one of the most striking figures
within the realm of intellect. The attainment of
.
his degree entitled him literally to become a 'master'
in the university, and he began his labors at the
College of the Mans 2 under the auspices of Jean
Hennuyer. This scholar, who had been his teacher
in philosophy at the College of Navarre, was prob-
ably likewise a professor at Mans, and Ramus may
have been substituting for him. At any rate, he
1 Aristotelicæ Animadversiones, fol. 73–75.
2 See pp. 13 f.
• See Du Boulay, Hist. de l'Univ. de Paris, t. VI, 952.
28
PETER RAMUS
did not stay here long, but undertook to start at the
little college of Ave Maria, in opposition to the
Aristotelians, an education more in conformity with
his own ideal. He associated with himself in this
endeavor Omer Talon of Beauvais, an able professor
of rhetoric, who ever afterward remained a close
friend and enthusiastic supporter of his educational
reforms, and Barthélemy Alexandre of Champagne,
a noted Greek scholar, who could teach the Hellenic
philosophers and orators in the original.
Here, for the first time in any college of the Univer-
sity of Paris, Greek and Latin authors were read ať
the same time, and the study of 'eloquence,' or classi-
cal literature, was joined with that of philosophy
and of the poets with the orators. His plan for
enlarging the breadth and culture of higher instruc-
tion proved interesting, stimulating, and almost
dramatic. The students flocked to hear Ramus,
whose reputation as an orator was established the
first day. This remarkable success he followed up by
planning to reform the work of the university in
general and the arts faculty in particular. He
put in several years forgetting much of what he had
learned at the College of Navarre and in recon-
structing all the liberal arts, He especially en-
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
29
deavored to continue his reform in dialectic, and
foresaw in the application of this subject to the other
liberal arts the keystone to the entire arch, and at
that point he centered the structure opposed to Aris-
totle and the medieval philosophy founded upon
him. In this progressive step toward real human-
istic study and fruitful logic he probably had as
guides such writings as the Sapiens (1522) and
(
De Disciplinis (1531) of Vives, which must have
been well known to him, and the lectures on dialectic
of Sturm, who had just completed his seven years
of teaching at Paris. The masters in the College
of Ave Maria, then, made their lectures attractive
and practical by seeking illustrations and models of
the operations of the mind in the classical poets and
orators, thus verifying in an interesting way the
rules of logic and banishing the barren disputes that
had long held sway at the university. “As the
result of a happy thought,” says Ramus, “I put
forth the proposition that the masters of the uni-
versity were grievously in error to suppose that the
liberal arts were well taught in making of them mere
interrogations and syllogisms, and that the whole
of this sophistry should be cast aside and the
2
1 See p. 17.
2 Remonstrance au conseil privé, p. 25.
30
PETER RAMUS
subjects should rather explain and suggest real
usage.”
To crystallize this position, Ramus in '1543 pub-
lished in Latin two epoch-making books on logic,
the Divisions or Institutions of Dialectic and the
Animadversions on Aristotle.2 In the former work
he stated dogmatically a number of elementary
principles of logic in terse and elegant language.
This treatise, however, had in it little that was con-
troversial, with the exception of the brief introduc-
tion, ut the latter work consisted in a fierce
onslaught upon Aristotle, filled with the bitter
invective that was characteristic of the age and his
own impulsiveness. It was most unfair and indis-
creet in its critical analysis of the great logician,
representing him as a “sophist,' an'impostor,'
and a 'sacrilegious man,' and his disciples as 'bar-
þarians,' whose disputes were barren and noisy.
He ridiculed and condemned with great force and
eloquence their subtleties and follies of all sorts.
He boldly declared himself the opponent of a routine,
and the apostle of freedom of thought, and he held
himself ready to encounter all labors and dangers,
1 Dialecticæ partitiones ad Academiam Parisiensem (in later edi-
tions called Dialecticæ institutiones).
2 Aristotelicæ animadversiones.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
31
in order to destroy the sophistry of his opponents,
even to the extent of laying down his life for the
cause. Finally, he reiterated the famous paradox
of his master's disputation with scarcely any modera-
tion, and discharged a fusillade of abuse at the
effete teachings of the professors in the faculty of arts.
So determined an attack upon the Aristotelian
citadel could no longer be passed over unnoticed,
and the Peripatetics massed themselves for battle.
Ramus, too, seems to have understood fully what
the consequences of his treatises were likely to be.
He undertook to intrench himself behind the good
will of the king, Francis I, to whom he pre-
sented a handsome copy of the Divisions of Dialectic,
together with a eulogy of his reign and wishes for his
prosperity. With a similar motive he dedicated the
Animadversions to two former college mates, both
afterwards cardinals, Charles of Lorraine and Charles
of Bourbon, and appealed to their kindness of heart,
a
а
1 Sèe Animadversiones, fol. 15 v.
2 His later works on the subject, notably the Scholæ dialecticæ,
were much less extreme and vehement, and were directed rather
against the scholastic interpretation of Aristotle than the master
himself.
* Waddington (Ramus, p. 37) says this volume is in the Bib-
liothèque Impériale (now Nationale), No. 6659, of the Latin manu-
scripts, and quotes from the dedication (pp. 421 ff.).
>
32
PETER RAMUS
which he declared had often been experienced by
himself and had been much praised by their revered
master, Hennuyer. While these precautions were
well taken, they were not sufficient to withstand the
storm that immediately arose and broke over the
head of Ramus. The conservative masters of the
university, perceiving the sympathy of the students
for the vigorous reformer, and fearing a revolution,
were alarmed and enraged. The rector of the
university, Pierre Galland, principal of the College
of Boncour, especially felt himself aggrieved, and,
while taking no overt step, secretly urged two well-
known masters to expose the fallacies of Ramus.
These men were Périon, a professor of theology, who
had made a pretentious and inaccurate translation
of Aristotle, and Govéa, a conservative, but rather
learned and witty jurist. The arraignments of
Ramus, which they were only too eager to make,
were filled with pedantry and invective, and in-
timated that dire calamities were in store for the
reformer, should he not repent and make his
peace
with honest folk.'1 Their defense of Aristotle
had more force than point, and the writings of that.
1 As sources, see (1) Perionii pro Aristotele in Petrum Ramum
orationes II and (2) Hispaniæ bibliotheca, t. II, class. VII, pp. 300 f.
>
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
33
t
philosopher, with their austere dignity, would have
proved by themselves a more weighty answer than
these violent and unjust anathemas of his dis-
ciples.
Galland, however, was succeeded the following
year? by Guillaume de Montuelle, principal of the
College of Beauvais, who acted with more direct-
ness in the matter. He at once presented the
two offending works to the faculty of theology for
censure, and when this had been passed, he had the
university ask the civic authorities to suppress the
books. Ramus was summoned before the provost of
.
Paris as an enemy to religion and the public peace
and a corrupter of youth, and at the request of
Govéa, who acted as the university's advocate, the
case was brought before the Parlement 2 of Paris.
Then, since the procedure of this tribunal appeared
too deliberate and regular to satisfy the anger of
the Aristotelians, Galland got Pierre du Chastel,
1 The term of the rector's office was but one year.
2 The functions of this body are not to be confused with those
of a parliament. The local parlements, of which that of Paris was
the most important, were primarily higher law courts, but, in addi-
tion to trying cases, they claimed the right to register or disapprove
the decrees of the king, and maintain certain other legislative
powers.
D
34
PETER RAMUS
V. B
bishop of Mâcon and a close friend of the king, to
intervene and bring the complaint to the royal notice
at once. Francis, finding the growing tempest and
uproar unendurable and wishing it to subside as
quickly as possible, referred the case, at Du Chastel's
suggestion, to a commission of five, two of whom were
to be chosen by each side and a fifth by the king.
Ramus succeeded in getting two talented personal
friends to act for him, but, although their arguments
completely vanquished the other three judges,
who were zealous Aristotelians, they were overborne
and withdrew from the farcical trial in disgust.
Sentence was then pronounced upon the defendant
as follows: --
“Our most Christian king, in his love for phil-
osophy and liberal studies, has committed to us the
task of examining the book which P. Ramus has
published against Aristotle under the title of Animad-
versions on Aristotle and of passing judgment upon
it. We have read the book carefully and have
examined and weighed every one of its propositions
and have come to this decision: Ramus has acted
rashly, arrogantly, and impudently, in undertaking
to condemn and impugn the art of logic, which has
been accepted among all nations; and which he
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
35
himself does not understand at all. Moreover, the
reproaches which he heaps upon Aristotle are of such
a kind as to exhibit his ignorance and stupidity, as
well as his wickedness and bad faith, since he repre-
hends many of the truest doctrines, and attributes
much to Aristotle that this philosopher has never
held. In short, his book contains nothing but
fictions and scurrilous slanders. Wherefore, we
have judged that it is to the best interest of the
republic of letters that this book be suppressed by all
possible means, and that his other book, Institutions 1
of Dialectic, which also contains many statements
that are untrue and falsely attributed, shall be
treated likewise." 2
Thus not only was the Animadversions not granted
a fair trial, but even the more constructive work of
Ramus was condemned without even being ex-
amined, solely because it was by the same author.
The king, who boasted of his title of 'father of let-
ters,' was swayed by the clamors and confirmed the
unjust decision and did everything possible to make
it effective. In his decree, after giving a lengthy
1 See footnote on p. 30.
2 The original text is given in Du Boulay, Hist. de l'Univ. de Paris,
t. VI, p. 394.
36
PETER RAMUS
account of the trouble that had disturbed his dear
and beloved daughter, the University of Paris,'' and
of the trial that had ensued, he declares :
“Be it known that we have condemned, suppressed,
and abolished the said books, and made prohibitions
and warnings to all printers and booksellers of our
kingdom, fiefs, domains, and seigniories, and to all
our other subjects of whatever estate and condition,
that they neither print, spread abroad, sell, or utter
the said books, in our kingdom, fiefs, and seigniories,
under pain of confiscation of their books or of corporal
punishment. And likewise to the said Ramus that
he neither lecture upon said books nor have them
written or copied or spread abroad in any manner,
and that he do not lecture on dialectic or philosophy
of any sort whatsoever, without our express per-
mission, and also he no longer use such slanders and
invectives against Aristotle or other ancient authors
received and approved, or against our said daughter,
the university, under the penalties above mentioned.
So we commend and decree to our provost of Paris,
1 La fille ainée du roi de France, the eldest daughter of the king
of France,' was the name given in 1515 by Francis I to the Univer-
sity of Paris and generally used after that. See Pasquier, Recherches
de la France, p. 811.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
37
that he may cause the present ordinance and judg-
ment to be executed.” 1
The edict of the king was registered by the parle-
ment without opposition, and was published by
trumpet and posted in French and Latin in all parts of
the city. It was dispatched throughout France, and
sent to foreign towns and universities to vindicate
the orthodoxy of Paris. It was received by the
conservatives of the university with transports of
joy. The obnoxious books were burnt in front of
the College of Cambrai by one of the biased judges,
and the Peripatetics indulged in a greater celebration
than would ordinarily be held after a military
victory. Some of his opponents, however, regretted
that the king had let Ramus off with so light a penalty,
and insisted that he should have been exiled or sent to
the galleys as a common malefactor. Ramus, how-
ever, could do nothing except submit to these indig-
Given in full in Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 657; Charpentier,
Ad expositionem disputationis de methodo Responsio; and La Choix
du Maine, Bibliothèques Françoises under Pierre de la Ramée;
Niceron, Mémoires, XIII.
2 This was the testimony given by Génébrard in his eulogy at
the funeral of Danes, the judge who burnt the book of Ramus.
See Vie, Eloges, et Opuscules de Pierre Danes. (Paris, 1871, p. 90.)
3 See Charpentier, Animadversiones in Dialecticarum Institutiones
P. Rami, fol. 13 r.
38
PETER RAMUS
2
nities and conceal his resentment as much as pos-
sible. Later he declared with his characteristic
philosophy :-
“I had undertaken to make known the principles
bf Socrates, and found that I had drawn upon my-
self the same sort of calamity as that which over-
whelmed him. For a complete resemblance my case
lacked only the hemlock.” 1
Nevertheless, Ramus seems not to have been alto-
gether silenced. It was only philosophy that he was
forbidden to teach, and in the very year of his con-
viction (1544) we find him at work as usual with
Talon and Alexandre at their college. While he
?
could not deal with logic or any part of philosophy,
and confined himself entirely to the classics and
mathematics, he still defended the union of literary
-- studies with philosophy. Moreover, Talon was not
in the least intimidated, and publicly announced
1 Scholæ mathematicæ, 1. III, p. 74.
2 There are still preserved the addresses of the three colleagues
to their students in November, Tres orationes a tribus liberalium
disciplinarum professoribus, Petro Ramo, Audomaro Talæo, Bar-
tholomæo Alexandro, Lutetia in gymnasio Mariano habita.
3 During this period he made his first Latin translation of Euclid,
which he anonymously dedicated to his patron, the Cardinal of
Lorraine. More will be heard of his mathematical publications
later on.
3
-
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
39
his complete agreement with the position taken by
Ramus and his intention to rescue philosophy from
the darkness in which it was groping. He praised the
Animadversions most heartily and announced that t
3
he would produce a similar work on rhetoric.
The next year an even more favorable opportun-
ity presented itself to the two reformers. Ramus
was invited by Lesage, the aged principal of the
College of Presles, to take charge of this historic
school. The college was badly run down in finances
and attendance, but, through the eloquence and im-
proved management of Ramus, it shortly became
one of the best. Here, with the assistance of Talon,
who soon followed him to Presles, Ramus continued
to introduce the same reforms and even to push
them further. He had the temerity to announce as
the subject of his first lectures that passage of The
Republic of Cicero that treats of Platonic philosophy,
and, in spite of the ban upon his lecturing upon the
subject, he commented without reserve, on the ground
of teaching the classics or eloquence, upon the
1 Collectan. præfat., epist. (1577), pp. 19 ff.
2 It was founded in 1314 by Raoul de Presles, a secretary of
Philip the Fair, according to Waddington. Farrington, from
Jourdain and Chauvin, estimates 1322 as the date.
3 See Nicholas of Nancel, Rami vita, p. 19.
40
PETER RAMUS
Dream of Scipio. Moreover, the two friends again
taught the Latin and Greek authors in the same class,
and joined the study of 'eloquence' with that of
philosophy. While not nominally permitted to teach
philosophy himself, Ramus still insisted upon the need
of the union of the two lines of study, and in October,
1546, delivered his oration upon the subject. To
Το
carry out this idea and yet live within the interdict,
it was arranged that Talon should give a course on
philosophy in the morning, while Ramus lectured
in the afternoon upon rhetoric, illustrating through
the poets, orators, and other authors the usage and
application of the principles of logic. (This double
system of lectures was in itself a startling innovation,
but Ramus undertook to show that it was in keeping
with the intention and example of Aristotle and with
the practice at the College of France, and expressed
the hope that the plan might become general in the
university colleges also.
Such vitality and attractiveness in instruction not
only seemed destructive of the 'arts' traditions, but
soon lured students in large numbers away from all
а.
1 His Somnium Scipionis ex libro sexto Ciceronis de Republica
Petri Rami prelectionibus explicatum was published in 1546.
2 Oratio de studiis philosophie et eloquentiæ conjugendis.
3 See pp. 4 and 15 f.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
41
the other colleges. This was a constant source of
grievance to the conservatives, and, failing in their
attempt to make trouble between Ramus and the
retired principal, Lesage, they constantly complained
officially of this 'subversion of the College of Presles.'2
On several occasions the rectors felt called upon to
investigate, and once Ramus was haled before the
parlement by Galland for this revolutionary offense,
but through the influence of his patron, Charles of
Lorraine, he was acquitted. Moreover, by the
fortunate circumstance of the succession of Henry II
to the throne in 1547, the power of this cardinal
protector, who had been the preceptor of the new
monarch, was greatly increased, and almost his
first act was to procure from the king an abrogation
of the edict against Ramus. The ecclesiastical favor-
ite showed the king the necessity to philosophy of
freedom in thinking and of the right to adopt or
reject without limitation the opinions of Plato,
Aristotle, or any other thinker. The king promptly
1 Banosius, pp. 9 f.; Nancel, p. 18. The accusation of having
forced out the old principal was repeated a decade later by his worst
enemy, Charpentier (Animadversiones adversus P. Ramum, 1555,
et alibi).
2 See Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 399. Ramus was repeatedly
denominated turbator collegii Prællei.
• Ramus, Pro phil. disciplina (in Collectan. præfat., p. 310).
fol. 4 V.,
3
42
PETER RAMUS
1 ܙܕ
canceled the interdict and the parlement registered
his decision. Thus, says Ramus, “the true God who
knows to what end he has produced his creatures,
reserved the conclusion of my case for the good King
Henry, who having heard the controversy recounted,
unbound my tongue and hands, and gave me the
right and power to pursue my studies.” 1
This gave Ramus a latitude in pursuing his studies
and literary work that he was not slow to utilize. In
the Academy (i.e. University) of Talon he had the
story of his persecutions narrated, and through the
offices of the same friend there were published new
editions of the two condemned books with many
modifications and additions. Ramus himself within
a few years collected his commentaries on the letters
of Plato and on the orations and rhetorical works of
Cicero and Quintilian in eight or ten publications,
dedicating most of them to his powerful patron, the
1 See Remonstrance au conseil privé (1567), P. 25.
2 Brutina questiones in Oratorem Ciceronis. 1547 and 1549;
Rhetoria distinctiones (in Quintilianum), 1549; Platonis epistola
a Petro Ramo latinæ factæ, et dialecticis rerum summis breviter
exposita, 1549; M. T. Ciceronis de fato liber, 1550 ; M. T. Cice-
ronis epistola nona ad P. Lentulum dialecticis rerum summis breviter
illustrata, 1550; M. T. Ciceronis pro Caio Rubirio perduellionis reo
oratio, 1551; Prælectiones in librum I Ciceronis de legibus, 1552 ;
M. T. Ciceronis de lege agraria, 1552.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
43
cardinal. In these writings Ramus called for a
more humanistic and methodical treatment of
rhetoric, and even ventured to criticize Cicero and
Quintilian. This insurgency precipitated new at-
tacks by the conservatives. His old opponent Périon,
who had attacked the Animadversions, now took up
the cudgels as vigorously in defense of Cicero. In
the dedication of his work to Du Chastel, who had
brought the former case before the king, he virtuously
declares: “You know that I defended Aristotle
against Ramus four years ago in a lengthy speech and
I now believe that I cannot give up Cicero, the father
of Roman eloquence, to him without a defense.” 1
And addressing the professors of all faculties, he
recalls his former predictions and the threat of
Ramus to reform all the arts, and “not to stop
until logic has been entirely delivered from the dark-
ness of Aristotle and it has been shown how it ought
to be applied to all sciences.”? Périon, therefore,
2
appeals in alarm to his fellow-masters against
“Ramus, who is preparing to reject Hippocrates
and Galen, Euclid and Archimedes, and to declare
that you are ignorant of medicine, geometry, and
1 Pro Ciceronis Oratore contra Petrum Ramum oratio.
2 Preface to the Platonis epistolæ latinæ facta.
44
PETER RAMUS
1
astronomy," and beseeches all “who cherish Cicero
as the father of eloquence to resist Ramus, who
repudiates skill and judgment.” This absurd out-
burst he followed by reprinting his former speeches in
defense of Aristotle against the Animadversions.?
But this excited response was tame in comparison
with the invective that was heaped upon Ramus
because of his criticism of Quintilian. Galland, who
had stirred up much of the fury over the Animadver-
sions, was quite as indignant at the attack of a pro-
fessor of rhetoric upon Quintilian as at a logician
for a criticism of Aristotle. In the dedication of his
edition of Quintilian' to Du Chastel, he assails Ramus
as 'the corrupter of youth' and as a man guilty of
nearly all the vices and crimes in the calendar.
While Ramus followed his custom of not replying to
these anathemas, the whole discussion seems to
have reached such absurd proportions as to amuse
many outside the university circle, and to be of
enough moment to attract the humor of the satirist,
Rabelais, and the poet, Du Bellay. Much fun is
poked at this Petromachy or 'war of the Peters,' and
various changes are rung on the easy puns upon
1 Périon, Pro Ciceronis Oratore, fol. 3.
2 See pp. 32 f.
3 Paris, 1549.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
45
6
a
Peter (“rock'), Ramus (-branch'), and Galland ('gal-
lant').
In fact, this whole 'tempest in a teapot' might
have subsided through ridicule, had it not been for
the entry of a new and more vigorous champion into
the lists against Ramus. This was Jacques Char-
pentier or 'Carpentarius,' a professor in the College
of Boncour and a former pupil of Galland, who re-
mained until death the vicious and implacable enemy
of Ramus. He came of a rich and well-known family
with many powerful patrons, especially among the
clergy, and he had at the age of twenty-five manipu-
lated himself into the rectorship of the university.
Thinking to signalize his induction into office by a
popular stroke, and urged perhaps by Galland, he
began by bringing, in the name of the University,
trumped-up charges against Ramus and accusing him
of violations of the rules. He declared in particular
that the professors of the College of Presles, contrary
to university statute, expounded the poets and ora-
tors, instead of confining themselves to philosophy.
Then, without any investigation of the teaching or any
defense from Ramus, in a packed meeting of his cabi-
1 Rabelais, Pantagruel, 1. IV, Prologue; Du Bellay, Satyre de
Maistre Pierre Cuignet sur la Petromachie de l'Université de Paris; etc.
46
PETER RAMUS
net, he had the students of that college debarred from
the degrees and privileges of the university. A sharp
controversy followed, in which Carpentarius accused
Ramus of treason to the university. And the latter
was convicted by a biased commission of six selected
from the higher faculties. An appeal was had to the
parlement, and once more Ramus was given his
rights through the influence of the Cardinal of Lorraine.
The usual slow procedure was somewhat expedited,
and the vigorous defense made by Ramus for aca-
demic freedom in interpreting Aristotle and other
authors and his protest against the tyrannical rules
and abuses of the university won him from fair-
minded judges a favorable verdict. Although the
University custom was sustained by requiring
the reformer to explain the regular authors in the
way prescribed by the statutes, he was permitted
upon holidays, feast days, Sundays, and such hours
as were left open by the rules, to teach whatever
authors he chose and as freely as he liked. This
amounted to giving him nearly two thirds of the year
to interpret as he wished.
1 The response of Ramus to this charge is embodied in his Pro
philosophica Parisiensis academia disciplina oratio, which he de-
livered in 1551.
THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE
47
But to prevent any recurrence of this chicanery
and persecution, the cardinal now persuaded the
king to establish a new chair of Eloquence and
Philosophy at the College of France, and appoint
Ramus to the position. This step was taken, and,
while as principal of the College of Presles, Ramus
was still amenable to the University, as lecturer
at the Royal College he became dependent only
upon the king. He was thus afforded an unwonted
freedom to develop his reforms, and the hostility
and envy of the Aristotelians and conservatives was
for a brief space estopped.
CHAPTER III
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
Ramus began his new duties in the fall of 1551.
Although only thirty-six, his fame was widespread.
The virulence of his enemies and the stubborn
opposition of the conservatives, quite as much as
his own brilliance and the worth of his reforms, had
centered the attention of the intellectual world
upon him. His opening address at the College of
France was attended by many masters of the
university, members of the parlement, higher clergy,
and persons in all classes to the number of two
thousand. The importance of the occasion as a
crisis in his career and the eloquence of the orator
will perhaps justify quoting this inaugural speech?
at some length:
“There are two things, my hearers, which at the
1 Banosius, p. 10; Nancel, p. 20; Zwinger, Theatrum humanæ
vitæ, p. 3697, col. b.
2 This inaugural address (Oratio initio sua professionis habita)
was published the same year and is still extant.
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
49
beginning of my professorship every one will ex
pect from me; in the first place, that I express my
thanks to those through whom I have been chosen for
this position; in the second place, that I explain
to you the reason for my appointment to the office.
On the 6th of August, when Charles, Cardinal of
Lorraine, brought the case of my teaching to the
notice of King Henry, it pleased the king that I
should be among the number and body of the royal
professors, and that, as I have done from the begin-
ning, I should teach 'eloquence' at the same time
with philosophy, and he announced that decision
to me in an epistle couched in terms of special
honor. Wherefore, I am exceedingly grateful to
Henry of Valois, most Christian of kings, and shall be
as long as life endures. For, my hearers, if a father
with helpless children should find silver, gold, and
great and precious wealth that had been left by his
ancestors, and yet could not on account of the rocks
and the roughness of the ground either carry it home
or share it with his children; and at length some
Hercules, having pitied the wretched fortune of the
father, should rid the place of rocks and roughness,
and should make it quite possible for him to take
it away, share, and enjoy it, would not that happy
a
E
50
PETER RAMUS
father exult with exceeding great joy? What thanks
he would give to that Hercules !
“But I was just such a wretched father for years.
Many pupils had been committed to my care and
affection, and the great and precious wealth of
eloquence’ and philosophy I saw had been left as an
inheritance in the works of the ancient orators, poets,
and philosophers, but overlooked through the care-
lessness of the heirs. And when I desired to collect
it rationally and systematically, to use it suitably in
life, and share it with my pupils, incredibly harsh
conditions hindered and opposed my efforts. Nay,
even my hands were fettered, lest I should take it,
and my lips were sealed, lest I tell some one of it, and
I was forbidden to disclose anything by speech or
writing. Meanwhile, King Henry, a Gallic Hercules,
as it were, came to aid me in my distress, and, four
years ago, at the request of Charles, Cardinal of
Lorraine, unloosed my hands and tongue, and gave
me the power of teaching, practicing, and illustrat-
ing' eloquence' and philosophy. And within the last
few days, when he perceived that the old burdens
were being renewed and made heavier, he even more
bountifully and magnificently revealed his kindness
and decreed that my labors should be not only
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
51
unfettered, but even honored with a royal stipend.
Wherefore, O Henry, most Christian king, should I
say that I owe the life within this body to thee, who
dost free, support, and honor me, I should put it
mildly. I owe to thee that which is far dearer than
my body and life, my soul, whose labors and vigils
are nourished and live through thy benefits, and, I
hope, will be nourished and live to herald thy praise
to future ages.
“The second place for thanks, my hearers, is due to
Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, who, as soon as he
knew my straits, offered to become my patron and
protector, a real Mæcenas in his love of letters
and in his zeal and aid in relieving virtue. Nor
was he attracted by my meager ability so much as
induced by the remarkable excellence of his own
nature and training. I declare the truth, without fear
of contradiction, — since the memory of very many
still living and present will bear witness and give
credence to my speech, — when I say that Charles
of Lorraine from early years was so greatly devoted
to learning and virtue that all of us who knew him
admired the eager mind of the youth.
the youth. His atten-
tion in listening to the master, his meditation and
study of what had been taught, his pains in imitat-
-
52
PETER RAMUS
.
.
ing the example of the author expounded, and his
efforts in practicing every variety of speaking and
writing were of the very highest. Only recently I
have read an elegy of most brilliant language and
thought written by him in the midst of an exceed-
ingly busy life; so sound is the fruit of his well-
rooted learning.
“In my most bitter hours, as I have before inti-
mated, when I was surrounded on all sides by every
sort of annoyance, Charles of Lorraine was my sole
comforter. It is he that has taught King Henry at
all times to be liberal in philosophy toward every one.
Therefore, attribute to Charles of Lorraine the credit
for my being freed and restored by King Henry, and
for the four years that I have pursued my studies in
peace. As the latest favor, this last winter, when I
was indicted and called into court, because I joined
'eloquence' with philosophy (in my teaching), how
great was his kindness and equity in perceiving and
expediting the whole affair! He heard first that a
most serious charge had been made. Some one
declared that I was an Academic, an enemy to God
and humanity, fouting all laws, human and divine,
and even teaching my pupils to scorn them, that I
expounded misleading passages of St. Augustine in
6
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
53
66
the interest of unbridled and impious license, and
that, in order to abuse unguarded minds more
easily, I wished to eliminate all logical disputations
(from the curriculum of my college).
When the cardinal told me at dinner of this and
bade me answer, — ‘Alas !' I cried, 'my Mæcenas,
what do I hear? Out of what occurrences in my
entire life could any one fabricate so false a suspicion
and base a slander ? For I subscribe to, know, and
approve of no curriculum, save that which is con-
sistent and harmonious with the true and useful
precepts of grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy, our
state, and the Christian religion. Quite contrary to
this absurd piece of mendacity, I maintain the
principles of the true and useful arts, illustrate them
with examples, and exercise and practice them daily.
So far am I from scorning them or teaching others
to do so! My books, inscribed with familiar exam-
ples from the poets, orators, and philosophers, I
have shown thee. Nor have I cited misleading pas-
sages from Augustine, and, I believe, there is no
college in the entire university in which logical
disputations are more diligently pursued than in
mine. Wherefore, my Mæcenas, in the name of the
living God, most just and holy, exert thy valor and
54
PETER RAMUS
1
.
vindicate my innocence of this foul and horrid charge.
Such are the accusations under which I am con-
demned, unless thou bearest me aid !'
Thereupon, my hearers, I witnessed the indigna-
tion of this most noble and virtuous cardinal violently
aroused by such an atrocity. On the next day, then,
he demanded of the president of the parlement that
my case be at once brought to trial. ... They
who were present can remember with what true and
weighty words the cardinal assailed my accusers.
With equal firmness the next day the judge sat in
the court for almost three continuous hours and ...
heard the case. At the close he and the parlement
decided unanimously that my students should be
completely restored to their former privileges, that
lectures on philosophy should be given at the regular
hours on the days ordinarily set for university
sessions, and that in the remaining hours of the
regular days I might lecture upon the poets, orators,
and other classic authors, instead of upon phi-
losophy. And it was just this union of 'eloquence
and philosophy for which I had been so long con-
tending!
Therefore, my Mæcenas, by gaining this most
righteous verdict, thou hast obtained leisure and
66
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
55
peace for my studies, and sincerity and truth for phi-
losophy. ... And when the university of Paris shall
come to realize how vast and infinite a benefit thou
hast bestowed, she will hail thee as her Mæcenas,
and not mine alone. She will compare thee not
only to the great cardinals of the ages, but will judge
that Charles the Great (Charlemagne), her founder,
has miraculously returned in the guise of Charles of
Lorraine to mold and complete. the crude and
inchoate beginnings of his ancient university. Since
such is the case, my hearers, in my own name and
that of the state, I render most hearty thanks to
Charles of Lorraine.”
In an equally poetic way he followed the account
of his vindication with a general exposition of his
ethical and educational ideas. At the close of the
oration he was met with deafening plaudits from the
assembly, in which were seated many of his adver-
saries. This brilliant inauguration was the fore-
runner of a most remarkable career. The utterances
.
of Ramus were no longer confined to the students of
a single college, but resounded throughout Paris, and
an innumerable body of students not only from all
parts of France, but from many other countries of
Europe, flocked to hear him. He realized that the
56
PETER RAMUS
friends who had stood by him had formed high ex-
pectations of his achievements, and never allowed his
work to fall below the best of which he was capable.
Instead of the ordinary routine method of droning
through a commentary upon a given passage, he made
a treatment of the author that was at once free and
interesting, and gave illustrations and applications
that greatly added to the value of his exposition.
The material of his lectures on the classics he soon
began to publish, and rapidly put out a number of
commentaries relating to the works of Cicero,
Vergil, and Cæsar. His interest in philosophy and
logic, however, did not flag, and he took advantage of
the new liberty given him to show in his lectures on
the poets and orators the way in which the principles
of logic obtained in any work of the intellect. Hence
he revived his old method of joining the study of ‘elo-
quence' with that of philosophy. Similarly, when-
ever he explained any classical author, he endeavored
1 M. Tulii Ciceronis de lege agraria contra P. Servilium Rullum
tribunum plebis orationes tres (1552), M. T. Ciceronis in L. Catilinam
orationes IIII (1553), P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica (1555), P.
Virgilii Maronis Georgica (1556), M. T. Ciceronis de optimo genere
oratorum præfatio (1556), Ciceronianus (1557), M. T. Ciceronis
familiarium epistolarum libri XVI (1557), Liber de moribus veterum
Gallorum (1559), Liber de Cæsaris Militia (1559).
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
57
to see what art or science he could teach through this
medium. Thus the orations and the treatise On
Fate of Cicero served as texts on rhetoric and dialec-
tic, the Georgics of Vergil were used as a means
of teaching 'physics' or natural science, and the
Dream of Scipio in Cicero's Republic for treating
astronomy. He felt that he might thus advance
the study of the liberal arts and make them more
useful. This practical tendency of his teaching
caused his opponents to give him the nickname of
usuarius, or 'utilitarian.'1
In fact, Ramus planned nothing short of a reform
of all the liberal arts, and during this period wrote
most of his works upon each of the disciplines in the
trivium. In grammar he published his lectures on
Priscian and other grammarians under the title of
Studies in Grammar. This was not merely a criti-
cal treatise, but undertook to establish construc-
tive principles. About the same time he put out
works upon Latin grammar, and in the succeeding
3
220.
1 See Turnebi disputatio ad librum Ciceronis De Fato (1556), fol.
If ‘pragmatist’ were not so modern, it would render this word
most aptly.
2 Scholæ Grammaticæ (1559).
* Grammaticæ libri quattuor (1559) and Rudimenta grammatice
(1559).
58
PETER RAMUS
years he wrote treatises upon Greek grammar,' and
even a work on the vernacular, which ran through
many editions. On rhetoric Ramus also produced
reform works. The critical treatises on Cicero and
Quintilian, which had led to such an uproar, he
now modified and united under the less aggressive
title of Studies in Rhetoric.4 The more constructive,
if no less difficult, task of positively formulating the
principles of rhetoric from his point of view he left
to his colleague, who published during the early part
of this period the Lectures of Omer Talon on Rhetoric.5
Ramus also continued his works upon dialectic. While
he still felt that all the liberal arts were merely applica-
v tions of this subject, he published separate treatises
upon it. First of all, however, there appeared a
much improved edition of the Institutions of Dialectic.
The next year was printed his vernacular work on the
subject," which is considered by some8 to be his mast
6
1 Grammatica græca (1560) and Rudimenta grammatica græca
(1560).
2 Gramere (1562), afterward (1567, 1572, 1587, etc.) Grammaire
de Pierre de la Ramée.
3 See pp. 42 ff.
4 Scholæ rhetoricæ.
5 Prælectiones in A. Talaei rhetoricam, 1554 and 1562.
6 See pp. 30 f.
Dialectique (1555).
& See Cousin, Fragments Philosophiques Modernes, I, p. 14.
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
59
a
important contribution to philosophy, and in the two
years following he published respectively his final
word on logic in two books, and a modified and much
enlarged edition of the Animadversions ? in twenty
books which he called Studies in Dialectic.3
Thus by 1559 the position of Ramus with regard
to the trivium, or elementary liberal arts, had been
fairly formulated, and he was now at liberty to under-
take works on the quadrivium, especially mathematics.
In this subject, however, he was one of the path-
breakers, as not much had been done up to this time
at the University of Paris. He thus had need of
instructing himself before attempting to impart his
knowledge to others. He had been one of the best
pupils of Oronce Finée,4 the first professor of mathe-
matics at the University, and while still at the College
of Ave Maria, he had produced a translation of the
first six books of Euclid, in which he tried to apply
logic to the presentation of the subject." Eleven
years later he had published an elementary arithe
metic.6 He now returned to the study of geometry
with great ardor. For a time, however, he tells us,
1 Dialecticæ libri duo (1556).
3 Scholæ dialecticæ (1557).
5
2
See
4 See p. 18.
5 Euclides (1554). See p. 164.
6 Arithmeticæ libri tres (1555).
P. IO.
60
PETER RAMUS
he was unable to get beyond the tenth book of Euclid
and abandoned the subject in disgust. “But soon,'
says he, “I was ashamed of stopping so, and bringing
myself back to the place where I had gone astray
I devoured the tenth book, and continued the study
of pyramids, prisms, cubes, spheres, cones, and
cylinders. Moreover, once I had clambered over
the first crags and learned the elements of Euclid, I
read through the Spherics of Theodosius and the
Cylindrics of Archimedes. I had already mastered
I
Apollonius, Serenus, and Pappus, and after a few
months I was able to pierce the last mysteries of
geometry.' From this account it can be realized
how difficult was the study of geometry at that time.
He who would master it had largely to make his own
translation from the very imperfect editions of the
Greek mathematicians as he went along. Ramus
worked at the subject persistently, both alone and
with chosen pupils, and not only made himself one
of the leading mathematicians of France in his day,
but helped to train a number of distinguished mathe-
matical scholars.
He did not, however, begin to work on the subject
in earnest until he had been able to secure more
1 ܙܙ
.
1 Oratio de professione liberalium artium (1563).
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
61
leisure and material. Later he was able to procure
copies of the Greek mathematicians from the royal
library at Fontainebleau, some of the treasures from
Venice and the Vatican through the Italian ambassa-
dors, and works from foreign scholars, like Camera-
rius and Rheticus of Germany and Ascham of Eng-
land. From 1566 on he gave considerable time to
mathematics. While he had Forcadel, whom he had
nominated for a professorship in the Royal College,
teach arithmetic and geometry in French, he himself
lectured on the Greek mathematicians, of whom he
had obtained copies. He also bought or had copied
manuscripts of Archimedes, Proclus, and others, and
had several of the young mathematicians translate
them into Latin under his direction. Within a
space of four years he wrote some five or six important
works on mathematics in Latin or French.?
Just before this, while he was enduring an exile
of which we shall shortly hear, Ramus also found
time to complete the only one of his treatises that
1 Nancel, Epistolæ, p. i, 1. 61.
2 Actiones duæ mathematicæ (1566), Préface sur le Proëme des
Mathématiques (1566), Prooemium mathematicum (1567), Geome-
triæ libri septem et viginti (1569), and Scholarum mathematicarum
libri unus et triginta (1569), are still in existence.
62
PETER RAMUS
we have upon Physics, or natural science. It was
taught in the College of France and elsewhere, and
he would gladly have devoted much of his life to
furthering it, had it not been for the persecutions
that were now approaching. After his return to
Paris the book was sent to press.
It must not be supposed that the enemies of Ramus
were idle during this period of his productiveness or
that this reform of the matter and method of the liberal
arts was carried on without a struggle. But the con-
troversies were of much the same type of guerilla
warfare that he had previously endured and had
about as little result. A typical instance is his
quarrel with the doctors of the Sorbonne over pro-
nunciation. The professors of the College of France
tried to bring back the original pronunciation of
Latin in place of the erroneous and slipshod methods
into which the university colleges had degenerated.
The chief point of discussion was the pronunciation of
qu,
from which combination the Sorbonists were wont
to omit the u in speaking. For example, they pro-
nounced the Latin words as kiskis, kankam, kantus,
and kalis instead of giving the initial value of kw.
Similarly, h in mihi was pronounced gutturally as ch.
1 Scholarum physicarum libri octo (1565).
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
63
In the controversy which followed, it is even said 1
that one of the reformers was summoned before
parlement and prosecuted for grammatical ‘heresy,'
and, had it not been for Ramus and his other col-
leagues, who attended the trial and gave the judges
to understand that grammar was out of their juris-
diction, it might have fared badly with the luckless
professor. The contest over the reforms of Ramus
in rhetoric was also continued by Galland, Périon,
and their sympathizers.
But the most rabid opposition was raised to the
positions of our reformer on logic. Here Car-
pentarius, jealous and thirsting for revenge after
his defeat in 1551, was most persistent and
bitter. He did not dare attack Ramus as
lecturer in the Royal College, but the latter's
position in the College of Presles enabled him to
renew all his virulent methods. He again insisted
3
i Crevier (Hist. de l'Univ. de Paris, 1. X, $ 2) claims that the
whole story of prosecution for heresy in grammar is very unlikely,
although one would hesitate on that account to impeach wholesale,
as he does, all the testimony offered by the Ramists. The incident
is narrated by Ramus himself (Schol. gram., 1. II) and confirmed by
Zwinger (Theatrum humanæ vitæ, Vol. IV, 1. 1, p. 1100), and, as
Waddington intimates (pp. 87 f.), there were few lengths to which
the theologians of the day would not go.
? See pp. 32 ff. and 43 ff.
3 See pp. 45 ff.
64
PETER RAMUS
that the reformer was breaking the university
statutes when he taught Aristotle by going freely
from idea to idea rather than by the traditional word-
for-word method, and he opposed more vigorously
than before the union of the study of 'eloquence'
with that of philosophy. Happily, however, the parle-
ment held to its previous decision to let Ramus teach
as he wished on some two hundred days of the year
and at odd hours on other days. Thereupon,
Carpentarius, under the pretext of a commentary
on the Institutions of Ramus, let loose the vials of
his wrath. In this pamphlet he repeats all the pet
epithets with which he had previously assailed him.
Ramus is called 'slanderer,' 'plagiarist,' 'sophist,'
‘comedian,' skeptic,' and 'corrupter of youth. He
brutally recalls the verdict of the king a dozen
years before, and gets a malicious pleasure out of
the fact that Ramus was constantly modifying his
statements about dialectic. He mocks the reform-
er's pretensions to dignity and jests about his long
beard, declaring that without such artificial aid he
himself had been able to attain to the rectorship.
1 See p. 46.
2 Jacobi Carpentarii Animadversiones in libros tres Dialecticarum
institutionum Petri Rami (1555).
3 See pp. 34 ff.
4 See footnote 3, p. 65.
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
65
Ramus did not consider this mountebank worthy
of a reply, but the case seemed different when criti-
cism was offered by Adrien Turnebus. The latter
was a learned professor and a man of character
and social position, but he had been piqued because
the loss occasioned by the death of his predecessor
in the College of France had in a eulogyl by Ramus
been declared to be quite irreparable. In editing the
De Fato of Cicero, Turnebus embraced the oppor-
tunity for venting his displeasure upon Ramus, who
had commented upon the same work. In this work
Turnebus criticizes the modifications which Ramus
made in his dialectic works as his knowledge broad-
ened. He accuses him of inconsistency and instabil-
ity, and asks: “Which is your genuine position in so
many shifting editions ? Do you yourself know what
1 The predecessor of Turnebus in the lectureship was Jacques
Tousan, who had been one of the former teachers of Ramus, and
had given him much encouragement in his ideas on logic. See
preface to his Platonis Epistola, and Collectan. præfat., pp. 99 f.
3
•
2 The title of the book shows his animus : Ad. Turnebi disputatio
ad librum Ciceronis de fato, adversus quemdam qui non solum
logicus esse, verum etiam dialecticus haberi vult (1556).
3 While Ramus did not answer this common criticism at the
time, he had the year before said in the preface to his Dialectique:
"But truly this inconsistency is praised as a real consistency not
only by Horace and Apelles, but also by philosophers, especially
Aristotle, who teaches us that philosophy ought, for the sake of
F
66
PETER RAMUS
you wish ?” And again he declares: “It is a poor way
to conceal your ignorance by unceasingly slandering
the great authors. You have only gained thereby a
sad reputation for ignorance, impudence, and vanity.”
Ramus felt that an adverse opinion from such a
source must be met, and while he could not openly
break his custom of keeping silent under criticism,
without loss of time he issued under the name of
Talon a dignified and courteous reply. He made
it very clear that he did not rank Turnebus with
Carpentarius, and rebuked him mildly for his attack.
Turnebus in turn replied through a friend, and the
quarrel stopped with mutual respect, if not agree-
ment, and before long the two scholars became firm
friends.
Thus Ramus escaped practically unscathed from
the various attacks upon his reforms, and, as the
years passed, his reputation as an educator grew
constantly greater. During this period of prosperity,
too, he was able to demonstrate his gifts as an orator
truth, to criticize not only all others, but also itself. Moreover,
this consistency, accused of being inconsistency, is ordained of
God and of Nature, as a difficult and slippery ascent, by walking
up which we discover and define the only road to the knowledge
of science and learning.”
1 A. Talei Admonitio ad 1. Turnebum (1556).
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
67
peoples pard
and diplomat. He was chosen by the university to
represent it before the king upon various occasions.
In 1557, especially, he was greatly commended for
pleading the cause of the university under very
important circumstances. A quarrel of long stand-
ing between students of the university and the monks
of St. Germain over the possession of the 'student
fields' (Pré-aux-clercs) had broken out again with
much violence and rioting. While the students
were mostly to blame for stirring up the old dispute,
they were not the first to shed blood. Yet they
alone suffered for the disturbance. The parlement
condemned one student to be hanged and burnt,
For a former (1548) outbreak, during which the students
devastated the abbey gardens and broke the windows of the mon-
astery with stones, see Du Boulay, Hist. de l'Univ. de Paris, t. VI,
pp. 406 ff. While Ramus apparently tried on this occasion to pacify
the students by haranguing them, he was ever afterward, on the
strength of his speech, accused by his enemies of further inciting
the students. E.g. Félibien, Hist. de l'Abbaye royal de Saint Ger-
main-des-Prés, p. 185, and Hist. de la ville de Paris, t. II, pp. 102–
105 ff. But Du Boulay and De Thou do not even mention Ramus
in the affair. In fact, the evidence against Ramus seems to come
from a prejudiced source, Jacques du Breul, who was a member
of the order and declares he was present at the riot. See Theatre
des antiquitez de Paris (1612), 1, II, pp. 385 f.
2 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 491 ff.; Crevier, Hist. de l'Univ.
de Paris, t. VI, 29 ff.; Félibien, Histoire de la ville de Paris, t. II,
Pp. 125 ff.
*)
68
PETER RAMUS
C
and others, who had been arrested, seemed to be
doomed. The same tribunal ordered that the gates
of the university colleges be closed at six every
evening, the students disarmed, and all public
lectures suspended. Moreover, the king, hearing
of the riot and being exceedingly wroth, confiscated
the fields, required all foreign students to leave the
kingdom within a fortnight, and expelled the 'externs,'
or students living at Paris with their parents, from
the university. In dismay the faculties sent a
delegation to the king, to secure some modification
of the judgment. Ramus was a member of this
commission, and, through his eloquence and his
influence with the Cardinal of Lorraine, its most
influential member, met with great success. Upon
the promise of reform, the king was at length per-
suaded, quite contrary to all expectations, to revoke
the measures against the university, reprieve the
condemned students, restore the public lectures,
countermand the banishment of the foreign students,
and order parlement to stop its prosecutions. The
delegates were overwhelmed with praise, especially
Ramus, when by request he gave in a public address
an account of the whole affair. But the king was
also inclined to insure the fulfillment of the promised
PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE
69
academic reforms, and insisted upon the selection
of a special committee of seven to investigate and
propose what would be most necessary and useful
for the improvement of the institution. Ramus was
appointed by the faculty of arts, together with his
old opponent, Carpentarius, and the report that
he offered later was most important in its effects
upon the University of Paris in particular.?
Another diplomatic mission of Ramus that was of
great service to education was his securing the arrears
in salary due the professors in the College of France.
During the one-year reign of Francis II and the first
three years of Charles IX's reign, the Guises were
in complete control of the government, and the
finances were notoriously mismanaged. For two years
the professors of the Royal College failed to receive
their stipends, although they continued conscien-
tiously to fulfill their duties, and in 1561 Ramus was
sent to petition the king. He was also commissioned
to solicit a confirmation and renewal of the privileges
for the university, as had to be done at the beginning
of each reign. Although his patron, the Cardinal
1 See pp. 78 ff.
2 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 489 and 517 f.; Félibien, op. cit.,
t. II, pp. 1057 f.
3 See pp. II ff.
70
PETER RAMUS
of Guise, was no longer at the court to intercede
for him, the Prince of Condé, who was in favor with
the queen-mother, and other persons of prominence
supported his claim and enabled him to bring back a
goodly portion of the accrued salaries and all the
former charters and privileges of the university,
bound in a single volume. His zeal and tact aroused
great enthusiasm in the academic circles, and an ac-
count of his services to the university was inscribed
at the end of the manuscript of privileges.
Hence by 1561 nearly all the old adversaries of
Ramus, including even the fanatical Galland and the
þffended Turnebus, had been conquered through his
Bi
þersistence and evident sincerity. Esteem succeeded
hostility with every one save Carpentarius. The op-
position of that unprincipled leader was now increased
through envy, for Ramus had come into high favor
with king, parlement, and university.
1 See pp. 11 ff.
CHAPTER IV
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
Much of the prestige that Ramus had obtained
would seem to have been due to the friendship of the
Guises, who were so influential in church and state.
It now remains for us to see the effect upon his career
of becoming a Protestant and so sacrificing their
friendship. The Duke of Guise and his brother, the
Cardinal of Lorraine, represented the extreme Catho-
lic party, and Ramus, while endeavoring to dethrone
Aristotle, had remained a member of the church in
good standing. Until 1561 he maintained in his own
life all the observances of a zealous Catholic. He
went to mass every morning at six, and, under
penalty of a severe reprimand, required the same
practice of the students in the College of Presles.
He was attached to Mother Church by bonds of
unusual emotion and material interest, but the pro-
cess of his conversion, while slow, was inevitable. He
was too clear-headed not to have misgivings as to
the efficacy of the ritual and dominant theology of
1 Nancel, op. cit., pp. 23 f., 53, 70.
71
72
PETER RAMUS
the church of the times, and his personal and pro-
fessional associations all tended to draw him into the
Protestant camp. The medieval Aristotle, whom
he had vigorously assailed, was still protected by
the church, and the two were so thoroughly identified
as to be almost indistinguishable. Those who de-
parted from the traditional views of the Greek phi-
losopher were reputed to be heretics, and it could
not be denied that such reformers as Luther, Zwingli,
and Calvin had first dreamed of suppressing Aris-
totle. Moreover, the clergy were generally very
ignorant, and an intellectual man was bound to find
himself associated, to a great extent, with the Hugue-
nots, who at the time had nearly a monopoly of learn-
ing. A majority of the professors at the College
of France were actually Protestants or suspected of
being such, and many of the patrons and friends
of Ramus were more or less under the influence of
the new religion. A large number of his pupils
3
Rapin, Réflexions sur l'usage de la philosophie, g VI.
2 Two of the propositions of Luther condemned in 1521 by the
faculty of theology at Paris related definitely to Aristotelianism.
See also pp. 5 ff.
3 It is said that even the Cardinal of Lorraine sympathized
secretly with the aims of Protestantism, and his attitude at the
Colloquy of Poissy points that way. Jean de Montluc, bishop
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
73
at the College of Presles, too, were of Huguenot
parentage, or became converted through the influ-
ence of the school.
Ramus himself was early suspected 1 of Calvinistic
1
leanings. Ascham even wrote to Sturm in 1552
that one of the pupils of Ramus had stated that
while his master's convictions were secretly Protes-
tant, he still hesitated to make an open confession
of his faith. But for nearly a decade longer Ramus
protested his attachment to the church, and insisted
that he had attacked Aristotle simply in the name of
the Gospel, on the ground that his Ethics was hereti-
cal and pagan. The immediate cause of his conver-
sion was the Colloquy of Poissy. This conference
took place in September, 1561, with the idea of
bringing out a discussion of the points of difference
between Catholics and Protestants and so effecting
some degree of toleration between the two parties,
but it resulted only in increasing the bitterness.4
Strangely enough, it was not the speech of Theodore
3
of Valence, was also sympathetically inclined, and frequently
showed himself a good friend to the Protestants.
Nancel, op. cit., pp. 33 and 63.
2 Letters of Ascham (Oxford, 1703), Book I, Letter 9.
3 Du Verdier, Bibliothèque française, article on Aristotle.
1
4 See p. 74.
74
PETER RAMUS
2
Beza,' the able exponent of Calvinism, that convinced
Ramus, but the argument made in reply by the Car-
dinal of Lorraine. That prelate publicly admitted all
the abuses of the church, the vices of the clergy, and
the superiority of the primitive church to that of
the day, but did not grant the obvious conclusion.?
Ramus and others felt it forced upon them. A
letter written by Ramus to his former patron some
nine years later states definitely how the address
affected him. He says in part:
“It is not through myself, it is through your favor
(the greatest of all the many you have heaped upon
me) that I have come to understand the precious
truth, so well presented in your discourse at the
Colloquy of Poissy: namely, that of the fifteen cen-
turies which have passed since the advent of Christ,
the first was truly the 'golden age,' and that, in pro-
portion as it has been departed from, all ages which
have followed have been more vicious and corrupt.
Hence, having to choose between these different ages
1 See p. 10.
Guillemin, Le Cardinal de Lorraine, p. 487.
3 The colloquy is now believed to have greatly increased the
number of Huguenots. See Crevier, op. cit., t. VI, p. 127; Pueux,
Hist. de la Réformation Française, Book IX, Chaps. VIII-XIII.
Among the converts was also Caraccioli, bishop of Troyes.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
73
1
of Christianity, I attached myself to the 'golden
age,' and since that time I have never ceased to read
the best writings of theology. I have put myself in
harmony and communication with the theologians
themselves as far as I could; and have further, for
my own edification, written Commentaries upon the
chief points of religion.”
Thus, having once started on the new line of
thought, Ramus went the full way. The commen-
taries mentioned above were the result of his attempt
to apply dialectic to theology, as he had to all the
other sciences of the day, but they were not completed
until after his contact with the reformed theologians
in Switzerland, and were published after his death.
He began to absent himself from mass and the other
usages of the church, and even quietly protested
against them. To an intimate friend he declared
that “two things have been especially misunder-
stood and distorted by all Christians of latter days,
to wit, the sacrament of the Holy Supper, and the
second commandment in the law, which forbids all
worship of images; so much so that, in these two
respects, under the pretext of piety, we have fallen
more and more into an execrable idolatry.' Of
"! 2
1 Collect. præf., pp. 257 f.
2 Banosius, op. cit., p. 25.
.
76
PETER RAMUS
1
course no sentiment could be more clearly Protestant
than this, and we cannot be surprised to find that
Ramus now, while not openly out of communion with
the church, showed great toleration, if not marked
favor, to all Huguenots among his students. It
seems hardly possible that he ever went to Protestant
services, much less that he took his students there,
as did some professors, but it is more than likely that
he was among those intended to be reprimanded by
the rector in his address of November 30, 1561.
And it is certain that the students of the College of
Presles were generally becoming reformed and de-
serting the Catholic observances. A pupil of Ramus
tells us that at the Feast of the Passover in 1562 he
and his master were the only two communicants in
the chapel, except for one visitor, who had strayed in.2
The Reformation, however, had grown to such
proportions that the queen-mother, upon the advice
of the fair-minded chancellor of the kingdom, Michel
de l'Hospital, felt obliged to issue the Edict of Tol-
eration. While this did not go the full distance and
allow the Protestants to worship in the cities or in
1 See the account of Crevier (op. cit., t. VI, p. 126) and of Du
Boulay (op. cit., p. 545).
Nancel, op. cit., p. 72.
$ See p. 12.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
77
the evening, it was hailed with great delight on the
part of the Huguenots and with much indignation and
opposition from the Catholics. The students of the
College of Presles celebrated the event by bursting
into the chapel and tearing down the images and
statues. Ramus, of course, had little to do with such
a desecration, but he received the full blame. His
opponents incited the populace against him, and
denounced him to the university authorities as an
iconoclast, but an învestigation by the rector failed
to reveal the evidence desired against him. On the
other hand, the rector and a majority of the princi-
pals of the university colleges made a violent demon-
stration against the decree, and exhausted every
expedient to prevent the parlement from registering
it. When, after two months of delay," the parle-
ment did finally register the obnoxious edict, all the
smoldering wrath of the Guise party burst into
flame. The Duke of Guise declared openly that
“his sword would never be sheathed until he com-
a
1 Nancel, op. cit., p. 73.
2 Banosius, op. cit., p. 24; Nancel, op. cit., p. 71; and Du Boulay,
op. cit., t. VI, p. 549.
3 Du Boulay, op. cit., pp. 549 f.; Génébrard, Chronographie,
p. 746.
• Crevier, op. cit., t. VI, p. 129.
5 See pp. 11 ff.
78
PETER RAMUS
pelled every Frenchman to become a Catholic or
leave the realm.” 1
By this time Ramus must have completely sacri-
ficed all his influence with the Guises. As will be
seen later, his warm patron, the Cardinal of Lor-
raine, had completely turned against him. While
himself inclined toward the position of the Protes-
tants, statecraft forced him to become their most
bitter opponent. Meanwhile, despite these dis-
turbed conditions, Ramus continued to produce his
works on the liberal arts, and in this very year of
conflict (1562), as a member of the committee to
which he had been chosen five years previously, he
presented his report upon academic reform to the
king and queen-mother. This Advice on the Reforma-
tion of the University of Paris: boldly attributes many
of the abuses that had sprung up to the unlimited
number of professors. “For, instead of a given
1 Pasquier, Lettres, 1. IV, 10.
2 See p. 120.
3 Advertissements sur la réformation de l'université de Paris au
roy, or, in the Latin edition, Proæmium reformande Parisiensis
academiæ ad regem, was published anonymously, but, coming
from the press of André Wéchel, his coreligionist and regular
publisher, its origin was evident, especially as, from internal evi-
dence, the author was clearly a Protestant, a professor of philosophy,
a royal lecturer, and a member of the commission of investigation.
See Archives Curieuses de l'Histoire de France, t. 5, pp. 115–163.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
79
number of doctors for teaching, an infinity of men
have been raised up, who, provided they have ac-
quired the name and degree of master in the faculty
of which they make profession, whether ignorant or
learned, without other selection, have undertaken to
make a trade of teaching philosophy, medicine, juris-
prudence, or theology. Hence has arisen the storm
which has despoiled all our fields."1 But while the in-
structors have gradually multiplied, the number
of students has remained practically the same, and
the result has been a great increase in the fees for tui-
tion and degrees. Thus, for philosophy, the expense
of the pupils, which was first fixed by ordinance and
statute at four to six écus at the most, had finally
been raised to fifty or fifty-six livres.? Later, he
shows that the professional faculties have become
even more disproportionate. The faculty of law,
in obedience to the statute of 1534, is content with
twenty-eight écus per student, but “the faculties of
medicine and theology, in comparison with that of
>
2
1 Advertissements, p. 8.
2 The écu mentioned must have been the écu d'or, as the silver
coin of that name was not introduced until 1642, and the franc
d'argent, often called écu, was not authorized until 1575. The gold
piece was worth a little more than fifty sols, or two and one half
livres, and, judged by the weight and fineness of the American
80
PETER RAMUS
2
philosophy, which has only quadrupled its former
revenue, have increased their fees, not in arithmetical
proportion, which would have been beneath their
dignity, but in geometrical proportion." 1 The pro-
fessors of medicine, instead of twenty-eight écus,
now ask eight hundred and eighty livres, without
counting the presents to apothecaries and barbers,
their former pupils, while the theologians demand
of their unfortunate students more than one thousand
livres. This large sum is distributed from the begin-
ning of the course under some thirty items, which in-
clude fees for the professors, priors, porters, and presi-
dent, for the banquets and suppers of the teachers,
president, classmates, and examiners; and for the
various grades of examination, theses, seals, degrees,
sermons, hoods, and perquisites. Moreover, even
the honor of being proclaimed first at the master's
examination can be bought for a high price. With
regard to these unnecessary expenses, Ramus asks :-
“Of what use are so many gloves, caps, banquets,
dollar, worth something over two dollars. Hence the fees in this
case were raised approximately from $8 or $12 to $40 or $44.80;
i.e. they were practically quadrupled. Of course the purchasing
value was much greater than it would be for the same sums to-day.
1 Op. cit., p. 18.
2 Op. cit., p. 24.
3 Op. cit., pp. 27 ff. Cf. also pp. II, 22,
for the expenses
of the other degrees.
9
and 59
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
81
to prove the diligence and competency of the stu-
dents? Where do so many purses go, and to what use
are they converted? They are partly distributed to
the procurers, receivers, singers, and priests who say
mass and solemn vespers; a good part of this money
is even spent on candles for the Day of Purification.
In short, the money and the receipt of the degree
are administered in such a fashion that those who do
the least service for the students receive the most
spoils from them. By an ordinance then, sire, abol-
ish that numerous troop of professors, select worthy
and competent men as lecturers, remove those ex-
penses and charges, not only the unnecessary, but
even the former fees, for it is an unworthy thing that
the road to knowledge should be closed and for-
bidden to the poor, no matter how learned and well
educated they may be, and it cannot at present be
otherwise, because of the expenses and necessary
charges. Sire, but say the word. Numerous con-
vents, monasteries, colleges, and canonries of the city
of Paris will think themselves happy and greatly
honored to furnish these expenses and will easily
and promptly do so, if only you command them.
Bring it to pass that the only legitimate expenditures
for the scholar shall be those of his living, dress,
82
PETER RAMUS
books, work, vigils, and the pursuit of letters for the
greater part of his life.” 1
He gives a further description of the abuses. The
infinitude of masters not only has engendered in-
finite
expense, but has produced neglect in the matter
and method of instruction. The faculty of arts is
perhaps the least reprehensible in this direction, but
the abandonment of the public lectures in the
Rue du Fouarre 2 and the substitution of inferior
private instruction by each college has been unfor-
tunate. It is especially to be regretted that the
teachers of philosophy use the questioning method in
Aristotle and require nothing in the way of real
practice in the use of logic. The grammarians and
rhetoricians, however, have set them an example, as
they have come to discuss the rules but little, and
train their pupils through reading and imitating
good authors. The situation is still worse in the pro-
fessional faculties. In the faculty of law, only canon
law is taught, and the civil law is entirely neglected.
The professors of medicine and theology are even too
lazy to do anything more than preside at the presen-
tation of theses or at public debates, and out of their
1 Op. cit., pp. 13 ff.
* See pp. 13 ff.
Cf. pp. 25, 26, 34, etc.
3 op. cit., pp. 35 ff.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
83
enormous salaries pay a few écus to any bachelor
or newly made master that they can get to do their
work for them. For the same reason, in medicine the
practical exercises in searching after and analyzing
herbs and simples, in experimenting with their effects
upon the body, and in discussing symptoms and reme-
dies are totally neglected; and the theologians are
likewise too lazy to be anything but blissfully igno-
rant of the Scriptures."
The remedy of Ramus for both this exorbitant
cost and this inferiority of university training is
exceedingly simple, but apparently very revolution-
ary. He proposes that the king appoint a small
number of public professors, who shall be paid by the
state, and teach the various branches of philosophy,
law, medicine, and theology, and lay aside all dispu-
tations and barren argumentations. Thus he would
have strong, regular, and gratuitous instruction given
in all the faculties. Specifically, he would establish
in the faculty of arts a chair in mathematics and add
work in ‘physics'; in the faculty of law, instruction in
civil law; in the faculty of medicine, chairs of botany,
anatomy, and pharmacy, and the genuine practice
of medicine under the supervision of the professors;
1 Op. cit., pp. 61 and 82.
84
PETER RAMUS
and finally, in theology, besides the regular lectures,
he would give the students a training in the study
of the Bible and the interpretation of both testaments
in their original languages. Further, he suggests that
a line of demarcation be drawn between these higher
subjects and the lower work in grammar, rhetoric,
and dialectic, and that the latter studies be relegated
to the colleges, which, after the establishment of
public chairs, would otherwise be without a function.
These suggestions were badly received at the time
Ramus offered them, but they were largely carried
out in the succeeding reigns of Henry III and Henry
IV. In the suggested distinction between secondary
and superior instruction, however, he anticipated a
movement that was not realized until after the
French Revolution.
Throughout this treatise on academic reform the
attitude of Ramus toward the theologians and the
clergy, together with his insistence upon a purified
Bible and the careful study of the Scriptures, shows
how much further he had progressed in Calvinism.
In every reform suggested he now appears in spirit
to be a zealous Protestant. His religious practices
reveal a similar change. This is seen in the character
of the worship in his college chapel. He here modi-
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
85
one.1
fied the nature of the sermons, abolished services for
the dead and prayers to the saints, and followed in
general a service very different from the orthodox
This afforded his enemies a hold upon him
that they had never been able to secure through his
heresies in philosophy and rhetoric.
Meanwhile, the bitterness between Catholic and
Huguenot had been increasing. Owing to the politi-
cal ambitions of the Guises on the one hand and the
'Huguenots of State on the other, the chancellor of
the realm had been unable to bring about the peace
and harmony for which he had striven. The massacre
at Vassy occurred (1562), and became the signal for
the outbreak of the first of the civil wars. The out-
raged Huguenots, despairing of justice, flew to arms,
and France was deluged with blood. In July of this
year the war governor of Paris banished all Calvinists
from the city, and Ramus was forced to flee. He left
the administration of the College of Presles to one of
his professors, but the absent principal was declared
a traitor, and his office was turned over to a more
orthodox, if somewhat ignorant, incumbent. Safe
2
1 Nancel, op. cit., pp. 71 f.
2 See p. 12.
* See Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 659; Félibien, Histoire de la
ville de Paris, t. II, p. 1084.
86
PETER RAMUS
conduct was, however, assured Ramus by the king
and queen-mother, and he found asylum in the royal
palace at Fontainebleau. Amid the beautiful sur-
roundings of this place and the treasures of the royal
library, he forgot everything except his studies, until
enemies discovered his whereabouts. Then he es-
caped death at their hands only by fleeing again, and
for a time was pursued from pillar to post. Finally,
in March of the next year (1563), the peace of
Amboise enabled him to enter Paris again, and live in
quiet for a few years.
Upon his return Ramus without difficulty got
back his principalship at Presles and his chair in the
Royal College. At the beginning of the academic
year he delivered his famous address upon the twelve
years of his work as a professor in the College of
France.2 In it he tells of his intention to gather up
the threads of his writing once more and indulges the
vain hope that war will never again disturb the liberal
arts, the daughters of Peace. During the next few
years he published his works on physics and mathe-
matics already mentioned and completed a work
1 Freigius, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.; Ramus himself in his Oratio de sua
professione also furnishes us with full details of his stay here.
? Oratio de sua professione liberalium artium (1563).
61 f.
3
3
See pp.
CONVERSION, >
87
PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
upon the metaphysics of Aristotle. But the theologi-
cal and medical faculties could not forget his address
upon the reform of the university, and were on the
lookout to catch him upon the hip. More implacable
than any other was his inveterate enemy, Carpen-
tarius, who constantly hounded him with pamphlets.
To that blatant individual Ramus, as usual, paid no
attention, but his distinguished pupil Arnaud d'Ossat,
afterward a cardinal, did reply with a strong defense of
the dialectic of his master, which Carpentarius an-
swered only with a storm of abuse. Moreover, the
Jesuits, who had been vainly endeavoring to have
their College of Clermont recognized by the univer-
sity, had at length found a complaisant rector
who was willing to issue the ‘letters of scholarity.' 5
Ramus was among those who were active in their
opposition to the recognition of this order, and in the
suit before the parlement that resulted, he was one of
the two advocates chosen to oppose them. But the
3
4
5
1 Scholarum metaphysicarum libri quattuordecim in totidem
metaphysicos libros Aristotelis (1565).
2 Expositio Arnaldi Ossati in disputationem Jacobi Carpentarii
de methodo (1564).
See
p. 3.
Julien de Saint Germain (1564).
Crevier, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 165 f.
3
4
5
88
PETER RAMUS
1
a
parlement was afraid of the Guises, who allied them-
selves with the cause of the Jesuits,' and yielded to
pressure. This brought Ramus further enemies,
whereas Carpentarius, who had toadied to these
powerful foes during the contest, won over thereafter
the Cardinal of Lorraine as his ‘Mæcenas.'
A more formidable controversy for Ramus was
occasioned by the seating of Carpentarius in a chair
of mathematics at the College of France, although
he was quite ignorant of the subject. The professor-
ship had through politics been given in the first place
to Dampestre Cosel, a mediocre mathematician
from Sicily, who could speak neither Latin nor
French, but upon the request of Ramus and his other
,
colleagues that he be examined, this incumbent un-
dertook to sell the position to Carpentarius. This
was an unheard of proposition, but was probably sug-
gested by the Cardinal of Lorraine and connived at
by the court. Although ignorant both of Euclid
and of the language in which that author wrote,
Carpentarius was appointed in February, 1566, and
refused to submit to the examination which the king
had established by edict. When the case was brought
>
1 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 521.
* See Oratio initio suce professionis habita (1566), fol. 7 v.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
89
before the parlement, the professor-elect admitted his
ignorance, but declared there were other subjects upon
which he could temporarily lecture and that he could
become posted on mathematics 'within three days.'1
He further pleaded his service to the university,
Catholicism, and the Aristotelian philosophy so effec-
tively that the parlement provisionally confirmed
the appointment and gave him three months within
which to prepare himself to teach mathematics.?
But even these terms were not favorable enough for
Carpentarius. Accordingly he induced the corrupt
recorder to change the decree of parlement so that it
would read that he should begin the study of Euclid
within three months and set no limit to the time when
he should be prepared to lecture, and that, instead of
teaching mathematics and philosophy, he should
teach mathematics or philosophy. As a result,
Carpentarius began by lecturing on Aristotle's De
Coelo and then turned to the Commentaries on Plato
by Alcinous, and never touched mathematics. He
further presumed to demand a fee from his students,
a proceeding quite contrary to the spirit of the College
a
1 Schol. Math., 1. 1, p. 21.
Collect. præfat., p. 544; Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 650 ff.;
Schol. Math., 1. II, p. 63.
90
PETER RAMUS
.
2
of France and hitherto unknown in the history of the
institution. This last step was too much for Ramus
to endure, and he straightway addressed a Remon-
strance to the Privy Council.1
The fear of the Guises, however, was too strong to
permit any appeal to be effective, and Ramus, for
all his pains, succeeded only in changing the envy of
his rival to a mortal hatred. The spite of Carpenta-
rius soon showed itself in a series of libels and accu-
sations against Ramus,” which grew so scurrilous
and serious that the reformer was forced to have his
defamer prosecuted and forced to retract. There-
upon Carpentarius endeavored to have him mobbed or
assassinated, but, thanks to the courage and presence
of mind of Ramus, these attempts also failed.
About this time (September, 1567) the Guises had
succeeded in fanning another civil war into flames.
Ramus escaped the massacre that ensued by fleeing
to the camp of the Protestants at St. Denis, and
while not taking part, he was a spectator at the in-
3
1 Remonstrance au conseil privé (1567). The most important
portions of this are quoted by Waddington, pp. 411-417. It
gives a good account of the details that have been outlined above.
2 See Jacobi Carpentarii admonitio ad Thessalum (Paris, 1567);
J. Aurati Poëmatia, 1. IV, pp. 275 ff.
• Nancel, p. 63.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
91
decisive battle that took place there. He did, how-
ever, render a conspicuous service to the Protes-
tants through his eloquence in inducing the Ger-
man troopers who had been summoned to the aid of
Condé and Coligny to continue to serve for less
than one third the sum they had been promised.
Soon after this the Peace of 1568 enabled Ramus to
reënter Paris and take up his duties once more, but
he was scarcely settled before he perceived another
storm brewing. He thereupon persuaded the king to
grant him leave of absence to visit the chief universi-
ties of Germany and Switzerland, as he had long hoped
to do. Before leaving, however, he drew up his will
and patriotically left the bulk of his fortune to found
a chair of mathematics at the College of France.?
He then wrote a most eloquent Farewell Letter to the
University of Paris.
The travels of Ramus during the next two years
(1568–1570) were nominally a species of thinly dis-
guised expatriation, but they soon took on the
character of almost a triumphal journey and a matter
Brantôme, Hommes illustres, disc. LXVI; De Thou, op. cit.,
1. XLII.
2 This will is given in full by Waddington, op. cit., pp. 326–328.
3 Petrus Ramus rectori et Academia Parisiensi (1868). See
Collect. Præf., epist., etc., p. 206.
7
92
PETER RAMUS
of great moment to the entire scholastic world. A
review of them in detail would furnish a very fair
picture of the intellectual and religious activities in
some of the most important centers in northern
humanism and the Reformation. With two of his
pupils as secretaries, Ramus visited a large part of
Germany and Switzerland, and conferred with the
most renowned scholars in classics, mathematics,
logic, and especially theology. He continued after-
ward to correspond with those he visited, and the
letters, as far as they have been preserved, form a
thesaurus of source material on the movements of the
sixteenth century. The ‘French Plato,' as Ramus
was called, was received with great consideration by
all the universities and cities to which he came. At
times, of course, he found opponents, but he made
more partisans, and the dissemination of his philos-
ophy left academic Germany divided in two camps,
the Aristotelians and the Ramists. His reputation
was fully maintained, and efforts were made at sev- .
eral places to hold him permanently. Well-endowed
.
chairs were offered him in the Palatinate, Westphalia,
See especially the account of Banosius (pp. 26 ff.), one of the
secretaries.
See
2
pp. 5 ff.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
93
and even Poland, Transylvania, and Hungary. While
there is reason to believe he might have liked to
lecture at Strassburg, Heidelberg, or some other uni-
versity near the French border, in order to impress
Paris with his overwhelming success, he generally
declined the offers that were made him. It may be
that he did this for the same reason he had assigned
when called by the University of Bologna half a
dozen years before: “I am a Frenchman, and it is
through the favor of the king of France that I have
pursued my studies for many a long year. I belong,
therefore, entirely to my country and my king.
Under the safe conduct of the king, Ramus
moved almost directly east across France, and came
first to Strassburg. Here he was met by a large
delegation and acclaimed like a prince of the blood.
He was entertained at the home of the famous
humanist, Sturm, with whom he had corresponded.
The two friends were now able to discuss personally
"1
3
1 Collectan. præfat., pp. 195 and 198. 2 Op. cit., p. 190.
3 It was supposed until recently that Sturm and Ascham were
complete converts to Ramism, but Guggenheim (Beiträge, pp. 141 ff.)
has shown by a letter that passed between the two scholars that
while they were influenced by the new dialectic and were some-
what sympathetic, they did not altogether approve his criticism
of Aristotle and Cicero.
94
PETER RAMUS
the study of the liberal arts, the education of youth,
the nature and effect of rewards, and other problems
in school and educational work generally. The pro-
fessors of the university and the teachers in the gym-
nasium' gave Ramus a public proof of their esteem
by tendering him a banquet.
Next, the reformer followed the Rhine south to
Basel. He visited Freiburg on the way, and, meet-
ing there the mathematician, Schreckfuchs, studied
in his library a marvelous celestial globe of brass
arranged according to the system of Copernicus.
At Basel he sojourned for the rest of 1568 and most of
the following year. Here he met Freigius, professor
of rhetoric, who became one of his most devoted dis-
ciples. He also found a number of his former pupils,
including the printer, Hervagius, and the professors
Jerome Wolf and Theodor Zwinger, and became
acquainted with the grammarian, Felix Platter,
a
i See p. 3.
2 The details of his visit here are taken mostly from his eulogy
on the people of Basel in his work known as Basilea. See pp. 99 f.
3 We are indebted to Freigius for one of our most authentic
accounts of the life and work of Ramus. See footnote i on p. 19.
* This was the son of that Thomas Platter, who, at his son's re-
quest, wrote the autobiography that has shed so much light on
the schools and education of the sixteenth century. See Monroe's
Thomas Platter.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
95
and the theologian, Samuel Grynæus, and with many
scholars and men of prominence. The hostess of
Ramus in Basel, however, was the pious Catherine
Petit. This lady had entertained Calvin while he
was writing his Institutes of Christianity, and was
filled with memories of that great leader. Ramus
was also much impressed at Basel by a memorial of
another famous reformer, the monument erected
to the wise and pious Ecolampadius. At this center
of Protestantism, he seized the opportunity for in-
creasing his knowledge of theology by listening to the
lectures of Sulzer 2 and Coccius on the Old and New
Testaments in the original languages, and here laid
the groundwork of his posthumous Commentaries on
the Christian Religion. He likewise made it con-
venient, before leaving this part of Switzerland, to
confer at Zürich with Bullinger and Simler, leaders
in Swiss Protestantism, and get their advice and that
of the other theologians upon his projected treatise.
Ramus did not, however, give all his productive
1 See p. 10.
2 His pleasant relations at Basel were marred only by a contro-
versy with this same Sulzer, and probably for this reason he alludes
to the tolerant Brandmüller as the real successor of Ecolampadius.
See Bernus, Pierre Ramus à Bâle (Paris, 1890).
3 Commentariorum de religione Christiana libri quattuor (1576).
96
PETER RAMUS
time in Switzerland to theology. While at Basel,
one of the centers of printing, he produced two of his
chief treatises on mathematics, and combined his
views on grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, physics, and
metaphysics into a single work, Studies in the Liberal
.
Arts. Here also were published the letters that had
sprung from a rather unpleasant controversy over
dialectic with Schegk, professor of philosophy at
Tübingen. It was from Basel also that he wrote
Sturm he would accept a position in the gymnasium,
in order to make known his method. But in spite
of the recommendation of that scholar and the Protes-
tant tendencies of Ramus, his services were declined
by the conservative authorities, on the ground that
he was 'not an Aristotelian.'
He visited other centers in Switzerland and met
many prominent scholars, theologians, and reformers
in each, but in no other place was his stay very long.
He next went north along the Rhine to Heidelberg,
where he sojourned for some time at the home of
Tremellius, the professor of Hebrew, from whom he
1 Scholæ in liberales artes (1569).
? P. Rami et Jacobi Schecii epistola, in quibus de artis logicæ
institutione agitur (1569). Two years later at Lausanne he pub-
lished on the same subject Petri Rami Defensio pro Aristotele
alversus Jac. Schecium.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
97
6
acquired a complete defense of the reformed theol-
ogy. He met here also the leading professors and
councilors of the Palatinate, and was invited by the
elector, Frederick III, to accept a temporary place
in the university. While the faculty of ‘arts' pro-
fessed to admire Ramus personally, they resisted
this appointment to the utmost. Although devoted
Protestants, they were still too conservative to sym-
pathize with a man who taught his own philosophy,
which was quite 'opposed to the truth and the doc-
trine of Aristotle.' The sovereign exerted his author-
ity to the utmost, and, in spite of repeated remon-
strances, Ramus was announced to lecture on Cicero's
oration, For Marcellus. Two factions also appeared
among the students, and every obstacle was thrown
in the way of his lecturing, but in the end, owing to
his eloquence, his instruction on this subject was
enthusiastically received. When, however, by spe-
cial request, Ramus undertook to lecture on dialectic,
a more serious insurrection broke out in the fanatical
1 Letter to Sturm, October or November, 1569.
2 Letter to Zwinger, October 30, 1569.
3 Even the steps to the lecture platform were taken away, and
Ramus mounted to his rostrum only by the aid of one of the French
students, and the lecture was at first interrupted with hisses, hoots,
and stamping.
H
98
PETER RAMUS
>
faculty, and the elector was forced to suspend the lec-
tures for a time. Whereupon, writes Ramus to his
friend Zwinger :
“Seizing the opportunity of disengaging myself, I
told the elector that there was some ground for the
opposition, since, if I should continue to teach a
month longer, a revolution in studies would neces-
sarily result. However, I remarked how surprising
it was in my judgment that, when the legitimate child,
the noble daughter of the University of Heidelberg,
was brought back by me to her own home, she should
be treated as a stranger, and repudiated by the
pro-
fessors of the university. The prince asked my
meaning, and I answered that I had reference to the
true dialectic, as it had formerly been interpreted at
Heidelberg by Agricola with the applause of Ger-
many, France, and Italy.” 1
V However, this very fear of the Ramistic dialectic
and strenuous opposition to it at both Strassburg and
Heidelberg, the great centers of humanism, shows
how great its influence was becoming. In fact, the
visit of Ramus to Germany and Switzerland must be
regarded as epoch-making in the history of human-
ism, Aristotelianism, and theology. His experience
1 Letter to Zwinger, January 23, 1570.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
99
in other places was similar to that already described.
When he left Heidelberg, a couple of months later, he
first journeyed north to Frankfurt, and thence south-
east to Nüremberg and Augsburg. At all these
places he held intercourse with the leading humanis-
tic, mathematical, and scientific scholars, and visited
the chief libraries and museums. In Augsburg he
became acquainted with the famous Tycho Brahé,
who, although but little more than a boy at the time,
had already made numerous astronomical observa-
tions and begun the hypotheses upon which his later
renown rests.
Now, however, hearing rumors of approaching
peace, Ramus hastened south rapidly through Swit-
zerland to Geneva, in the hope of reaching France
He was kindly received by Geneva, although
considerable opposition to his dialectic had arisen
through his correspondence with Theodore Beza, the
successor of Calvin in the administration of the city.
Upon request he gave a brief course here upon
Cicero's Catilinarian orations according to his
method. He made a profound impression, and many
of the students adopted his logic at the time. Ramus
next went a little out of his way to Lausanne to pub-
lish some of his works, especially the discourse in
sooner.
100
PETER RAMUS
honor of the people of Basel. In this city again he
met a number of humanists and theologians and gave
lectures on dialectic, but soon felt impelled to start
back to Paris.
Upon his return to the university, Ramus found
that his enemies had not been idle during his ab-
sence. In the face of the general amnesty, they had
induced the timorous king to interpret the agreement
in such a way as to bring Ramus under the head of
'deserters from the faith,' who had forfeited their
privileges in Paris. Two obscure men had been
installed in his positions at the College of Presles
and the College of France, respectively,' and realizing
that the Cardinal of Lorraine had abandoned him
to his persecutors, he appealed to his old comrade
and protector in this letter of protest :-
“It was in your early youth, nearly thirty years
ago, that our mutual attachment arose. I was
myself very young then, but since those days I
have never ceased to publish and celebrate through
all the world your friendship for me. However,
such is the misfortune of the times that to-day
certain evil-minded persons go about declaring that
1 De Thou, 1. XLIV to the year 1568.
2 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 658 ff. and 712 ff.
2
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
IOI
the Cardinal of Lorraine is removing Peter Ramus
not only from his chair at the Royal College, to which
he was appointed by King Henry upon your nomi-
nation, but also from the principalship of the College
of Presles, that is to say, from the fruit and
recompense of all my former labors. After complet-
ing my study and reform of the first five liberal arts,
and showing an equal zeal, or even greater, for the
advancement of the last two, I had reason to expect
a different treatment. Wherefore, in the name of the
white hairs that advise us both that death is not far
distant, do not suffer the end of our relations to be
so vastly different from the commencement, and from
a smiling beginning to close the whole course of our
years with so sad a finale. Do better than this;
condemn me rather to the hard and unremitting task
of forging and polishing the sciences. I would cheer-
I
fully do more than that, and such a vengeance would
be more becoming your magnanimity and high-mind-
edness.” 1
But he was not destined to receive either favor or
satisfaction from his former patron. In reply, the
cardinal evaded the issue by reproaching him in a
friendly way for not coming to see him, and then
1
1 See Collect. præfat., epist., pp. 254 ff.
IO2
PETER RAMUS
r
accused him of ingratitude, impiety, and rebellion.'
Taking this as a sincere expression, Ramus wrote
another letter. He explained his not seeing the car-
dinal in person on the ground that he would have run
grave risks in so doing. As to 'ingratitude,' he
declared that he had, 'through his own labors and the
sweat of his brow,' shown himself worthy of the chair
bestowed upon him, and that he would long since
have resigned and accepted the better endowed chair
at Bologna, had he not hoped by remaining to show
his appreciation of past favors. As to‘impiety,' his
religious change should not be considered an apos-
tasy, but a return to the truth of the Gospel and the
primitive church which the cardinal himself had
praised at the Colloquy of Poissy. With regard to
“rebellion,' he insisted that his flight to St. Denis
was the only way in which he could escape assassina-
tion and that he had not borne arms in the battle 2
against the government, and that he had soon left the
country for his visit to Germany and Switzerland.
He further besought the cardinal that, instead of
descending to such petty matters, he should allow him
to complete his treatises on the two remaining liberal
arts and then devote the rest of his life to a study of
1 See footnote on p. 101.
2 See pp. 90 f.
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
103
the Scriptures, and that the prelate himself should
turn to the more holy occupation of establishing
through the income of one of his numerous abbeys an
association of scholars who should carefully translate
both testaments into Latin and the vernacular, and
make a systematic arrangement of the principles of
Christian doctrine and practice. But the intriguing
cardinal had no time for such an ultramundane
program, and began to find his old friend not
only a nuisance, but possibly an obstacle to his
ambitions. Without more ado, he refrained from
interfering with the program of the reformer's ene-
mies, and on the 15th of December, 1570, Ramus
was excluded from active teaching and administra-
tion in the university.
In these extremities Ramus thought of retiring to
Geneva, where many would have been glad to see him
installed as a professor, and he asked a friend to sound
Beza, the head of the government of that city. But
Beza clearly, though politely, repulsed his overtures
upon the excuse that there was no vacancy in the
faculty and the university had no funds to establish
another chair. He
He added what was probably his
real animus, that he was inflexibly attached to Aris-
a
1 See Collect. præfat., epist., pp. 255 ff.
104
PETER RAMUS
totle in logic and all other studies. Ramus was thus
forced to give up all hopes in this direction, and fell
into the depths of despair. But at this moment
another old schoolmate, the Cardinal of Bourbon, who
had become the chancellor of the university, inter-
ceded for the reformer with the queen-mother, and
secured for him an honorable compromise. It was
arranged that he should have his titles as principal
at Presles and as professor in the Royal College re-
stored to him, and that his salary in the latter capac-
ity should even be doubled, but that he should retire
from active service and give his time to writing and
translation.
Ramus joyfully accepted these conditions, and in
1571 settled down at the College of Presles to com-
plete and revise all the liberal arts. But his perse-
cutors were not yet satisfied. They continually
maintained that the very presence of a Huguenot pro-
fessor was keeping proper-minded parents from send-
ing their sons to a university infected with heresy.
Carpentarius further attempted to persuade his col-
leagues in the College of France that the reputation of
having a heretic on the staff was injuring the insti-
tution, and threatened them with the wrath of the
1 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 669.
CONVERSION PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
105
Cardinal of Lorraine and the suppression of the col-
lege, in case the offender were not expelled. 1
It must have become more and more evident that
Ramus was doomed. His enemies would obviously
.
be satisfied with nothing short of his banishment or
death. Among those who realized this was his
friend, Jean de Montluc, Bishop of Valence, who
seems to have been a Protestant at heart and often
proved a good friend to the reformers. It is not
unlikely that he had heard rumors of an impending
massacre of the Huguenots, and had especial fears for
Ramus. At any rate, it is known that he tried to
attach that reformer to his embassy, when on the
17th of August, 1572, he was sent to persuade the
Poles to accept the French king's brother as their
sovereign. Ramus had some scruples about under-
taking the mission : and thus was left in the city
during the terrible slaughter of St. Bartholomew's,
which began just a week later.
It was not, however, until the third day, the
twenty-sixth, when most of the excesses were over,
that Ramus met his death, and the outrage seems to
3
1 Carpentarius, Orationes (1568).
2 Dareste, Essai sur Fr. Hotman, p. 9.
• Banosius, op. cit., p. 18.
106
PETER RAMUS
have been a piece of private revenge on the part of
Carpentarius rather than a result of the general
massacre. Hired assassins, led by a tailor and a
sergeant, forced their way into the College of Presles
and at length found Ramus in his little study on the
fifth floor. He was devoting his last moments to
prayer, and, as the old man rose from his knees, his
venerable dignity seemed for a moment to have
overawed the intruders. Seeing, however, that he
could hope for neither pity nor mercy, he commended
his soul to God and sought forgiveness for his trans-
gressions. If we may believe his biographers, his
last utterance was strangely like that of his Master
on Calvary. "Pardon these wretched men, my God,
1
Waddington devotes a chapter (IX) to this very likely supposi-
tion. Besides the testimony of Nancel (p. 74), who declares that
the murder was contrary to the wishes of the king and queen-
mother, he bases his further proof upon the unanimity of all
historians, especially those who were contemporary, and upon
the character of Carpentarius and his writings. Carpentarius
had been reared by Galland in hatred of all innovations; he was
the only man at the time systematically writing against Ramus;
his ignorance had been exposed and his pride injured by Ramus
in the matter of his assumption of the chair of mathematics in the
Royal College; and his constant attempts afterward to explain
the death of Ramus as due to public feeling and as a just punish-
ment, look suspicious.
2 See Banosius, pp. 34 f.; Nancel, pp. 74 ff.
1
CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH
107
for they know not what they do !” Shot through the
head and pierced with a sword, he was flung from the
window. His fall was somewhat broken by a pro-
jecting roof, and the body fell palpitating into the
courtyard of the college. There further indignities
were heaped upon the body, and it was dragged with a
rope through the streets until the Seine was reached,
where a surgeon struck off the head, and the trunk was
cast into the river. Later it was drawn ashore again
and hacked to pieces on the banks of the Seine.
th
have been
Carpentar
massacre.
sergeant.
and at le
fifth flo
prayer, a
veneral:
overawei
could h
his soul.
gressio
last u:
1
on Cai
IW
tion.
the r
moth
histo
the
had
the
his
in
R
11
!
li
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
109
even and straight the way, in order to arrive more
easily not only at intelligence, but the practice and
use of the liberal arts.” 1
Without explicitly discussing the ultimate meaning
and value of education, then, Ramus wished to im-
prove the material studied, and to render the meth-
ods of acquisition easier and more interesting. He
struggled to free all the arts from the barbarism into
which they had degenerated by selecting, arranging,
and presenting their content according to some defi-
nite plan. The principles for these reforms may be
summed up in three key-words, - nature, system, and
practice.
While he nominally sought his guidance with
complete independence of thought and investiga-
tion, he seems to have borrowed this trinity of ideals
from Quintilian, whose rhetorical work was most
influential among the humanists. Of the three
principles mentioned, the first applies more to the
determination of content and the last of method,
while the second comes somewhat into consideration
in both connections. His standardization for the
2
*
1 See Remonstrance au conseil privé, pp. 27 f.
Natura, ratio, exercitatio. See Instit. dial., I, 2.
: See Instit. Orat., III, 2. These principles were, however,
probably used first by Aristotle.
IIO
PETER RAMUS
subject matter, then, he finds in the observation of
nature. For example, the material for grammar or
language study he desires to have derived from
actual usage, — the ancient tongues from the classi-
cal writers, and the modern from the speech of the
\people. Similarly, he holds that logic should be
based upon observation of the human mind, and
natural sciences upon the investigation of nature.
The application of this principle will be shown defi-
nitely in his treatment of the different liberal arts.
When the subject matter has been obtained, he
holds that it must be thoroughly sifted and arranged.
The principles for system, or arrangement, he seems
to have taken from Aristotle, and the laws for defin-
ing and organizing the various subjects of study
may be termed universality, homogeneity, and prim-
acy of the general. His dialectic works describe
these underlying standards in full, but in his other
important treatises he also states them, though with-
out much discussion. This shows how rigidly he
1 Κατά παντός, καθ' αυτό, and καθ' όλου; see Analytica Hystera,
4. The Latin forms are de omini, per se, and universaliter primum.
Ramus may have been more influenced in this by Vives's works
and Sturm's lectures on logic, both of which were in agreement with
this Aristotelian scheme.
2 See preface to Scholæ in liberales artes, etc.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
III
*
applied the rules of real logic to all subjects,' although
he strenuously objected to the stereotyped scho-
lastic dialectic, which had so restricted the content
and method of the liberal arts. While the applica-
tion and elaboration of these principles of 'system'
will be made clearer as each one of the liberal arts is
treated, it may be well to elucidate them in general
here.
In the first place, the law of ‘universality' is that
every precept must be in keeping with truth, not
only in some instances, but always. It must neces-
sarily, and not accidentally, be true; its validity
must be incontrovertible. For the arts must have a
sure basis; they must, in accordance with Plato's doc-
trine, rest upon ideas, since they are not created, but
have always existed. Judged by this principle, much
of scholasticism, especially in dialectics, would be
found invalid, since it would not be universally
applicable. For instance, the geometrical proposi-
tion that 'the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal
to two right angles’ is valid, but the statement that
“every angle of a triangle is equal to sixty degrees'
1 See Remonstrance au conseil privé, p. 27.
2 This reference to Platonic idealism is found in the Scholæ
rhetoricæ, IX, 333. See Plato, Republic, Book VI; Phædrus, 246
ff.; Meno, 80 ff.; etc.
II2
PETER RAMUS
>
would not hold, since it would not apply to isosceles
or scalene triangles. Thus this standard eliminates
all fallacies and inaccuracies, and is called by Ramus
'the law of truth.' His second law, that of 'homo-
geneity,' is that all precepts must be germane to the
subject and to each other. For example, Aristotle
states that it would be 'unarithmetical' to speak of
size in arithmetic, and ‘ungeometrical' to deal with
number in geometry. Similarly, it is invalid to treat of
rhetorical figures in grammar, or of the parts of speech
in rhetoric. The boundaries between the arts should
be carefully marked so that clarity may be maintained,
and, since this principle defines the province of each
subject, Ramus names it “the law of justice. The
third rule is deductive and maintains that the general
should precede and the particular should follow.2
In other words, whatever applies universally through-
out a subject should be stated at the outset of the
exposition, and only then. For if the particular is
stated first, it will not be characteristic of the entire
class; and if the universal is postponed, it will have
to be repeated in each particular case. To use the
1 Cf. Scholæ grammatice, I, 7.
2 Ramus expresses it tersely as generalia non speciatim specialia
non generatim.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
113
former illustration, 'the sum of the angles of a tri-
angle is equal to two right angles' is a general charac-
teristic of the figure; it should be stated once at
the beginning, and not repeated each time in deal-
ing with equilateral, isosceles, and scalene triangles.
This principle helps to produce a clearer arrangement
of the material, and, through a natural and appro-
priate development of each subject, greatly facilitates
the memory of the pupil. Consequently it is denomi-
nated by Ramus 'the law of wisdom.'
Thus by means of these three laws our reformer
undertook to criticize the mass of subject matter em-
ployed in the education of the times. He added lit-
tle to the curriculum, but, as Vives, Sturm, Melanch-
thon, and other humanists had done in a less degree,
he separated the wheat from the chaff. The useless
.
and false material that had crept in through medieval
commentaries, sophistry, and faith in authority, he
was able, by means of the law of 'truth,' to detect
and eliminate, and, by means of the laws of justice'
and 'wisdom,' he found a more logical and more
easily remembered arrangement, and rid the various
subjects of confusion and tautology. In this respect
his educational ideal of 'nature' and 'observation'
may be said to have led to the further aim of clear-
.
I
114
PETER RAMUS
ing the liberal arts of falsehood, surreptitious matter,
and repetitions. Or to state the matter positively,
his ideal of 'system' implied that the subjects
should be given a true, homogeneous, and simple
exposition.
In the matter of method, by means of his third
principle, practice, Ramus also endeavored to make
considerable improvement upon the current proced-
The scholastic instruction at the University
of Paris consisted in lectures, repetitions, and dispu-
tations. These methods were not bad in themselves,
but serious abuses had grown up in them. Owing
to the scarcity and great cost of textbooks, the lec-
tures had come to consist mostly in lengthy dicta-
tions from the authors under consideration. Such
time as was given to exposition was largely wasted in
literal explanations of the passages read, and there
was a plethora of quibbles and hair-splitting distinc-
tions in the discussion of all the liberal arts. The
repetitions consisted in the mere mechanical recita-
tion of rhymed rules and difficult definitions. But
the most fixed and formal feature of the uni-
versity method was, as Ramus declared, the dispu-
tation. Thanks to the prominence of the scholastic
ure.
.
1 See pp. 21 ff.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
115
dialectic and philosophy, these fruitless affairs seem
to have been the chief goal of instruction from the
very beginning of the course.
As Erasmus and other humanists had foreseen,
such methods spelled death for the liberal arts, and
it was the increasing aim of Ramus to reform them.
Like the humanists generally, he constantly attempted
to simplify and render the subjects intelligible. In-
stead of dallying over abstract rules, he advised that
the principles be made clear by illustrations taken
from the works of the classical authors and by imi-
tation of them in written and oral exercises. But he
went much further in rationalizing his pedagogy
than Vives, Sturm, and any of the other humanists,
although their works doubtless proved suggestive
to him. He strove to render the general approach of
humanism more specific, and laid out a definite pro-
cedure for each portion of the school day. During the
first hour the teacher is to lecture on the topic of the
day, give the underlying principles, develop, and ex-
plain, but make very little of the exercise a dictation.
The next two hours are devoted by the pupils to
working up, each by himself, what has been learned
a
1 Pro philosophica Parisiensis academia disciplina in Collect.
Proef., pp. 325 ff.
Eppuchin
utility
116
PETER RAMUS
during the lecture. The fourth hour is given to recit-
ing to the teacher and making sure that the meaning
and rules are understood and memorized. During
the last two hours come a discussion and disputation,
to discover whether the pupil can develop for himself
what has been learned and can explain and apply
it independently. This completes the work of the
morning, and the afternoon is given to a similar
combination of methods.
Thus, according to the general plan of Ramus, five
hours are required in every instance to impress and
make of value what is learned in one hour. He defi-
nitely held that the activities of the teacher should
not close with his lecture and dictation, but that he
should continue working with his pupils, hearing
them recite and correcting false impressions, and
especially stamping home the right principles by
‘practice' or application. Ramus here, as everywhere,
seems to stress application and utility. “Practice'
plays the most important part in his method, since
out of it grow the use of rules and the real value of the
subject. He frequently makes a division of the daily
routine into two chief phases,“explanation' and 'prac-
tice.' The former term appears prominently in
exposition, repetition, and even discussion, but he
а.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
117
ترمیم این مهم مهم مهم
praitite.
2
held that it is in itself senseless and useless. “If
we stop with the explanation,” says he, "we are like
the guests of Heliogabalus.” 1 The real end and aim
of all method is, in his mind, practice,' 2 since only
in this way does the student learn to use his knowl-
edge. There are two aspects to this process, —
'analysis' and 'genesis.'3 The one consists in a
critical dissection and testing to see how the author
of the example conforms to the rules; the other in
first copying the style and thought and producing
something akin to the model, and in later creating
independently and forming without outside help a
work of one's own, which shall not only equal the
model, but possibly surpass it. By means of this
combination of analysis and synthesis there can be
generated a genuine self-activity, and the pupils can
be enabled to secure an excellent mastery of the sub-
ject matter.
In this way Ramus strove to make the instruction
at the College of Presles more interesting, critical,
and effective. Thanks to the 'explanation,' the stu-
1 Schol. dial., IV, 189. An allusion to the banquet at which this
emperor smothered the chief men of Rome in a shower of roses.
? Schol. dial., XX, 604.
: See ibid., VII, 262 ff. and 299 ff.; Instit. dial.,JIII, 360 ff.;
and Schol. rhet., XVIII, 381, etc.
118
, PETER RAMUS
6
dents were never forced to commit what they did not
understand, and only so far as it was absolutely neces-
sary did they merely learn and recite, but, by means
of the twofold process of 'practice,' they became in-
dependent and original. The procedure at which our
French reformer aimed was in line with that of Vives,
Sturm, and other humanists. These reformers gen-
erally tended to abbreviate the theoretical explana-
tion and stress the real ‘practice, and to use for this
purpose examples from the classical authors. But
no one of them developed his position so clearly and
systematically as Ramus, although he did not crys-
tallize his curriculum and method into any such sharp
division by years as did Sturm. In the next three
chapters we shall see how these principles of con-
tent and method worked out in the specific subjects
of the liberal arts.
Numerous pedagogical advantages could easily be
prophesied for these principles of Ramus in content
and method. They naturally augured clearness and
brevity in the curriculum, and facility, interest, and
economy to the student. We can, therefore, scarcely
be surprised to learn that Ramus reduced the length
of the course in the liberal arts to seven years. Three
years, instead of five, or even seven (with Vives and
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
119
Sturm), were given to the languages or 'grammar,
and one year each to rhetoric, dialectic, mathematics,
and physics. This curtailment of the years of study
was, however, undoubtedly effected by Ramus not
only through a better arrangement of the content,
but by the fact that he would grant a much smaller
number of holidays. With the exception of about
thirty days, he believed in holding school the entire
year. Under this system, therefore, the pupils, who
were supposed to enter at eight, would have com-
pleted their work in the liberal arts by the time they
were fifteen, and, since Ramus holds elsewhere that
the transition to the university should begin at this
stage of their work, they would be able to complete
their professional course in the latter institution at
a comparatively early age.
2
1 See pp. 46 and 64.
2 See p. 84.
CHAPTER VI
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
SUCH were the general principles and laws that
Ramus wished to follow in determining the content
and method of the liberal arts and other subjects.
He was thoroughly convinced of the validity and
efficiency of these logical ideals, and felt that by
applying them rigidly to each of the disciplines he
could greatly clarify and simplify their study. The
liberal arts of the times he divided into the 'exoteric,'
which were the grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic of
the old trivium, and the 'esoteric,' which corresponded
roughly to the former quadrivium, and with him in-
cluded mathematics (i.e. arithmetic and geometry),
physics, metaphysics, and ethics. The "exoteric'
arts were, of course, easier of approach and of more
general utility, and with them he began his reform.
While 'dialectic,' or logic, has been shown to underlie
the arrangement and presentation of them all, we will
here take them up in order and turn first to grammar.
6
I 20
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
I21
As far as grammar was concerned, at Paris in the
time of Ramus the medieval textbooks and methods
held complete sway. The Elegancies of Latin 1 by
Valla had for almost a century been paving the way
for an improvement of Latin writing, but the work
was scarcely known in Paris. There Donatus and
Priscian had been replaced by such works as the
Doctrinale of Alexander of Villedieu, which, for the
sake of easy memorizing, were often written in bad
verse. One of the most popular of these was the Rudi-
ments of Despantère, which began its vogue about the
time that Ramus was born. The most difficult and
unintelligible presentation of grammar blocked the
way to any real knowledge of the subject, and while
the poets, like Vergil and Ovid, were able to persist
and furnish some notion of style, the Latin prose
writers were still generally forbidden as heathen.?
In consequence, the most atrocious Latin was com-
mon.
The colloquial abominations of the schoolmen
and the theologians, mixed with an extensive collec-
tion of barbarisms and Gallicisms, were in general
use in the higher schools. At times even the
pro-
1 Elegantia Latinæ. See Voigt, Die Wiederlebung des clas-
sischen Alterthums, II, 378.
2 See Paulsen, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, pp. 24 f.
.
122
PETER RAMUS
2
a
3
fessors of the university were positively ungram-
matical.' Moreover, the grammatical treatises of
the day were inaccurate, repetitious, and filled with
dialectic and metaphysical discussions quite foreign
to the subject.
We have already narrated ? how, between the years
1559 and 1562, in order to effect some reform in this
subject, Ramus produced at least half a dozen works
upon grammar. Three of these were devoted to
Latin, and two to Greek, while the sixth treatise
dealt with the vernacular. In each of these, accord-
ing to his principle of ‘nature,' he was guided by
actual use. He did not set himself up as an arbiter
i Ramus even affirms (Schol. gram., II, 15) that ego amat seemed
as correct to certain Sorbonists as ego amo. Probably the racy
satire in the Epistolæ obscurorum virorum, while an exaggeration,
had a real basis of fact. At any rate, a work in four volumes
known as Græcarum institutionum rudimenta, which was published
in Paris by George Mauropædius only five years before the gram-
matical works of Ramus began to appear, and is still in existence,
exhibits the most barbarous blunders in its Latinity.
2 See pp. 57 f.
3 His interest in his native language to the extent of producing
vernacular treatises on both grammar and dialectic, at a time when,
according to Pasquier, it was doubted whether it was "worth while
to couch the arts in French,” shows his progressive patriotism and
modern spirit. He also demanded unceasingly a vernacular trans-
lation of the Scriptures, and it is well known that he was ambitious
to see his native land build up a genuine national literature.
)
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
123
of speech, like Donatus and Priscian, but judged
of the Latin and Greek by means of the classical
authors, and of the French by the speech of the
people. In the grammar of each language, he
adopted a short and easy method according to the
definite rules which obtain throughout his texts on
the liberal arts, and thus eliminated most of the
fallacies, impertinences, and repetitions of the exist-
ing grammars. Also, in keeping with his plan, he
endeavored to turn his 'explanation into 'practice'
as soon as possible. The form in which the works
themselves were written furnished a model of correct-
ness and elegance that had been little known for
centuries.
The limitations of space forbid our even outlining
the plan employed by Ramus in each of his grammati-
cal treatises, but that used in his works on Latin, the
most important language of the times, may be given
here as an example of them all. In order to avoid
repetition, in keeping with his principle of the 'pri-
1 Schol. gram., II, 11 ff. See also p. 110.
2 See pp. 109 ff.
3 See pp. 114 ff.
* I.e. the Grammaticæ Latinæ libri quattuor, Rudimenta gram-
maticæ, and his extensive Scholæ grammatica. See p. 57.
5 See footnote 3 on p. 122,
124
PETER RAMUS
1
t
6
macy of the general," he treats the subject deduc-
tively. He begins with the most general statement
possible, and defines grammar as “the art of talking
correctly.'? He thus establishes a definite and
practical goal. Throughout he avoids all extraneous
topics, and outlines the subject as clearly as possible.
His first large division of grammar is into ‘etymology'
and 'syntax,'3 for he scorns any such tautological
heads as the 'orthography' of Quintilian, the ‘anal-
ogy' of Varro, or 'prosody,' which he deals with in
rhetoric.4
In etymology he begins with a discussion of the
letters and pronunciation. In the case of both
these subjects Ramus attempted to institute reforms.
He recommended the use of the characters j and v to
represent the consonant sounds, that had up to that
time been included in i and u and were subject to
confusion with the vowels. They were, in conse-
5
5
1 See p. 112.
2 Grammatica est ars bene loquendi. See Gram. Lat., IV, Preface.
3 Books I and II of Grammatica Latina are devoted to 'etymol-
ogy’; Books III and IV to ‘syntax.' 4 See Schol. gram., II, 10 ff.
* His priority in this distinction is conceded by all his contempo-
raries from Freigius (pp. 23 f.) and Nancel (pp. 39 f.), who enthu-
siastically praise the step, to Scaliger (Scaligerana, p. 288), who
considers it foolish and vexatious. See also Ramus himself (Schol.
Gram., I. II).
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
125
quence, for a long time known as 'the Ramist conso-
nants.' He also made prevalent in the schools an
.
exact and elegant pronunciation, although, as has
been pointed out, this cost him a serious struggle
with the Sorbonists. Next, he discusses syllables,
and their formation and quantity, as well as accent
and expression, and the origin and formation of
words.
Then he considers the parts of speech, which he
again divides into two classes, -- words with 'num-
ber' and words without 'number. Under the first
'
head he groups substantives and verbs. Substan-
tives include pronouns and adjectives, as well as
nouns, and have, as their distinguishing modifica-
tions, gender and case. Instead of the five declen-
sions, employed by Varro and grammars of the pres-
ent day, Ramus groups his substantives under two
1 See pp. 62 f. In French he also wished, like Etienne Dolet
and other humanistic theorists, to introduce reformed spelling, but
this step proved too radical, when the pronunciation of that lan-
guage has differed so greatly in different sections of the country
and from century to century. Even Pasquier (Lettres, 1. III, 4) dis-
approves of this reform on the grounds stated above, and Ramus
anticipated (Gram. Lat., VII, 56) that these objections would
be made.
2 The first part of Book I is devoted to 'substantives' and the
second to 'verbs.'
126
PETER RAMUS
declensions, (1) that where the substantive has the
same number of syllables in all cases, and (2) that
where it has a different number. He further divides
the ' equal-syllabled' declension, according as -is ap-
pears in the dative plural (as in the first and second
declensions of our present-day Latin grammar), or
does not; and the 'unequal-syllabled' declension he
groups under two heads, which correspond respec-
tively to our third declension and to our fourth and
fifth. While, therefore, he really discriminates four
declensions, it seems like a much simpler, easier, and
a
more logical arrangement, and it enables him to treat
the irregular nouns with the others. Last of all he
deals with the indeclinables, among which he men-
tions the cardinal numerals.
The modifications of verbs he gives as tense and
person. He makes the important modification of
moods of little account, showing by a number of
examples that there is no clear distinction in their
meaning. The three chief tenses -- present, past,
and future--are explained, first for the finite moods
and then for the infinitive. Here also he is able to
1 In his larger work, Schole grammatica, XIII, he also discusses
the irregular adjectives.
2 See Schol. gram., XIV.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
127
treat irregularities and variations without a separate
discussion. He also gives due attention to the gerund
and the supine on the one hand, and to the participles
on the other, treating the former as substantives, and
the latter as verbs, instead of as separate parts of
speech. Under their second modification, Ramus
divides verbs into personal and impersonal. He
does not distinguish the personal verbs, according
to their variations, as inchoative, frequentative, and
desiderative, since this seems to him to be valueless
to the student, but he does divide them into active,
passive, and deponent. In the matter of conjuga-
tion he makes two classes, according as the future
ends in-bo or -am. As, however, he subdivides both
these classes, he practically distinguishes the four
conjugations that are usually given now, although
here again he does not treat the irregulars by them-
selves.
The second part of etymology, which deals with
words that do not have number, is exceedingly brief.
It bears upon the four indeclinable parts of speech,
adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjec-
tions, — but the use of the last two is deferred until
syntax is reached.
1 Ibid., XVI.
128
PETER RAMUS
Ramus then takes up syntax, which he defines as
'the construction of words,' and deals with it under
the main heads of agreement' and government.' 1
Under both these divisions he again considers words
with 'number' and words without 'number. He
groups under words with number the agreement of
substantive with substantive, in which adjectives
are included, and of verb with substantive. Under
the former are given the rules for apposition and
attributive, including all irregular cases where the
word in apposition or the attribute refers to several
substantives. Under the latter come the rules for
subject and predicate. In the agreement of words
without number, he deals first with adverbs that
form the comparative and superlative degrees, and
then with conjunctions, according to their place in
the sentence. He also mentions (asyndeton,' or
omission of the conjunction, and 'polysyndeton,' or
figurative repetition of the conjunction.
The government of words with number considers
nouns and verbs. Under the former come (1) the
subjective, objective, and characteristic genitive, and
1 Book III of the Grammatica Latina is mostly taken up with a
consideration of Syntaxis convenientiæ and Book IV with syntaxis
Yectionis.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
129
the ablative of characteristic, including adjectives
in these constructions, and (2) the partitive genitive
with comparatives, superlatives, and numerals, the
genitive with adjectives of 'plenty and want,' and
the dative of 'benefit or injure.' Under verbs are
first treated transitive verbs, active and passive,
intransitive verbs of 'acquisition' taking the dative,
transitive verbs with the double accusative, and
verbs of 'plenty and want' with the ablative or
genitive. He then discusses the verb governing
another verb, including an infinitive as the object
of a verb of 'wish' or 'desire,' and a supine in -um
after verbs of motion. He finally mentions the
infinitival construction and the ten impersonal verbs
that take the genitive. The government of words
without number is very briefly considered. It deals
with adverbs of 'place,' which take the genitive, and
constructions with interjections and prepositions.
The diagram on the next page may perhaps serve
to make clearer the organization of grammar accord-
ing to Ramus. An examination of the scheme reveals
how completely Ramus, in determining the content
and arrangement of his Grammar, has fulfilled his
three principles of 'truth,' 'justice,' and 'wisdom.'
He seems to have skillfully avoided all fallacious,
K
130
PETER RAMUS
extraneous, and repetitious material. There like-
wise appears here a new principle of organiza-
tion, which savors more of a scholastic origin, and
of which we shall hear again later. This is his
'dichotomy,' or consistent division of each class into
two species.com
سه -
عمر "
Ety-
mology
conjugations {
.
Grammar,
'the art of
talking cor-
rectly,' is
divided
into:
words
letters
syllables
modifica- gender
tions
case
substan-
equal-
tives
syllabled
declensions
with
unequal-
number
syllabled
parts of
modifica- tenge
speech
tions
person
verbs
future in -bo
future in -om
adverbs
I
without conjunctions
Qumber prepositions
2
interjections
substantive with apposition
with substantive
attributive
number verb with substan- subject
tive
agreement
predicate
adverbs of degree
without
asyndeton
number conjunctions polysynde-
ton
genitive and ablative
nouns
with
genitive and dative
number
transitive
government
intransitive
without adverbs of place
number | interjections and prepositions
?
Syntax
verbs í
Like all schemata, this principle of division at times
plays havoc with the natural order of things, and
inevitably brings it about that matters closely
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
131
a
related are sundered in presentation. Moreover,
while in etymology this clever scheme covers every-
thing of importance about the parts of speech, in
syntax it omits much from their possible constructions.
Yet it can easily be seen how much more convenient
must have been such a brief and logical classification,
and what an advance it marks over the grammars
that were in use. It has eliminated most of the
philosophical and dialectic ballast that had been
slipped into syntactical instruction, and it has
truggled more energetically even than the attempts
of other humanists to free itself of scholastic influ-
ence. It limits itself to grammar, pure and simple,
and secures its illustrations from the usage of the
best Latin writers. To clarity and definiteness of
organization it added brevity and intelligibility of
language. While but few directions are given, they
are all of immediate use, and the learner is soon led
from dry and difficult rules to a vital study of the
authors themselves. It must have called forth a new
interest in the pupil, and made the work lighter and
more rapid. The close connection of this grammar
with the humanistic movement, as well as its remark-
able success in the schools, is shown by the attempted
union of it with the work of Melanchthon that ap-
a
132
PETER RAMUS
peared in a Philippo-Ramian Grammar, published
twenty years after the death of our reformer.
Ramus has also furnished us with some account of
the way this subject of grammar should be taught.
During the three years to be given to grammar, he
seems to have intended that both Latin and Greek
should be pursued, but that most emphasis should
be given the former subject, and the arrangement
in the four books of his Latin Grammar should be
followed. After acquiring the letters and syllables
and securing a little facility in reading and writ-
ing Latin, the student was to take up the declen-
sions and conjugations. But he was to be given
few rules of syntax, and to learn more through ex-
amples than formal grammar. Easy illustrations
and selections were to be taken from the Bucolics
of Vergil and the Comedies of Terence, and from
the simpler works of Cicero and Homer. The first
year was to be given mainly to etymology and to
teaching the pupils to express themselves and ac-
quire a vocabulary. The second year these acquisi-
tions were to be strengthened, deepened, and wid-
See Schmid, Encyclopädie, IV, p. 931. Cf. the Philippo-
Ramists in dialectic, p. 217.
2 See pp. 118 f.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 133
6
ened. Considerable practice and more complete
mastery of the classical writers were to be afforded.
In the third year etymology was to be reviewed, with
illustrations furnished by the student himself, and
syntax was to be completed. But in this explanation'
and in 'practice'l the knowledge and power of the
youth were gradually to be increased. The models
analyzed ? were to be more and more extended, and,
while dealing with them, the student was to learn
from this usage of the best authors his etymology
and syntax, orthography and prosody. Then, after
the ‘practice' in 'analysis,' the pupil was to take up
genesis,' or production on his own account. Here,
too, there is a gradual increase in difficulty, beginning
with mere imitation and later coming to more inde-
pendent composition.
Ramus seems to have spent much time and effort
in elaborating the best methods of acquiring Latin
and Greek. He felt that, whereas rhetoric and dia-
lectic were to some extent natural gifts, a knowledge
of these dead languages, both because of their intrin-
1 See pp. 116 f.
? An excellent illustration of the way in which this analysis'
may be carried on is given with the hexameter, O Melibee, deus
nobis hæc otia fecit, in the Scholæ dialectica, VII, 191.
See p. 117
134
PETER RAMUS
sic difficulty and their being the key to the other
arts, required the greatest industry and the most
skilled instruction. Instead of basing his methods
upon logic and formal grammar, Ramus hoped to
lure the youths into a study of Latin and Greek
by having them read the classical authors them-
selves as soon as possible. In this respect he was
not unlike the rest of the humanists, but he seems
to have excelled them all in reducing to a minimum
the number of years that must be spent in acquiring
grammar.
In the reforms he proposed for rhetoric, however,
it is obvious that Ramus received more opposition
than he did in the matter of grammar. The reason
lying back of the storm that arose over his efforts to
improve the teaching of rhetoric was that the author-
ity upon which rhetoric was based was not merely
that of some medieval writer, like Martianus Capella
or Cassiodorus, but of Cicero and Quintilian them-
selves. Even the humanists, although they were
free from the scholastic verbosity and the digressions
that appear in most of the textbooks of the times,
taught rhetoric according to Cicero and Quintilian,
and Melanchthon even intended his Institutions of
1 See pp. 42 ff. Cf. also preface to the Scholæ rhetorica.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
135
Rhetoric as an introductory book to these authors.
But Ramus did not bow down before even such
great authorities. While he fully appreciated Cicero
and Quintilian, he held that they were not infallible
and that their antiquity was not sufficient warrant
for the abuses which the current textbooks had
wrought in their name. He, accordingly, applied
his laws of “truth,' 'justice,' and 'wisdom' to the
content of rhetoric, and rigidly rejected all that
had been smuggled into the subject. Rhetoric, he
declared, should be an art in itself, and not the
exercising ground of another art.2
It seemed fallacious to him to combine rhetoric
with grammar, as suggested by Quintilian, and he
held it confusing to insist, with Cicero, that dialectic,
philosophy, ethics, and various other subjects are
essential to the orator as such. These matters,
while improving to him as a man,
have nothing to
do with his rhetorical training. For rhetoric it is
necessary only to know the rules of the art of speech,
so as to use them effectively, in the same way that
grammar consists in the use of correct language.
See Messer, Quintilian als didaktiker (Neue Jahrbücher für
Philologie und Pädagogik, 1897, pp. 415 f.).
2 Schol. rhet., I, pp. 233 ff.
)
136
PETER RAMUS
6
3
The content of what one is to say must not be con-
fused, as in Cicero, with the outer form.
Ramus, therefore, defines rhetoric as 'the art
of effective speaking,' I and limits its divisions to
'expression' and 'action.' He altogether ignores
'invention' '
and arrangement,' together with
memory,' which is really a reflection of them, on the
ground that these topics belong more properly to
logic, even if all five divisions are given by the an-
cient writers. Expression he defines as the elegant
adornment of speech, and he divides it into 'tropes'
and 'figures.' ]The former of these refers to the
figurative use of single words. It is subdivided
into metonymy, irony, metaphor, and synecdoche,
and some of these classes are still further divided.
'Figures' indicate a change of dress in a combina-
tion of words, and are of two kinds, – figures of
diction and figures of thought. Figures of diction
have reference to a change in the outer form, indi-
cated by a turn in the rhythm or meter, and are
ordinarily treated under 'prosody,' which, as has
been stated,' Ramus does not recognize in grammar.
1 Rhetorica est ars bene dicendi.
2 Schol. rhet., I, p. 237; IX, p. 319.
• Ibid., V, pp. 290 f.
>
See p. 124.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
137
Under this head are enumerated nine figures of
speech, of which the best known are paronomasia,
climax, and anaphor. Figures of thought imply
some movement of the mind expressed in speech, and
include apostrophe, personification (prosopopæia),
rhetorical question, and other means of enlivening
a speech and captivating an audience.
I His second main topic, 'action,' which deals with
suitable delivery, had been valued up to this time,
but had not been explicitly taught. With Ramus this
subject comprises the use of the voice and gestures.
Under the head of vocal control, he discusses how,
both in the case of single words and of sentences or
combinations of words, expression may be given
through proper modulation to the various emotions,
such as fear, grief, and sympathy. Under the other
division he deals with all the details of effective ex-
pression through gestures with the body, head, eyes,
arms, hands, and fingers, and with the kind of
gesticulation to be avoided.
The rhetoric of Ramus may be outlined as more
fully indicated in the analysis on the next page.
The content of w
*
fused, as in Cicero
Ramus, there
of effective spe
expression' an:
a
invention
“memory,' whi
ground that
logic, even if
cient writers.
adornment
and 'figure
figurative
into meto
and some
'Figures
tion of
diction
have
cated
ordir
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
139
6
Here, as in grammar, we find a clear and careful
selection of the subject matter according to his
three principles for content and his method of
dichotomy. Rhetoric is strictly limited to the
outer clothing of speech, and Ramus is absolutely v
silent about invention, arrangement, memorizing,
parts of speech, syntactical construction, and all
kindred topics that might seem to overlap dialectic
and grammar. His position in abbreviating the
material is again most radical. In comparison
with the ancient writers and even his humanistic
contemporaries, at first sight he gives the impression
of scantiness and inadequacy. This is most apparent
in the case of Melanchthon, who so closely approached
him in grammar," but whose rhetoric held fast to all
the traditional matter, especially as presented by
Quintilian. The attitude of Ramus, however, is here
consistent with his point of view in the other liberal
arts, and he defends it on the score of good pedagogy.
He is actuated by the principle of not overburdening
the youth early in school life with a lot of abstract
conceptions that mean little or nothing to him. His
preference is to give him only such elements as can
easily be grasped and leave all the rest to practice
1 See pp. 131 f.
140
PETER RAMUS
2
through reading. However, as we shall see, it
is only by means of dialectic that rhetoric attains
to real completion.
The method that Ramus advocated for teaching
rhetoric, which was to be carried out in the fourth year
of the course, was similar to that of grammar. It
consisted in a close combination of theory and prac-
tice. In 'explanation,' rules were progressively laid
down, and 'practice' in them was afterward attained
by the twofold process of 'analysis' and 'genesis.'?
The pupil obtained some practice by analyzing the
authors that had become known during his three
years in grammar, but the model for the right use
of the voice and gesticulation the teacher had him-
self to furnish, since a literary passage is necessa-
rily silent on these points. Wherever he could, the
instructor quoted from actual speeches, and called
attention to the laws of the art. He asked whether
this kind of speech, that modulation of the voice,
and such and such gestures, were most fitting. Even
more than in the other arts, the spoken word was of
the utmost importance, and for that reason the
teacher had to be a practical orator, as well as
7
1 See p. 148.
. See pp. 117 and 133. •
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
141
6
2
versed in the precepts of rhetoric. After the
'analysis,' 'genesis' in this subject was secured by
working out a theme for delivery, at first according to
a definite model and later with greater independence.
To guard against superficiality, Ramus advised, as
the ancient rhetoricians ? had, that the oration be
written down before it was delivered. While in the
year devoted to rhetoric Ramus thought it an error
to repeat the material acquired in grammar, he strove
to see that the pupil did not lose the fruit of his ear-
lier work. The teacher of rhetoric was to insist that
pure speech be observed and thus amalgamate the
result of both arts. This method of economy Ramus
calls 'combined use,' and energetically defends its
advantages against the protests and even the abuse
of the conservatives.3
But the soul of the system and the true renown of
Ramus rest in his reconstruction of dialectic. Said
he himself: “If I had to pass judgment upon my
own works, I should desire that the monument raised
to my memory should commemorate the reform of
For it was his improvements in this sub-
1 Schol, rhet., XVIII, 381.
2 Schol. dial., XX, 603.
See pp. 159 and 165.
Dialecticæ libri duo, Preface.
logic.” 4
9
1
4
142
PETER RAMUS
ject that started the reformation that Ramus made
in all the other liberal arts and served as his founda-
tion for their organization. It gave his system and
his texts an honorable position up to the eighteenth
century, and has always constituted his most endur-
ing title to the esteem of philosophers, scholars,
and educators. The success of these reforms was won
only after a long and stubborn fight, since dialectic
had dominated all the medieval fields of knowledge
and its grip upon the academic world was practically
identical with that of Aristotle. For three centuries
the cultural centers had been offering instruction in
the Organon enlarged by the medieval commentaries,
and had mixed its positions in with grammar,
rhetoric, and metaphysics. Dialectic and other sub-
jects had in consequence become a mere formal-
ism, empty, dry, and much too difficult for youthful
minds. The pupils became lost in the labyrinths. No
effort was made by dialectic instruction to find truth
or to prepare for life, but the end and aim was to
prepare for school disputations. The humanists had
tried hard to overcome this barren condition of logic,
and, before the time of Ramus, Valla had written
Dialectic Disputations, Agricola had produced his
work on the Institutes of Dialectic, and Vives had is-
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
143
sued his three books On the Transmission of Learning.
Although Paris remained faithful to the scholastic
dialectic, and the theological faculty in particular
opposed with all its might any sort of innovation,
these efforts of the humanists had paved the way
for independence of thought and the assertion of
common sense. It was, however, the more vig-
orous cultivation of the field by Ramus that was
largely the cause for the germination of the seed
which had been sown.
The dialectic reform of Ramus falls naturally
under the two heads which he himself distinguishes.
These relate to the destructive or refutative' side
of his work, in which he makes an examination of
the current dialectic and refutes the errors that
injure accuracy and proper arrangement in the
art; and to the constructive or demonstrative
side, where he makes a dogmatic exposition of the
art of thinking. The former phase of his work
appears in its most extreme form in the Animadver-
sions upon Aristotle. As has been shown,' he is
altogether too severe with Aristotle, failing utterly
to see the merit of his work, and accusing him of
obscurity, confusion, and contradiction, and even
1 See pp. 30 f.
144
PETER RAMUS
of puerility and ineptitude. To excuse this vehe-
mence, we must recall the dogmatism of the times, the
stupidity and fanaticism of the defenders of Aris-
totle, and the intolerable yoke with which they were
endeavoring to burden all intelligence and love of
truth, science, and progress. But these ebullitions
of his youthful audacity were afterward somewhat
cooled. In later editions of the Animadversions he
was more moderate, and in his Studies on Dialectic
and the works that grew out of his contest with
Schegk he even shows a great admiration for Aris-
totle and professes to be a better Peripatetic than
his adversaries.
This milder tone is also shown in his borrowing
certain detached principles from Aristotle to shape
his own works. While Ramus never accepted the
system of Aristotle as a whole, we have seen that
he at least obtained the laws by which he selected
his content in all studies, directly or indirectly,
from a treatise of that philosopher. These princi-
ples are consequently applied in the 'demonstrative'
or expository side of his dialectic, which appears
succession of publications at different periods. "The
· See pp. 110 ff.
? E.g., Dialectica Partitiones or Institutiones, Dialectique, Dia-
lectica libri duo, and Schola in liberales artes.
in a
2
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
145
scholastic works on dialectic in general use brought
into their subject matter parts that belonged rather
to other arts, such as grammar, rhetoric, and ethics,
but, subject to his three laws, Ramus confined his
material strictly to the art of thinking.
This discipline, he claimed, should be constituted
as nature teaches it, without regard to the prejudices
or opinions of men. It should be determined
according to our experience and observation of
reasoning in daily life, for the rules of thought
should be formulated after the fashion in which our
ordinary common sense solves problems. We should,
he states, thoroughly investigate how men use their
reason. The way of discovering this method of
nature is given at length in an early work :-
“Wherefore to understand the functioning of
reason, observe among the thousands of men those
most distinguished for their natural ability and
sagacity and suppose they have to give their advice
in the discussion of an important matter. Their
reasoning ought to give you an image of the nature
of reason, even as a faithful mirror. Examine, then,
what those advisers, through whom nature reveals
1.Cf. Vera logicæ artis descriptio proficisci debet a naturalis rationis
et usus observatione (Schol. dial., XX, 941).
L
146
PETER RAMUS
herself, wish to do. First, if I mistake not, they
will search silently in their minds for every possible
reason, and will invent every possible argument by
which to exhort you to undertake what is contem-
plated or to turn you from it. Then, when they have
found satisfactory arguments, they will express their
thought, not at random, but in order and methodi-
cally; not content with demonstrating each separate
point elegantly and forcefully, they will embrace the
question as a whole, descending from the most
general ideas to the individual and particular cases
falling under them. If this is their procedure in a
single discussion, there is the greater argument for
their following it when they study the nature of
reasoning in its entirety, as did the first philosophers,
who had no artificial logic at all. Hence at all
times that an occasion arises for exercising our rea-
son, nature invites our minds to a twofold effort : on
the one hand, greater activity and more penetration
for solving the problem; and on the othe
more
calm reflection for examining and weighing that
solution and properly arranging its various parts.
Herein we recognize with certainty the action of
nature from which science should never depart,
but should follow religiously, for it will have fulfilled
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
147
its purpose only when it has reproduced the wisdom
of nature. Science ought, therefore, to study the
lessons that are(innate in select minds; and then,
when it has collected them with care, it should in
turn transmit them in their most natural order,
and upon them as a model should formulate the
rules for those who desire to reason well. Thus
dialectic should, as it were, first be the pupil of
nature, but should later become her schoolmistress,
for nature is by no means so energetic and strong
that she cannot gain an advantage through under-
standing herself and recognizing her functions, nor
yet so feeble and languishing that she cannot, with
the help of this art, acquire greater power and in-
tensity.”1
Hence Ramus would base dialectic upon actual X
experience and usage. As grammar and rhetoric
were to be founded upon the practice of those who
wrote and spoke well, dialectic is to take its principles
and rules from the procedure of those best fitted to
reason; namely, the wise. His very practical dialec-
2
1 Dialecticæ partitiones, fol. 3, 4; Scholæ dialectica, IV, pp.
146 ff.
2 After this, we can better understand the significance of the
term 'utilitarian,' with which he was frequently taunted. See
p. 57.
148
PETER RAMUS
clubito
.
>
Ratic, therefore, is more the art of persuasion and ex-
position than of the discovery of truth. With him
the subject leaned toward rhetoric, and could
better be learned, he held, by observing Cicero than
by studying the canons of the Organon. At the
qutset of his treatises, he defines dialectic as 'the
art of discussing well,' and from the two methods
we have just seen that he discerned in the reasoning
of the wise, it is divided into invention' and 'arrange-
ment.4 The former division of the subject, which he
defines as that of 'inventing the arguments,' is con-
cerned with the separate parts of which the subject
is composed. The latter, defined as 'the suitable
arrangement of the things invented,' 6 deals with the
combination and classification of these parts in the
completed presentation.
1 See pp. 154 f. 2 Hence Prantl calls it'Ciceronian-rhetorical.'
3 Dialectica est ars bene disserendi is the opening of his Latin
treatises.
* Inventio and judicium (cf. Cicero) or dispositio. Dial. libri duo,
Book I, Chap. II; Dialectique, p. 4. Here again his ‘dichotomy'
is in evidence. These are the main divisions, it will be noted, that
are usually assigned to rhetoric, but which Ramus discarded from
that subject. See p. 136.
5 Pars de inveniendis argumentis or doctrina cogitandi et inve-
niendi argumenti.
6 Apta rerum inventarum collocatio or pars de disponendis argu-
mentis ad judicandum.
-
6
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
1.19
6
6
2
3
6
'Invention' is separated into two main groups
of arguments, — 'artificial,' which are demonstrated,
and 'inartificial,' which are assumed. Under these
heads, Ramus arranges all the chief forms of argu-
ment into which human thought falls, and illustrates
them with examples from the classical poets and
orators. Of the artificial arguments the first four
are based on (1) causes, which are to be distinguished
as 'efficient,' 'material,' 'formal,' and 'final';2 (2)
effects; (3) 'subjects' or presuppositions, and
(4) adjuncts. These all come under the head of
agreeing, but there are also disagreeing arguments;
among which are included (5) 'different' and 'op-
posed.' Besides these five groups, which are all
simple, there are (6) compound arguments. While
these groups are 'primary,' there are also 'secondary'
1 Argumentum est artificiale aut inartificiale. Artificiale, quod
ex se arguit.
2 These classes of causes are borrowed from Aristotle.
• The word used is subjecta (Aristotle's ÚTokeljeva). Ramus thus
explains it: subjectum est, cui aliquid conjungitur. Anima est
subjectum scientia, ignorantia, virtutis, vitii; quia hæc præter
essentiam accedunt.
* Adjunctum est, cui aliquid subjicitur.
5 Consentaneum est quod consentit cum re quam arguit.
6 Dissentanea is used here. Like consentanea, it is borrowed
from Cicero and indicates again the leaning of his dialectic toward
rhetoric.
4
150
PETER RAMUS
arguments. The latter are distinguished as (7) quali-
(
tative,' which relate to names rather than things and
may be connotative and denotative, (8) distributive,
or (9) definitive. The second main division of the
classes of arguments, ‘inartificial' or (10) assumed,
embraces divine' and 'human' testimonies that
have been inherited, and these may be further
divided, the one as it comes from oracles or proph-
ecies, and the other from actual laws or from the
sanction of proverbs.
The second book treats the second part of dialectic,
-'arrangement.' Here also is a twofold division,
the 'axiom' or proposition, and the "dianoia' or
deduction. Deduction is itself divided into syllo-
gism and 'method.' There several divisions of the
propositions are suggested, but it is sufficient to
note here its 'quality' as affirmative or negative, and
its 'quantity' as general or special. The syllogism
consists in deriving a conclusion from a 'proposition'
a
3
6
1 Notatio (Aristotle's cúußodov or oú vyov) est nominis inter pre-
tatio.
2 These categories for reducing the terms of thought to ten chief
classes were borrowed from Aristotle. 7
3 Axioma est dispositio argumenti cum argumento, qua esse ali-
quid aut non esse judicatur. Latine, enunciatum dicitur.
4 Dionoia est cum aliud ex alio deducitur.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
151
and an 'assumption,' or a major and minor premise.
It includes two classes, — the ‘simple' or categorical
and the 'conjunctive' or conditional, the latter of
which is divided into hypothetical and disjunctive.
The categorical syllogism, which consists in a
judgment derived from two simple propositions, is
divided according to quantity and quality into
fourteen 'modes.' These correspond to those of
the first three ‘figures’ in Aristotle, as Ramus rejects
the fourth figure, with its five modes, as invalid.
The hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms, so
named from the nature of their premises, have
each two modes, one of which leads to positive
conclusions and the other to negative. Ramus also
explains the meaning of several other forms of the
syllogism, - enthymeme, induction, example, di-
lemma, and sorites, through which false conclusions
are derived. To the enthymeme and the sorites he
grants a certain validity, but the syllogisms cited,
he declares in closing, are 'the golden rule' by which
the good, just, true, useful, and their opposites can
be judged.
‘Method,' the other form of deduction, is defined
as “the arrangement of a variety of arguments so that
the first in importance is placed first, the second next,
152
PETER RAMUS
9
the third in the third place, and so on in order."
This process is divided into the method of 'learning'
‘
and that of ‘sagacity.' There is apparently no
difference in their origin, nature, and purpose, but
they represent one and the same method in two fields
and compose simply a twofold phase of one process.
The method of learning' is strongly scientific, and
follows the laws of logic, going from definitions and
general principles to the distribution and special
arrangement of parts. Just as this method is used
in the liberal arts, sagacity' is the corresponding
form among poets, orators, and historians. In the
latter case the method is not in logical form, but
is thoroughly natural and comes simply from the
application of reason and wisdom. The chapters 1
in which this whole subject is treated are regarded
by Ramus as the most important part of his dialec-
tic works. In one place he says:
“But ‘method,' both in the form of ‘learning'
and of 'sagacity,' is the sovereign light of reason.
In this not only have the other animals nothing in
common with men, as they may have in the ‘proposi-
tion,' but even men differ very widely among them-
Dialecticæ libri duo, Book II, Chaps. XVII and XVIII; Dialec-
tique, pp. 119 ff.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
153
"1
selves in the qualification. For, however much they
may all naturally share in the syllogistic faculty,
the number of those who study how to use it well is
very small, and of that small number there are still
fewer who know how to arrange and judge according
to good ‘method.' By as much as man surpasses
the beasts in the syllogism, may he himself excel
other men through ‘method,' and the divinity of
man is reflected in no part of reason so fully as in the
sum of that universal method of judgment.
Evidently, Ramus holds, the way taken in wise
deliberation is from general to particular, and the
reader especially meets this ‘method' in literature,
since the author necessarily struggles to be clear and
develop his material in proper sequence. If ‘method'
be neglected in either science or practical life, con-
fusion ensues. Since this method forms a clear
arrangement of material, it assists a natural develop-
ment of the pupil's memory, and, in consequence,
the second book closes with a chapter on this mental
function. In this Ramus introduced the first rules
on memory that ever appeared in a work on the art
of thinking, but they were little developed here.
An idea of the treatment of dialectic by Ramus may
1 Dialectique, p. 135.
154
PETER RAMUS
be gained from the abbreviated analysis on the next
page. It can easily be seen that the great contri-
butions of Ramus to the study of dialectic were brev-
ity, simplicity, and clearness. As a corresponding
failing, his system has been supposed to be somewhat
superficial. But logic with him was not the science
of the normative laws of human knowledge. He
held it to be simply the practical art of debating
a question, and whatever subject matter is not needed
for his purpose, he rejects from his treatise. He de-
clines to consider any of the fundamental ontological
or epistemological problems that are often thought
to be preliminary to logic. He even refuses to use
: the word 'concept' (notio), since it seems to him
too philosophic, and simply speaks of ‘arguments.'
Logic for him deals not with the discovery of truth
so much as with exposition and persuasion, and he
is inclined to make dialectic lean toward rhetoric.1
This, however, grew out of his desire to produce a
practical and useful dialectic, as opposed to the formal
*
1 This accounts for the criticisms of some of his contemporaries,
who declared that he was another Erasistratus and an ignoramus,
and that he wished to teach his pupils to fly without wings. See
Schegk, Hyperaspistes ad epistolam P. Rami, pp. 4 ff.; Ursinus,
Bedenken ob Rami Dialectica in Schulen einzuführen (Heidelberg,
1586).
I
TIJE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
155
.
2.
edicicat
material
absolute
causes.
formal
agreeing
final
simple
eifects
primary
relative
presuppositions
adjuncts
different
disagreeing
opposite
quantity
equal
compound
unequal
quality
similar
dissimilar
1. qualitative
connotative
denotative
secondary
distributive partitive
dividing
definitive
perfect
imperfect or descriptive
oracular
divine
prophetic
legal
proverbial
antecedent
1. parts
consequent
affirmative
I.
affections
negative
(quality)
true
contingent
2.
necessary
false
general
simple
special
particular
species'
peculiar
(quantity)
congregated
copulative
compound
connective
segregated
discrete
disjunctive
proposition' (major premise)
parts
'assumption' (minor premise)
'consequent ' (conclusion)
syllogism
'simple '(categorical)
contracted
species
explained
'compound' (conditional)
hypothetical
disjunctive
method
learning
sagacity
2
antecedent {
artificial
Invention
inartificial
nies
Dialectic,
the art of
discussing
well,' is
divided
into:
'axiomatic
(proposi-
tion)
Arrange-
ment or
‘judgment
dianoetic
(deduction)
156
PETER RAMUS
definitions, minute analyses, and barren rules of the
scholastic treatises, and such a simplification and
clarity in presenting the technique of the art of
thinking was of much value to education. More-
over, his conception of dialectic would tend to foster
free thought and inquiry, and harmonize the rules
of thinking with nature. To be sure, he sought
these principles of thought in the works of the great
classical writers, rather than in his own reflection,
and so may have somewhat aided the formalized
humanism eventually to establish a new yoke upon
intellectual progress, but in his time he must have
been a great factor in freeing education from the
tyranny of a scholastic conception of Aristotle and
in breaking with the barbarism of the Middle Ages.
Through his dialectic he dared to tackle the philo-
sophic positions accepted unquestioningly for several
centuries and to resist the absurd distinctions of the
schoolmen. He made it clear that it was time to de-
part from the tutelage of Aristotle, and to this extent
he is still contributing to the advancement of the
science of logic. For, as has well been said, “he alone
dared to say openly and without reserve what others
only lisped; he alone realized what they scarcely
11
1 Brucker, Hist. crit. philos., Per. III, pars II, 1. II, c. 1, § 2.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
157
dared to wish, in his preparation of a new dia-
lectic.”
Ramus deals also with the method of teaching
dialectic, which is to occupy the pupils during the
fifth year of the course. As in grammar and rhetoric,
he insisted upon ‘practice' as of more importance
even than "explanation.' His opponents, he main-
tained, were teaching only dead logic, and were
using the precepts of the art for a game of ball over
which to shout and quarrel, and he declared that
their sophistic disputations over dialectic theses
were not only fruitless, but injurious. Just as the
content was to follow ‘nature,' 'practice' should
follow the mastery of content. The teacher should
make an “explanation’ of the logical rules, as con-
tained in 'invention' and 'arrangement,' and the
pupil should learn and discuss them, but the matter
could not stop there. The knowledge of the classes
of arguments and the forms of judgment must be
zealously applied, if it is to be of value.
The material here also, as in the preceding arts, is
to be furnished by the classical writers, especially
Cicero and Demosthenes. With his conception of
Dial. partit. fol. 1, ars igitur naturam sibi propositam semper
habeat, exercitatio artem.
158
PETER RAMUS
>
>
6
a
dialectic, he naturally turns to the orators for illus-
trations, but he is no longer satisfied with mere
excerpts. To understand their argumentation, whole
speeches are laid before the student. As elsewhere,
in ‘practice' 'analysis' comes first; the arguments
are picked out and classified, and the cases of ‘syllo-
gism' and 'method' have their ‘figures' and 'modes'
determined. Then 'practice' in 'genesis,' or pro-
duction, must be afforded, during which the student
writes first a close imitation of the passage, and later
makes a more independent production.' Ramus
furnishes several illustrations of his entire method.
For example, we may take the speech of Cicero,
For Milo. In the 'analysis,' he would first have
the defense read; then the student should examine
all the arguments adduced and place them ac-
cording to the ten classes; and finally determine ,
the ‘premises,' 'conclusions,' and 'methods,' accord-
ing to which the arguments were arranged. In the
'genesis,' what Cicero urged in behalf of Milo is
applied in a similar theme. For example, a noble-
man is to be defended in an indictment for murder,
and the pupil has to seek and arrange the arguments
and conclusions in a fashion like that of Cicero.
1 See pp. 117, 133, and 140.
THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM
159
Gradually, however, he should strive not to imi-
tate the great Roman orator slavishly, but to
become as independent as possible and even to
surpass him. Throughout this training in dialectic,
while, in keeping with the law of justice, there is
no repetition of grammar and rhetoric, no part of
the instruction of the previous four years is to be
neglected, and, according to his principle of 'com-
bined use,'' every exercise must be couched in correct
grammar and ornate language.
6
1
1 See p. 141.
CHAPTER VII
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
6
1
As we have indicated, Ramus was not satisfied
to limit his reforms to the lower trinity of liberal
arts. He soon turned his attention also to the
'esoteric’ studies, or quadrivium, which in his day
still included the mathematical subjects of arith-
metic and geometry, together with music and astron-
omy as minor fields. Music had fallen into the
background and he never attempted to revive it.
Astronomy he included to some extent under his
wider term of 'physics.'
To mathematics, however, Ramus gave great at-
tention, and the results of his labors here are worthy
of more detailed consideration than could be given
when dealing with the account of his life. These
subjects have been so immensely expanded and im-
proved since his day that a mere inspection of his pro-
1 See p. 120.
Rami actiones duæ in senatu, pro regia mathematica
professionis cathedra, published in two editions in 1566, and extant
also in Collectaneæ præfationes, epistolæ, orationes, p. 533.
160
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
161
1
ductions will give but a very inadequate notion of his
actual contribution. Up to the last quarter of the
fifteenth century, the texts on mathematics were lim-
ited to little more than those of the ancients and the
wretched condensations made during the Middle
Ages, and while just before the close of the century
a few editions of Euclid had been published at
humanistic centers in Italy,” little had been done
with the subject. The humanists who might have
collected and translated these treatises were largely
absorbed in the development of linguistic study.
At the opening of the sixteenth century conditions
began to improve ; a number of earnest scholars
came into the field, 4 and several textbooks on mathe-
matics appeared in Germany, Italy, and France.
But while several prominent mathematicians were
developed at Paris before Ramus, he must still be
1 Paciuolo's work (1494) and Valla's edition (1498) were hardly
of this order, and there were a number of excellent modern works
on arithmetic published before 1501, such as those of Borghi and
Calandri.
2 Such as the 1482 edition of Ratdolt in Venice, the
1491
edition
at Vincentia, and Valla's edition of 1498.
3 Even Sturm entirely ignored the subject in his curriculum,
* Faber Stapulensis, Clichtoveus, Bouvelles, Budæus, Jean
Fernel, Oronce Finée, and Jacques Peletier were among those to
advance the subject before the work of Ramus began.
M
162
PETER RAMUS
accounted a pioneer. Before his death he had be-
come one of the best-known mathematicians that
France possessed, and his reputation endured until
the time of Descartes. His works, too, compare
.
favorably with most of the others' produced during
the entire century. As late as 1625, his arithmetic
was still in good standing, and it was, together with his
geometry and posthumous algebra, republished and
commented upon in France, Germany, Holland, and
throughout academic Europe. Moreover, his lectures
on the subject at the College of France brought
into existence a host of brilliant young mathema-
ticians, who became the means of stimulating an in-
terest and of greatly advancing the work during the
next half century, and at his death he left most of his
fortune to found a chair of mathematics at the College
of France. Hence his achievements, crude as they
were, entitle him to an honorable place in the history
of mathematics.
The special interest that Ramus showed in mathe-
matics was probably due not only to his appreciation
of the subject as a means of mental discipline and as
a key to many practical pursuits, but equally to its
definiteness and the possibility of illustrating thereby
.
- Viète's incomparable work would have to be excepted.
.
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
163
>
>
the three rules he had laid down for determining the
content of a subject. He held that the laws of
`justice' and 'wisdom' had been violated, and that
too much complexity and obscurity appeared in the
current works on mathematics, and even in Aristotle.
Ramus declares that the great philosopher mingled
much of the subject matter of arithmetic with that
of geometry, and treated geometry before arithmetic,
although this forced him to repeat certain general
conceptions, such as 'size, under several heads.
Most of these difficulties for mathematics could be
avoided, he insists, by sharply separating the fields of
the subjects and by treating all general conceptions
first.2
Ramus declares the subject matter of arithmetic
to be that 'of proper calculation.'3 He divides it as
‘simple' and 'comparative' or compound, and de-
votes a book to each class. “The simple arithmetic
considers the nature of numbers singly," while “com-
parative arithmetic treats the comparison of numbers
in quantity and quality.” The former includes no-
6
.
Schol. Math., præf., in Collect. præf., p. 166.
2 Schol. Math., I, pp. 2 ff.
3 Arithmeticæ est doctrina bene numerandi. This seems to be
the only one of the arts where ars is not used, but this is probably
accidental, as is shown by Dialectica, lib. I, cap. III.
>
>
164
PETER RAMUS
tation, the four fundamental operations, fractions,
and improper numbers; the latter deals with
arithmetical and geometrical proportion, the rule
of three ('golden rule'), alligation, equations, and
allied topics. Geometry he calls 'the art of measur-
ing properly.' The subject falls naturally into plane
and solid, but the division into twenty-seven books
treats the subject from the standpoint of separate
topics rather than of groups. His treatise on plane
geometry covers lines, angles, and such figures
as triangles, quadrangles, polygons, parallelograms,
squares, and circles, together with their relations
and subdivisions; that on solid geometry covers
the properties and subdivisions of pyramids, prisms,
cubes, spheres, cones, and cylinders.
The diagrams on the following pages, giving more
detail, show how carefully Ramus observed his fun-
damental principles in the content of mathematics,
and how both arithmetic and geometry could be
divided according to his favorite method of dichot-
omy.' While by his clear presentation he may have
sacrificed something of the rigorous discipline that
has been claimed by some as the chief value in the
study of mathematics, he felt clearness to be of most
importance and ruthlessly eliminated all extraor-
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
165
dinary complexity. The order and simplicity of his
arrangement are admirable, and his demonstrations
are clear and easily remembered. We are further
indebted to him as perhaps the first to put the
problems of Euclid in the form of propositions and
theorems, which has proven such a boon for the
memory.
The method of teaching which Ramus advocated
for mathematics was quite as effective as that in the
other subjects, and was based on the same principles.
After the rules had been explained as simply as
possible, the pupil's knowledge was put in practice.
Here again he stressed the process of 'analysis' and
'genesis.' The examples were to be borrowed from
the mathematical writings of the ancients, chiefly
Euclid, or formed by the teacher himself. In geome-
try the figures were first to be drawn by the instructor
and then imitated by the student. Again, in order
that the work of the trivium might not be forgotten,
he advised that discussions be held upon mathe-
matical theses, and that the arguments and diction
used be held to a high standard of efficiency.
We may now turn to the other quadrivial subject
upon which Ramus wrote. Until his time, 'physics,'
See Præf. math., in the Collect. præf., p. 166.
.)
164
1
tation, the four fu
and improper nu?
arithmetical and
of three ('golden
allied topics. Ger
ing properly.' T
and solid, but th
treats the subjec
topics rather th:
geometry cover
as triangles, q
squares, and
and subdivisi
the properties
cubes, spher
The diagi
detail, shov
damental
and how
divided acc
omy. :
WH
sacrificed
has been
sid

CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
167
17
ordinate
of one
primate
relations
equal perimeters
of two
prime proportions
similitude
perpendicularity
parallelism
proportion
right
triangu-
plane
lar
oblique
sur-
quad-
triangu-
rangle
lated
polygon
circular
curved
pentaedral
plane
prism
pyramidal
bexaedral
solid
polyedron
sphere
curved
diverse
obtuse
acute
parallelo-
gram
rectan-
gular
obliqui
angular
square
oblong
rhombus
rhomboid
trapezium
of one line
Rela.
tions of
lides
of two lines
parts
'affections'
(relations)
Geometry,
'the art of
measuring
properly,'
includes:
straight
oblique
perpendicular
parallel
right
angles
oblique
obtuse
acute
center
perimeter
radius
diameter
altitude
figures
ratio
intersection
lines
recti-
figures
linear
spherical
diverse
pyramid
cone
cylinder
Bounded
by lines
face
'species
(classes)
parallelopipedon
trapezium
cube
obloug
168
PETER RAMUS
like mathematics, played a decidedly subordinate
part in the colleges of the university. And neither in
his day nor for a long time afterward was it generally
dignified with careful organization or methodical
instruction. Even the humanists, since natural
science lay quite outside their sphere of interest,
did little or nothing to disturb the authority of
Aristotle in this field, although they tried to disrupt
the traditional scholastic methods and the super-
stitions of astrology. Ramus undertook to intro-
duce the same system into the content and method
of physics as he had in the case of the other liberal
arts. He vigorously attacked both the schoolmen
and Aristotle, and criticized the eight books of the
latter's work on natural science 2 in the same number
of Studies in Physics. He claimed that this treatise
of the great philosopher secured its material more
from logic than from nature, and that Aristotle
indulged in too many speculations, which have
nothing to do with the field of physics. With some
exaggeration, he says:-
“If one should by means of his senses and reason
investigate heaven and earth and all that therein is,
? Witness Melanchthon's Institutiones physica.
1 Φυσική Ακρόασις.
3 Scholæ physica.
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM 169
as a physicist ought to do, and then compare his
results with the Physics of Aristotle, he would find
in that work no observation of anything in nature,
but only sophisms, theoretical speculations, and un-
supported assertions.” 1
The proper method, he held, is quite contrary to
Aristotle's. One should develop the subject of
physics by avoiding philosophical digressions and
searching with his senses through visible nature,
where lies the genuine and useful material, which
needs only to be observed, tested, and arranged
methodically for instruction.
However, this invective against senseless and
pernicious abstractions and the suggestion of a real
investigation of nature must not mislead us into
supposing that Ramus himself held to induction in
natural science. In building up his physics he did
not resort directly to nature for his material, but,
similarly to his method with the literary and argu-
mentative arts, he took his facts largely from the
Physics of Aristotle, the Natural History of Pliny,
and the Georgics of Vergil. And the order of ar-
rangement is as deductive as it is in his geometry.
His Studies in Physics tell us that the “aim of
· Præfat. physica, in the Collectan. præfat., p. 69.
170
PETER RAMUS
ور
genuine natural science is to study first the heavens,
then the meteors, then the minerals, vegetables,
animals, and finally man.' Physics deals with
nature, which is an essence constant in itself.' 1
‘God' and 'intelligence' (mens) are assigned as the
chief principles underlying nature, but are not
further mentioned, since he rigidly eschews meta-
physical discussions, and he quickly turns to the
material world. After a very brief chapter upon
forms of matter in motion, - birth, death, growth,
decay, and the like, he takes up astronomy and
deals with the heavenly bodies, zones, poles, zodiac,
chronology, and temperature. The heavenly bodies
are discussed under the first element, —‘fire.' The
three remaining elements include all natural phe-
His chapter on 'air' deals with clouds,
thunder and lightning, hail, winds, and rains. Then
from the phenomena of the air he goes to 'water,
under which he considers oceans, rivers, springs,
and wells. Finally, he deals with the earth, in-
cluding the stones and metals in its bosom, and
the plants, animals, and men that thrive upon it.
The outline on page 172, which is taken from a
nomena.
1 Natura est essentia per se constans.
CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM
171
1
summary of his lectures by one of his pupils,' will
give some idea of the classification of the subject.
Thus in selecting the subject matter for his
physics Ramus treats the supersensible cursorily and
devotes himself almost exclusively to visible ob-
jects. He purposely rejects hypotheses and specu-
lations. Astronomy, meteorology, and agriculture
occupy the bulk of his work, but considerable atten-
tion is also given to botanical, zoological, and anthro-
pological material. Very clearly, however, he has
investigated none of these topics for himself, but has
relied upon the records of the classical authors. His
great contribution rests in his substantial and objec-
tive treatment, free from all the philosophic theories
of the times, and in his excellent organization and
clear arrangement, which passes down from the
heavenly bodies and the phenomena of the air to the
earth with its organic and inorganic features, and
realizes its aim and end in man.
This work in physics, which was planned for the
seventh and final year of the course, was to be taught
like the other arts, by ‘practice, including analysis’
and 'genesis,' as well as by "explanation. Unfor-
1 Professio regia (pp. 285 ff.), published by Freigius four years
after the death of Ramus.
172
PETER RAMUS
tunately, the real spirit of science and induction was
as yet so little understood that the student gained
this exercise through an interpretation of the descrip-
tions of various classical authors rather than by
actual observation, and the study became verbal
rather than scientific. But, compared with the texts
of the time, the physics of Ramus must have pre-
sented an admirable body of well-arranged material
and must have proved more interesting and easier
to learn.
ca indiy Faplyes
pe
Immaterial ( God
intelligence
matter in motion
{ heaven
simple
elements
.
Physics,
dealing with
nature, an
essence con-
stant in
itself,'
includes:
Mate-
rial
birth and death
growth and decay
alteration
change of place
constant
stars
fire
air
inconstant
water
carth
clouds
thunders
lightnings
bails
winds
inorganic or
rains
meteors'
Oceans
rivers
water
springs
wells
stones
earth metals
colors
plants
organic animals and beasts
man
air
classes
Com -
posite
of cle-
ments

CHAPTER VIII
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
WHEN Ramus retired from active teaching in 1571,
it was understood that, in continuing his reform of
the liberal arts, he would include treatises on ethics
and politics, which were coming to be added in the
higher curriculum of the quadrivium. It is even
stated that he had prepared a work upon the subject
of ethics, which awaited only a final revision, when
death cut short his literary activities. If this
treatise was ever published or even produced, how-
ever, it has now been lost, and we have to depend
upon other works of his for our knowledge of his
moral teachings. Happily his references to the sub-
ject elsewhere are so extensive that it is not difficult
to reconstruct his general positions. His polemics
are developed in occasional outbursts against Aris-
totelianism in his orations and more systematically
1 See p. 120.
Referred to in his Oratio de professione liberalium artium. (Paris,
See p. 104.
173
174
PETER RAMUS
in his Studies in Metaphysics. His constructive
attitude in pure ethics is found in the treatise on the
Customs of the Ancient Gauls, although this was in-
tended to be more of an historical work than a trea-
tise on morals, and his positions as a Christian ethi-
cist are developed in the second and third books of
his posthumous Commentaries on the Christian Re-
ligion.
The ethical attitude of Ramus in many places is
purely anti-Aristotelian and destructive. He fails
somewhat to understand Aristotle, but as an ardent
Christian he evidently holds it incumbent upon him
to combat the paganism of that philosopher. Like
most theologians until a very recent day, he proves
a naïve dualist. He cannot conceive of ethics with-
out the direct action of God upon the human soul.
Hence he inveighs against the scholastic instruction
in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, "where the boy
learns a mass of impieties : for example, that the
principle and ideals of the good' are innate in every
man, that all the virtues are within his own power,
that he acquires them by means of nature, art, and
labor, and that for this work, so grand and so sublime,
man has need of neither the aid nor the coöperation
of God. Nothing about providence; not a word
>
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
175
about divine justice; in short, since, in the eyes of
Aristotle, souls are mortal, the happiness of man is
reduced to this perishable life.” “Such,” he ex-
‘
claims, “is the philosophy out of which we build the
foundation of our religion !” 1 In fact, to the in-
genuous mind of Ramus, Aristotle's very idea of God
savors of atheism. In another connection he de-
clares at length:
“God, according to Aristotle, is an eternal essence,
which knows not matter, magnitude, parts, division,
passion, or change, and leads a perfect and com-
pletely happy existence. Even if this be granted,
what a further mass of errors and impieties! God
is an animal; there are as many gods as there are
celestial globes. God has no real power whatsoever;
he would not know how to act or move, had he
not possessed those characteristics from all eternity.
God is the first cause of the world, but without wish-
ing or even knowing it. He thinks only of himself
and disdains all the rest. He is neither creator'
nor 'providence.' He moves the world eternally
even as the loadstone moves iron. He has neither
love, benevolence, nor charity. What, then, is such
.
6
1 Pro philosophica Parisiensis Academia disciplina oratio. See
Collectaneæ præfationes, epistolæ, orationes, pp. 337 f.
176
PETER RAMUS
an atheistic conception of God save a Titanic strug-
gle against him?”1
Such is the vehemence with which Ramus ordina-
rily attacks the foundations of Aristotle's ethics, but
at times he shows that the ancient philosopher had
anticipated the true Christian doctrine and accepts
his positions, even at the expense of certain usages
of the Church. For example, after showing that
Aristotle completely rejected the gods made in the
image of man, he remarks that “this philosopher,
pagan though he was, has therein shown himself
more pious than a great many Christians, who place
in their temples visible and gross images of the Trin-
ity, of which even the mind can scarcely conceive.” ?
Occasionally he goes so far as to claim to rely abso-
lutely upon reason, and “not even to employ any
argument drawn from the Holy Scriptures, nor
appeal to the authority of Christ and Moses." 3
His commentary on the institutions and customs
of the ancient Gauls, which is outlined on page
179, treats ethics from the standpoint of the four
1 Schol. met., 1. XIV, at the close.
2 Ibid., l. XII, cap. 8. Cf. Schol. phys., 1. VIII, toward the
end.
3 Schol. phys., 1. VIII, at the close,
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
177
cardinal virtues and almost in the terms of Plato
and Cicero.
As a rule, however, Ramus does not desire any
such complete emancipation. In the treatment of
ethics in his Commentaries on the Christian Religion
he is a true Protestant Christian, and bases his solu-
tion of ethical problems upon the Scriptures, espe-
cially the decalogue and the Lord's prayer. Yet he
never hesitates to refer to examples from antiquity
in defense of his position, as well as to contrast them
with his conception of Christian ethics. As in-
stances of this, we may note his citation of the Lace-
dæmonian and primitive Roman mandate to ‘honor
thy father and mother,' of Cicero's and Menander's
prohibition of bearing 'false witness,' and of a variety
of pagan warnings against 'covetous' action and even
thought. He felt, of course, that the ancient world
was more in harmony with the later five command-
ments, which deal rather with man's social relations
and not so much with his reconciliation with God,
whereas the Christian world holds that primarily in
God, and not in ourselves, rests the motive for human
struggles and human happiness. He maintains at
the start, therefore, that the fundamental principle
а.
1
1 Commentaria de religione Christiana, II, 2-10.
>
N
178
PETER RAMUS
of ethics is man's obedience to God and his desire to
submit to his will in all things. The means of bring-
ing God near and unifying him with man is ‘faith'
in the Father's benefits to his church or kingdom
upon earth.
a
Then, through illustrations from the Sermon on the
Mount and quotations from other parts of the New
Testament, Ramus enlarges, deepens, and brings
out the inner meaning of each one of the command-
ments. He converts all these negative statements
into positive commands, and gives to the Old Tes-
tament form a New Testament content, thus produc-
ing from a code of statutes a system of Christian
ethics. In carrying this out, he states that all Chris-
tian duties and virtues can be embraced under “piety
and charity as the sum and substance of the law.
Charity is both the cause and effect of the law. It is
filled with faith, hope, and sympathy, and is void of
malice, pride, hatred, and injustice. It is the one
and all-comprehensive virtue.”3 From this root,
then, spring all the Christian virtues and all good
works. Content is accordingly given to these general
>
* Commentaria de religione Christiana, I, 2, 10 and I, 1, 6 f.
2 Ibid., II, 7, 229; II, 10, 179; and II, II, 251.
• Ibid., II, 13, 202.
.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
179
Temperance
abstinence
moderation in speech
frugality
play
sharing of goods and possessions
boyish,- for the toleration of labors and dangers
{
in tine of battle
ambusb
effects
conquered races
colonies
intelligence
upsheltered
land
kinds
In his Book on
the Customs
of the An-
cient Gauis,
virtue is di.
vided into
jour classes :
Courage
military
fortified
paval
Prudence
instruments
studies
authors
arts and pbilosopby
{
grammar
rhetoric
logic
mathematics
physics
theology
divisions
classes of men
Justice
{
assemblies and councils
180
PETER RAMUS
principles in his treatment of all human relations.1
Marriage, which is concerned in the seventh com-
mandment, Ramus outlines historically, beginning
with God's sanction of the relation in the case of
Adam and Eve, and citing Christ's approval by his
presence at the wedding feast in Cana and by the
symbolic marriage of Christ with the Church. He
further holds that marriage should take place only
between members of the Church. He specifies that it
should be forbidden between Christians and pagans
and within certain degrees of consanguinity, and cites
instances in the Bible where violations of this prin-
ciple have been punished. The Old Testament polyg-
amy cannot be taken as the norm, for the relation
was in its institution monogamous. Celibacy, how-
ever, is not holier than marriage, and he condemns the
requirement in the case of monks, nuns, and secular
priests. Divorce should be granted only on the
grounds of adultery. The rule for the relation of
parents and children Ramus finds in the fifth com-
mandment, and more specific guidance he gathers
from the Epistle to the Ephesians and the works of
various classical writers. He gives as a warning for
1 This forms the substance of the second book of his Commen-
taries.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
181
the violation of this law the punishments meted out
to Ham and to Absalom. In all social, civic, and
.
political life, Ramus stresses the duty of truth. He
will not sanction 'white lies,' concealment of the
truth by physicians, rhetorical turns of the orator, or
deceptions in diplomacy. If the truth must be
concealed, the proper way to achieve this is by silence
or by such an answer as will produce silence on the
part of the questioner, as in the case of Jesus with the
Pharisees. Oaths are not unconditionally forbidden,
for Abraham, David, Paul, and other biblical models
swore in God's name when the circumstances called
for such action. In general, asseveration of this
sort should be permitted when made concerning the
truth, but should not be done wantonly in cursing or
in supporting falsehood through perjury. For this
latter grievous sin God has often punished men
severely. Ramus ranks tithe-taking with usury, and
brings them both under the eighth commandment,
not to steal. One may, however, increase his posses-
sions by all honorable means. Like the reformers
in general, this French moralist was very strict in
his ideas of amusements. Dancing, for example, he
would permit among young maidens by themselves,
as in the case of the sisters of Moses and their com-
182
PETER RAMUS
>
panions, but dancing with a member of the opposite
sex, in his opinion, was too often associated with
immorality. Obedience to magistrates was especially
counseled by Ramus, as implied in the fifth com-
mandment, but, on the other hand, magistrates must
live
up
to their duties. War and capital punishment,
he maintains, are somewhat limited in their extent
and character by the sixth commandment, although
they may be justified in the case of murder, unjust
attacks, or defense of one's native land.
After the detailed discussion of 'obedience' he
takes up the Christian duty of ‘prayer.'1 This atti-
tude is an evidence of piety, and the other great proof
of faith. It is the gift of God himself, since it is he
that kindles the zeal for it in us, and his fatherly rela-
tion through Christ is justification for it in the faith-
ful soul. “Christ is our mouthpiece, through whom
.
we talk to the Father; our eye, through whom we
see him; our right hand, through whom we make
offerings to him.” 2 Hence it is the Father himself
who inspires us to prayer, and gives us in his son the
pledge of being heard. Prayer, therefore, is the ex-
1 To this subject he devotes the third book of his Commentaries,
just as the second was concerned with 'obedience to the divine law.'
Ibid., III, 2, 208 ff.
?
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
183
pression and proof of Christian life, and in it penitence
is revealed. As the new life is expressed in prayer,
we are strengthened and advanced in the fight against
our evil inclinations. It is, therefore, necessary to
renew prayer daily and ask forgiveness for our sins,
since continual and manifold temptations are con-
stantly arising both from our misfortunes and our
prosperity. He further makes a gradation in sins
from the standpoint of heinousness and worthiness
of punishment. The most unforgivable breach is
the sin against the Holy Ghost, as in the case of the
Pharisees that attributed the miracles of Jesus to
demons.?
The Lord's prayer Ramus holds to be a model
for all conditions of life, and the treatise on prayer
is clearly a detailed paraphrase and explanation of
its several petitions. It is not necessary to enter
further into his discussion, but it is of interest to note
the ingenious comparison that he makes between the
ten commandments and the various petitions of the
Lord's prayer. The second half of the
prayer
is
shown to correspond in general to the second half of
the decalogue. This analogy is not so much one that
is strained after in an effort to attract and hold the
1
* Ibid., III, 8, 241 f.
2 Ibid., III, 9.
9
184"
PETER RAMUS
attention of the reader, as it is intended to convince
him that the Christian life, in fulfilling the law, mani-
fests itself as in harmony with the benefits for which
we are bidden to ask. 1
It can thus be seen that the Ramian ethics, like
all treatises until the last half century, was essen-
tially dogmatic, and shades off into what may be
more properly called “theology.' As a matter of
fact, Ramus includes both subjects in a single work,
his Four Books of Commentaries on the Christian
Religion. The two middle books, which have been
discussed, are really ethical and deal with ‘obedience'
and 'prayer,' but the first and last, upon ‘faith' and
'the sacraments’ respectively, would come rather
under the head of theology. Yet, as compared with
the treatises of the times, especially those of the
orthodox Catholic authorities, Ramus is not guided
by dogmatism. He strives, like most of the reformed
theologians, to deliver the subject from all the idle
1 Ibid., III, 10, 249.
This treatise was begun in Switzerland and Germany in 1568–
1569, and the outline laid before the best known Protestant
theologians. It was completed upon the return of Ramus to Paris,
but was not published until four years after his death, when his
pupil, Banosius, got out an edition at Frankfurt. See pp. 95 and
96 f.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
185
questions and various subtleties with which the
scholastics had embarrassed it. He was disgusted
with the unfruitful learning, formal attitude, and
dissociation with life in the theology of the times,
and struggled to advocate upright living rather than
mere doctrine. He wished to make the Scriptures
the supreme rule of faith, and continually expressed
a wish for exact translations in both Latin and the
vernacular, but he stressed the knowledge of re-
vealed truths less than actually putting them into
effect.
His practical point of view is first embodied in his
definition of theology as 'the science of living well.' ?
He further specifies that “the final purpose of the
science is not mere acquaintance with matters relat-
ing to it, but use and practice," and that by 'well
living' is meant "living in harmony and conformity
with God, the source of all good things.” This
attitude in theology cannot but remind us again of
the reproach of being 'utilitarian’ made by his
opponents, and of his definitions in the various
Illustrations of this desire were found in his Advice to the King
on the Reformation of the University and his letter to the Cardinal
of Lorraine in 1570. See pp. 84 and 103.
• Comm. de relig. Christ., I, 1, 6. Cf. I, 25, 89.
: See p. 57
186
PETER RAMUS
liberal arts. Ramus himself says: “In the same
way the liberal arts teach by their precepts to speak
correctly, to make an effective speech, to reason well,
to calculate well, and to measure well, respectively.”
Hence, since theology should be of practical value,
he holds that it must not be filled with fine techni-
calities, but should be intelligible and popular.
"As I venerate and honor the mystery of sacred and
divine things, so I desire all instruction relating to
these matters to be free from the rocks and thorns of
scholastic problems, and clear and distinct in the
whole course of its exposition and treatment.” 2
The Scriptures hold a rich and manifold content of
divine revelation, prophecy, history, poetry, and
song, which may be made of infinite value to the
This body of simple and inestimable truth
was praised most highly by the Christian Fathers,
but had been ignored and rejected by the scholastics.
“Wherefore,” Ramus declares, “I think that this
recent darkness should be cast away as far as possi-
ble and the ancient light brought back.” 3
masses.
3
1 See pp. 124, 136, 148, 163, and 164.
2 Comm. de. Relig. Christ., I, preface, p. 1.
Ibid., I, preface, pp. i f. Cf. ibid., IV, 18, 343: “Let us dis-
miss the profane logomachies and empty talk; let us speak the
words of the Holy Scriptures, let us use the language of the Holy
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
187
6
1
In order to restore this enlightenment, he proposes
a twofold method. In the first place, the text he
would make should be illustrated with suitable pas-
sages from the Holy Scriptures. “We must act in
divine matters,” says he, “not otherwise than ac-
cording to the divine writings.” The Old Testa-
ment must be used as well as the New. Together
they form the rule for piety and offer the forgiveness
of sins through Christ. In the Old, the covenant is
promised; in the New, it is granted. Both contain
a revelation of God and have substantially the same
content, although one is prophetic and veiled, and
the other fulfilled and clear. Secondly, Ramus
would add to the text and sacred examples, passages
taken from the greatest classical poets, orators, and
historians. By this secular spicing of the religious
Spirit. For that is the truest doctor of wisdom and the most
renowned orator of eloquence, and it uses words that can be under-
stood by us, - clear, significant, and suitable. For that will be to
,
divide the truth rightly. Then let us not supplant divine wisdom
and language with sophisms and folly.” Similar is his continual
suggestion of a return to the 'golden age' of primitive Christianity.
See ibid., I, 6, 25; II, 9, 165; IV, 17, 338; IV, 18, 342 f.; IV, 19,
344, and 346 f.
1 Ibid., I, preface, p. 5.
? See his comparison of the decalogue with the Lord's prayer,
pp. 183 f.
2
188
PETER RAMUS
اور
ness.
materials he believes that the attention of the reader
can be attracted and stimulated, “not that any au-
thority or approbation for religion can be derived from
it, but that it may be clear Christian theology is
not so abstruse or so remote from the human senses
that it cannot illumine all people with a certain
natural light, and so its very humanity may invite
and allure men to engage in divine studies with eager-
This use of classical authors by Ramus,
which is not intended merely as a rhetorical illus-
tration of Christian truth, but a general attempt to
transmit its natural and supernatural revelation, is
one of the most interesting and characteristic features
of his theology. He constantly undertook to show
the harmony of the loftiest representatives of classi-
cal antiquity with Christian principles, to feel and
point out in the pre-Christian world prophecies of
Christianity, and to trace them up to the appearance
of the Gospel, not only from Moses and Isaiah, but
also from Plato and the academies of ancient philos-
ophy. In this he illustrates the complete recon-
ciliation of the Northern Renaissance with the
Reformation, and reveals himself a typical humanist
and a Protestant theologian. While he agrees in the
. . ., 2
1 Comm. de relig. Christ., preface, p. 2.
>
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
189
essentials with the evangelical principles of the other
reformers, in his position toward classical antiquity
he represents a peculiar breadth of view.
Upon this basis Ramus organizes the material of
his theology. He holds that obscurity and confu-
sion in this field have been due in no small measure
to the fact that there are as many methods of divid-
ing and arranging the subject as there are theologians.
Each one feels fully entitled to his own viewpoint,
instead of seeing that, as in any other science, there
is only one correct method. He insists that there is
a definite arrangement based upon general logical
principles, and puts into effect his three laws of
content and his classification by 'dichotomy.'? In
accordance with this method, he divides the science
into 'doctrine' and 'discipline.' The subdivisions
of doctrine, in turn, concern ‘faith' and 'works,' and
the classes of 'works' are 'obedience' and 'prayer'
on the one hand, and ‘sacraments' on the other.
'Obedience' and 'prayer, which he deals with in
books two and three respectively, relate more closely
to his ethics and are treated under that head,
while 'sacraments' belongs with 'faith' to his dog-
? See pp. 130, 139, 150, and 164.
See pp. 110 ff.
• See pp. 178 ff.
- See p. 177
Igo
PETER RAMUS
6
matics, and is treated in the fourth book. His second
main division of 'discipline' falls into the subjects of
'doctrinal practice' and 'church polity. This part
of theology is not treated in his Commentaries, but
we have other ways of knowing the position of Ramus
in the matter. Meanwhile, the general outline of
both the 'ethics' and the theology'proper included
in his Commentaries, is shown in the following
diagram.
6
Theology (in-
cluding Christian
Ethics), 'the art
of living well,
is divided into:
concerning faith
doctrine
obedience and prayer
concerning the works of faith {
sacraments
discipline { doctrinal practice
church polity
The first book of the Commentaries consists in an
interpretation, somewhat scientific, but mostly popu-
lar, of the Apostles' Creed. It is partly a paraphrase
and partly an explanation of the articles, and is
largely in keeping with Catholic doctrine. The first
important theme is that of God's existence, character-
istics, and works.? God is an eternal, immortal, and
beneficent spirit, and is incomprehensible to man save
through his works. First the treatise deals with his
existence and nature, and then with creation, provi-
3
1 See pp. 99 ff.
2 See Chaps. 3-8.
3 This last is the reformed doctrine that was later known as via
causalitatis.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
191
dence, and predestination, but between the chapters
on creation and providence is inserted one upon the
'fall of man. The Ramian conception of God is
'trinitarian,' although it is not treated as a dogma
until toward the close of the book, when the doctrine
of the Holy Ghost is discussed. Upon creation and
providence Ramus presents nothing worthy of note;
he simply makes a collection of biblical and classical
quotations without going closely into the kernel of
these questions. His explanation of the fall of man’
and the consequences thereof is also superficial and
rather brief. Our first parents, he holds, were for-
getful of the wonderful benefits of the Creator and
wished to be his equal, and thus threw away the great
gifts they might otherwise have enjoyed forever.
In place of an immortal body they thus obtained
a mortal one subject to a thousand miseries, and,
through the contagion of the original sin, they ac-
quired a propensity to every sin, and polluted their
entire posterity.
Providence he treats more fully later on under
'predestination.'? In comparison with the dogma
of Calvin or even Zwingli, Ramus presents a very
mild conception of ‘predestination.' He viewed the
'I.e., I, 19, 72 ff.
I, 6, 24. Cf. also II, 1, 27.
>
192
PETER RAMUS
problem from an ethical standpoint, while they
regarded it purely in a logical light. Hence he can
speak of it as “that act of God, whereby out of his
free mercy he selects some for everlasting salvation
and out of his justice relegates others to eternal per-
dition.” 1
This position he supports by a number
of Old and New Testament quotations, which furnish -
proof of both election and damnation, and more
especially by the approval of Augustine in his Letter
to Vincent and in his treatise On Predestination.
Nevertheless, while he rejects every evidence of uni-
versal salvation that appears in the Bible, he appar-
ently does so to be consistent with his Calvinistic
confession and does not show at all the conviction,
zeal, and almost grewsome satisfaction that Calvin
found in this resultant of his logic.?
The second article of the creed, which concerns
the person and work of Christ, Ramus interprets
mainly in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as de-
termined by the Councils of Nicæa and Chalcedon.
Now and then, however, characteristics of the
Protestant point of view appear, and while he uses
the traditional formulations, he clothes them with
11, 8,
2 See especially I, 8, 32.
28.
See Chaps. 9-18.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
193
biblical, rather than scholastic, concepts and terms.
Another peculiarity of his treatment appears in the
way he deals with the twofold nature of Christ. His
humanity, he holds, is shown in his birth, sufferings,
death, and burial, while his deity is revealed in his
resurrection. In this way doctrines quite separate
in orthodox dogmatics are connected. He also adds
to the description in the creed an account of the
human life of Christ, from birth to the passion,
although he renders it largely nugatory by main-
taining that Christ reveals his real self only in his
divinity.?
But the especial contribution of Ramus is his
treatment of the earthly mission of Christ, which, as
we have noted, is closely related to and throws light
upon, his person. His work is not brought under a
definite scheme, nor subsumed under such concepts
as 'reconciliation' or 'redemption, but the author
merely relates the history of Christ's passion. He
comments upon the Jewish and Roman methods of
capital punishment, discusses the time of the cruci-
fixion, collects typical references from the Old Testa-
ment and pagan analogies from the classical writers,
and concludes with a most graphic description of the
11, 11, 43 f.
I, II, 45.
l
194
PETER RAMUS
3
4
5
mourning of Nature over the death of the Savior.1
Similarly detailed descriptions are made of the resur-
rection. He gives a minute account of the descent
into hell, and the ascent into heaven. This final
abode of the righteous he depicts as a definite place, -
'the highest part of the universe,' 4 and 'the seating
at the right hand of God' 5 is also locally conceived.
The 'final judgment' is likewise described. While
the whole narration is written in highly impassioned
and rhetorical language, it is only now and then that
dogmatism is displayed.
Next Ramus presents the third article of the creed,
and interprets the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, the
church universal, the communion of saints, the for-
giveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and
the life everlasting.? He first cites typical passages
where the Godhead and the personality of the Holy
Ghost are described, and then names the specific
attributes and activities of the final member of the
Trinity. In his general attitude toward trinitari-
anism, he appeals to the traditions and usages of
1
8
11, 12, 46 ff.
2 I, 14, 55.
* I, 16, 62 f.
4 I, 16, 63.
- I, 17, 66.
Occasional examples are found, as in I, 11, 46; I, 12, 50; and
I, 14, 57 f.
. Chaps. 19-25.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
195
3
the church and to the Athanasian Creed, and is
very strongly orthodox. He also retains unmodified
the doctrine of the church as the visible evidence
of the invisible kingdom of God, -- 'perceived by
faith, although apparent to the eye of none.'2 The
characteristics of the church or kingdom, however,
are developed according to the Apostles' Creed, and
are but little more than a paraphrase of the words 3
used there. 'Holiness' here below is only approxi-
mate and imperfect, though real, since it is mediated
through faith in Christ. Likewise, the Christian
Church is 'Catholic' or universal. Where the Old
Testament 'congregation of God' referred to a defi-
nite land and a peculiar people, Christianity aims to
include all peoples and times, for it is a common
bond in the Holy Ghost through the Gospel.
It is thus the means of a “communion of saints'
or the redeemed. Further, since salvation is not self-
made, but is granted by the grace of God through
mediation upon the part of Christ, it comes about by
the 'forgiveness of sins. ' 5
But his conception of the 'resurrection of the body'
6
6
11, 19, 69 ff.
2 I, 21, 79.
:I.e., 'holy Catholic (or universal) Church.'
* I, 22, 77 ff.
51, 23, 83.
196
PETER RAMUS
Ramus takes from several of the old Church Fathers
rather than from the Scriptures themselves. He in-
terprets the risen body as not one of flesh, but of a
heavenly nature, and implies that the Bible is using
the language of symbolism. The 'life everlasting,'
which he deals with in the last chapter of the book,
is considered less as a specifically Christian hope of
the future than as a general belief in our immortal
nature. The eternity of punishment in hell is
emphasized, but no purgatory is mentioned.
The fourth book, discussing the 'sacraments,' is,
as we should expect, much more dogmatic even than
the first. It is more definite in its facts and more pre-
cise in expression, and more nearly approaches the
scholastic methods from which Ramus had broken.
It is more strictly theological than his semi-popular
treatment of the three articles of Christian faith.
He begins with a general definition of the sacraments
taken from the Old and New Testaments. He makes
the sacraments analogous to military oaths, and in-
clines more toward Zwingli than Luther in his posi-
tions on the subject. “A sacrament,” he says, “is
an act of public faith instituted by God for commemo-
rating the death of Christ and participating in its
11, 25.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
197
-
fruitage through an objective sign and solemn rite
of the Church.” He especially emphasizes the
1
human side of the ceremony by further explaining:
“On the part of God it is a sign of divine grace and
salvation ; on our part it is a sign of confession and
duty, by which we publicly swear allegiance to the
name and authority of God, and we profess a divine
state of mutual charity among ourselves, a church,
and a religion, so that by visible signs we make and
swear to invisible and spiritual treaties.” 2
The most complete illustrations of this general con-
ception of a sacrament are baptism and holy com-
munion. “Baptism is the sacrament by which,
when once cleansed by water in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are initiated into a
profession of being cleansed of our sins by the blood
of Christ.” 4
“The Lord's supper is the sacrament
by which through the gracious acts of God we use
the bread and wine for professing that we have been
raised up into eternal life through the crucified body
of Christ and his blood which was spilled for us.” 5
In this conception of the eucharist, which he defends
3
>
1 IV, 1, 257
: IV, 5-7.
6 IV, 8, 284.
* IV, 3, 264 f.
• IV, 5, 271.
3
>
198
PETER RAMUS
6
at length, he diverges further from the orthodox views
of 'transubstantiation' than did either Calvin or
Luther. He evidently comes closer to the Zwinglian
idea of a 'commemoration' than to the mysticism
of Calvin, which, on the one hand, teaches a conde-
scension of the divine powers of Christ into the com-
municant through the Holy Spirit, and, on the other,
affirms an elevation of the communicant to heaven.
Nor is Luther's “real presence of Christ, in rejection
of which he makes seven counts,' or any other form
of 'consubstantiation,' acceptable to Ramus.
Even a cursory examination of the organization of
his “theology' reveals the same procedure, with its
merits and defects, that Ramus was found to employ
in his formulation of the studies in the trivium
and quadrivium. The presentation is clear, simple,
and logical, but at times it seems forced upon the
material and does not altogether grow out of the
nature of the discussion. Subjects somewhat cognate
are occasionally sundered by a too rigid pursuance of
the schema. The doctrine of justification by faith,'
for example, is separated from 'remission of sins,'
and is explained later, while 'free will' is quite irrele-
vantly discussed in connection with this latter topic.
6
2
3
1 See Chaps. 11-14.
2 II, 1, 96.
31, 23, 83
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
199
Yet the work is most remarkable for its clarity and
its composition and style.
It exhibits a wide range of
a
scholarship restrained by a strong and simple logic.
The argumentation on the sacraments is a marvel of
strength and simplicity, when we consider the theol-
ogy of the times. Also especially praiseworthy is the
combination of active piety and broad charity with
which the work rings. Most touching is that last
chapter, in which he makes his eloquent appeal for
Christian unity, - an exhortation that had its
hearing years after the author's voice was hushed
by martyrdom.
The second part of the Ramian theology is not
given in his Commentaries, although the division is
recognized there. His general position on several
matters of doctrinal practice and church polity,
however, appear in his various controversies, and we
have reliable sources for judging of the attitude and
opinions of Ramus in these matters. On the very
?
question of the eucharist mentioned above, he had a
1 IV, 19.
2 There are extant three unpublished letters on these subjects
to his friend, the Protestant theologian, Bullinger, whom he had
consulted in shaping his views. See Lobstein, Ramus als Theologe,
pp. 63 f., and Waddington, Ramus, sa vie, ses écrits, et ses opinions,
pp. 239-246.
200
PETER RAMUS
public contest with Beza, who, of course, held to the
Calvinistic interpretation. The use of the words
'substance' and 'substantial he recognized as an
effort to hold partially to tradition, and he charac-
terized both terms as 'foolish and misleading.'1
With regard to polity, it is obvious that Ramus
advocated a more democratic government of the
church than that practiced by the Calvinists. In
open opposition to Beza, he urged that the Calvin-
istic churches should grant more powers to the
membership, and he objected strenuously to the in-
creasing domination of the elders and the exclusion of
the deacons from the administration, whereby the
church was becoming decidedly oligarchic. These
enlarged rights and privileges for the elders had been
voted by the synod of the church held at La Rochelle
in April, 1571, under the moderatorship of Beza.
Propositions offered by Ramus as a protest against
this aristocratic innovation were adopted in March,
1572, at the provincial synod of Ile-de-France, but
were rejected at the national synod of Nîmes two
months later. This assembly, like that at La Ro-
chelle, was dominated by the influence of Beza, and
| Hoec utraque inanis et falsa videatur. See Waddington, op.
cit., p. 434.
?
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
201
1
decreed that the “discipline of our church should
remain in the future, as it has always been observed
and practiced up to this day, without making the
least change or innovation, since it is founded upon
the word of God.” And Beza in triumphant bigotry
declares :
"That pseudo-dialectician, whom several scholars
of old surnamed “the branch ? of Mars,' stirred up a
very serious discussion concerning the whole gov-
ernment of the church, which, he claimed, ought
to be democratic, not aristocratic, leaving to the
council of elders only the proposal of legislation.
Wherefore, the synod at Nîmes, in which I partici-
pated, upon my advice condemned that view, which
is most absurd and pernicious.” 3
We find that Beza returned to the subject later,
and seemed to fear that Ramus would not submit
tamely, but would yet stir up dissension. But at
this time the reformer's enemies had accumulated
in sufficient numbers to prevent further disturbance
of the theological strata, Catholic or Calvinist, and
1 See Aymon, Actes ecclésiastiques et civiles de tous les synodes
(La Haye, 1710), pp. 112 ff.
2 A pun on the name, Ramus.
3 Theological Letters (Geneva, 1573), No. 67.
4 See ibid., No. 68.
202
PETER RAMUS
1
within a few months the courageous theologian was
no longer able to attempt any change in ecclesiastical
'discipline.'
Had Ramus lived longer, there is reason to believe
that he would also have written upon the other pro-
fessional subjects of medicine and law. We have
already seen in his Advice on the Reformation of the
University 1 that he had decided views upon these
subjects, and that his emphasis upon civil law, which
had been entirely abandoned at Paris, and upon labo-
ratory and field work in medicine was decidedly mod-
ern. While Ramus himself never studied medicine,
and had read only a few works of Galen,” he recom-
mended a logical arrangement of this subject, which
he probably hoped to have similar to that he had
adopted for the liberal arts and theology. This would
undoubtedly have furnished a much clearer, more
intelligible, and more humane presentation than that
in vogue for medicine. Similarly, his knowledge of
law was confined to passages in legal authorities that
he had read to secure light upon the speeches of Cicero,
but he ardently wished to see the subject reorganized,
and had definite views as to the right method, which
1 See p. 83 f.
2 See Schol. math., 1. II, and Nancel, Rami vita, p. 34.
HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
203
would probably have been similar to that used else-
where. Witness his appeal to the noted men in this
line at the time.
“Among so many jurists,” he asks
rhetorically, “is there to be no one who will under-
take to clear up and simplify this chaos ?" 1 His
exhortation was afterward effective, and such logical
principles as his came to be generally utilized in the
organizing of law.
Hence within the purview of this remarkable re-
former fall all the theology and education of the
times. He wished to rid Christianity of all scholastic
and medieval agglomerations and bring it back to the
simple belief and informal organization of the primi-
tive days, and, in his efforts to accomplish this, did
not hesitate to oppose both Mother Church and her
Calvinistic daughter. His reconstruction of the mat-
ter and method of education is quite as worthy of
note, and eventually resulted in a new presentation of
all studies in the secondary and higher curricula.
- Schol. math., 1. II, near the end.
CHAPTER IX
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
臺
​SUCH were the contributions made by Ramus to
the
progress of civilization and education. The im-
pulse out of which all these improvements developed
was his persistent struggle against the servile attach-
ment to Aristotle and scholasticism that had en-
thralled the sixteenth century. It was because the
implications of the medieval conception of the Aris-
totelian logic underlay all the life and studies of the
times that he found it necessary to oppose the Stagi-
rite so vehemently, and that, in turn, his breach
aroused so much passion and hostility. Hence the
most fundamental and far-reaching contribution of
Ramus was his aid to the emancipation of society
from the bondage to medieval authority, and to
the enfranchisement of truth and free investigation.
Through him were secured some latitude in the field
of knowledge and freedom from the ecclesiastical
domination of reason.
In turning his back upon the scholastic wisdom,
204
VALUE, SPREAD, >
205
AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
Ramus substituted for it a return to antiquity. In
this he reveals his temperamental sympathy with
northern humanism, and, although his Protestant
inclinations did not materialize at first, the Reforma-
tion attitude was innate in him and seems implied
in his logic. He has all the merits and faults of hu-
manism, and seems to have been largely influenced
by the treatises of Agricola, Vives, Sturm, and
Melanchthon. However, while he was, like all
leaders of opinion, somewhat a product of the times,
more than any other of his day he crystallized and
shaped the vague and inchoate sentiments that were
seeking expression. No other humanist was so ex-
treme in his opposition to medieval and scholastic
thought, or carried his principles into such radical
execution. While building somewhat upon his
predecessors and the advanced thought of the day,
the reforms suggested for the organization, content,
and method of education are found to have been quite
reconstructed, systematized, and given their greatest
advancement through him.
This humanistic attitude of Ramus prepares us to
find in him something of that overemphasis upon
Latin and neglect of the vernacular that afterward
plunged education into almost as fixed a mold
206
PETER RAMU6
as scholasticism. He takes even his educational
principles and material mostly from the classical
writers, although he is decidedly eclectic in his use of
their thought. The basis of his reforms he borrows
from Quintilian and Aristotle. From the one he se-
cures his principle of making each art follow nature
and of following the presentation of the art by prac-
tice,' and from the other his laws of truth, justice, and
wisdom in arranging the content of the liberal arts.?
Likewise, he took most of his material in grammar
from the usage of classical writers, although he did not
recognize the absolute authority of Varro, Donatus,
and Priscian; his rhetoric he borrowed largely from
Cicero and Quintilian; in dialectic he used not only
Cicero, but even the despised Aristotle ; while Euclid
was his guide in mathematics; and Pliny, Vergil, and
Aristotle furnished most of the 'physics' he held
should be taken from nature.
Yet Ramus is unwilling to follow any author slav-
ishly. He selects, in accordance with reason, the
material that seems to be natural. While the classi-
cal writers are the sources of his subject matter, he
deals with each one critically and refuses to acknowl-
edge authority. He estimates the value even of those
1 See pp. 116 ff.
2 See pp. 110 ff.
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
207
from whom he selects according to his fixed principles
of subject matter. Whatever portion of a treatise
does not conform to these laws he either reorganizes
or entirely rejects. He eliminates from all the arts
the foreign and false, he closely distinguishes the
boundaries of each science, and he rearranges the
content so that no repetitions occur. Hence we have
seen that much which had the sanction of antiquity or
the indorsement of medieval traditions was dropped
from his reconstruction of the liberal arts and from his
ethical and biblical formulation of theology. The re-
sult was a great shortening of the course of study
and a remarkable improvement over the faults of the
scholastic texts and instruction, and even the short-
comings of the classical works. This economy of
time and effort, and increase in clearness, simplicity,
and interest may have tended a little to dilute the
material and separate related topics, and certainly
subjected Ramus to the criticism of both the Pari-
sian and German humanists on the ground of opening
the door to superficiality and a half-baked education.
But his reformation in the content of the curriculum
was, as a whole, decidedly in the interest of social
progress and improved pedagogy.
Of even more educational value was his develop-
а.
a
208
PETER RAMUS
ment of method. He always advocates gradual prog-
ress from the easy to the difficult, and fuses theory
with practice in all studies. He does not heap up
rules for the sake of 'discipline' and thus make them
an end in themselves, but recognizes that they are
but the means to the true end of use.
This is se-
cured by practice in which there is a steady advance
in independence for the student. Moreover, while
the various liberal arts are taught in different years
of the course, in each one, by means of his 'combined
use, practice is supposed to be afforded in all those
that have been previously presented.
In all this advance in material and procedure,
while no definite aim is formulated, Ramus seems to
have been guided by that underlying principle which
is, after all, in every age the real purpose of education.
His system implies an effort to produce 'social effi-
ciency.' The content of this ideal must, of course,
differ from age to age, as the society in which the pupil
lives develops and changes, and the school practice
is, from the force of inertia and habit, liable to be left
behind. The true reformer is he who strives, whether
consciously or not, to present a reconstruction of
theory that will meet the needs of the times, and to
insist upon its incorporation and realization in the
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
209
existing educational institutions. Ramus fully meets
those tests. His reorganization of matter and refor-
mulation of method were intended to meet the de-
mands of the day for effective expression in writing
and speaking, and for leadership through oratory
and a mastery of Latin. If his methods of attaining
these ends, especially in such ‘real' studies as mathe-
matics and physics, now seem to us verbal and formal,
we must not be guilty of the historical fallacy through
neglecting to image the situation as it was then, nor
forget the constant emphasis that Ramus laid upon
‘use,' even to the extent of being pilloried for utili-
tarianism. His struggles to make these reforms
effective and embody them in educational organiza-
tion are witnessed not only in his specific orations
upon this subject, but in practically every treatise or
work that he wrote. Together with his constant
effort to strike the shackles from the search for truth
and to point the way toward a broader ethics and re-
ligion, these strivings of a lifetime mark Ramus as a
great reformer, intellectual, social, religious, and
educational.
The ideas of Ramus spread rapidly throughout
Europe. They were vigorously debated for a cen-
tury or more by partisans and adversaries in all the
a
1
P
210
PETER RAMUS
different countries, and made a tremendous impres-
sion upon philosophic and educational thought.
While eventually new doctrines replaced those of the
French reformer, the intellectual situation was per-
manently modified because of his teachings. Ramism
had perhaps less influence in France than in Germany,
but even there it found many ardent advocates. In
depicting his life, we have touched upon much of
the discussion and strife that were aroused over his
teachings in his native land. The animus of the
conservatives who defended Aristotle was evident
and does not need repetition. At various French
universities the Ramistic principles were soon pre-
sented by various professors and met with wide
adoption. At Paris the physicians, Fernel and De
Gorris, and a large number in the faculty of arts
supported the new doctrines; at Rheims, a former
colleague of Ramus, the Greek scholar, Alexandre,
continued the teachings he had acquired at Presles;
while Jean Bellon, a learned jurist, took up the cud-
gels at Toulouse. The principles spread and met
with a host of followers, who were ready to risk an
indictment for heresy and the wrath of the Holy
League.? Even after the development of Cartesian-
A
1 See pp. 31 ff. and 43 ff.
2 See p. 13.
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
2II
ism, we find the philosophy of Ramus frequently
discussed, and as late as 1651 it was the occasion of a
serious controversy at Paris between a well-known
historian and a professor in the College of France on
the one hand and certain Jesuit scholars on the
other.' While, with the complete rejection of all
attempts at ecclesiastical reform and the domina-
tion of the Jesuits in the seventeenth century, the
educational reformation also vanished, Ramism
left a definite impression upon French thought.
In the suggestions of this sixteenth-century re-
former must to some extent be sought the spiritual
ancestry of Descartes, the Port Royalists, Gassendi,
and Voltaire.
In Spain and Portugal, Ramism was not well re-
ceived. Yet the celebrated grammarian, Sanchez,
taught the liberal arts according to the Ramian prin-
ciples, and left definite traces of the new system in
the University of Salamanca, the most flourishing in
Spain. The philosophy of Ramus was bitterly op-
posed, too, in all the universities of Italy, except
Bologna, and most of its partisans felt obliged to with-
draw from the country sooner or later. The most
distinguished of all these was Simoni, who defended
See Cossart, Orationes et carmina, pp. 73 and 104.
212
PETER RAMUS
Ramism against the attacks of Carpentarius and
Schegk. But we might perhaps consider as continu-
ing the spirit of Ramism a number of later Italian
writers, including the unfortunate Bruno, who dis-
tinguished themselves by their attack upon Aristotle's
philosophy. The Ramistic philosophy appeared also
in Denmark, thanks to Krag, who taught it zealously
and defended it in his writings. In the Low Countries
it was early brought to Douai by Nancel, the loyal
pupil of Ramus, and throughout these lands it found
an untiring interpreter in Snellius. Nor could the
new philosophy be kept out of the universities of
Holland, and the authorities at Leyden were forced
to admit it upon equal terms with the Aristotelian.
In England it made little progress at Oxford, which
was devoted to Aristotle, but Cambridge proved more
hospitable. At the latter place, through the influence
of Ascham and Sidney, who were friendly to Ramism,
it was largely adopted. When it was attacked by the
scholastic and mystic, Everard Digby, it was warmly
defended by William Temple, Sr., who also helped to
give it vogue.
The discussion that arose may have
been the means of starting the opposition of Bacon to
all deductive systems, especially as Digby was prob-
ably his tutor. However that may be, Ramism
VALUE, 213
2
SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
survived and flourished. As late as 1672, the Uni-
versity of Cambridge published the logic of Ramus
with a commentary by Amesius, and the same year
a more distinguished honor was done the system
through the appearance of a Latin treatise by the poet
Milton upon A More Complete Organization of the Art
of Logic Arranged according to the System of Ramus.1
An even better footing was afforded Ramism in Scot-
land, since the regent of the country, James Stuart,
Count of Murray, had been a pupil of Ramus.
Through George Buchanan, another friend, it is
probable that the Ramistic philosophy was estab-
lished at the University of St. Andrews.
It was in Germany and Switzerland, however, that
the principles of Ramus received the greatest atten-
tion and exerted the widest influence. Despite the
opposition of Beza, the new philosophy attracted a
number of Genevan scholars, among whom was the
martyr Arminius. Basel, Zürich, Bern, Lausanne,
and other cities of Switzerland received the new dia-
lectic with even more favor, and Ramism was openly
professed by men like Zwinger, Freigius, and Aretius.
It was not a passing infatuation, either, for it is
1
1 Joannis Miltoni Artis Logicæ Plenior Institutio ad Petri Rami
Methodum Concinnata. (London, 1672.)
214
PETER RAMUS
known that well into the eighteenth century it still
existed in Switzerland.
In Alsace the influence of Sturm accomplished a
general spread of the Ramian doctrines, and at Strass-
burg and Savern the German humanist was ably aided
by several scholars. Freigius, who taught both at
Freiburg and Altorf, as well as at Basel, Fabricius,
rector of the University of Düsseldorf, and Chytræus,
rector at Rostock, also greatly aided in the dissemi-
nation. A swarm of disciples openly avowed their
convictions throughout Germany. The chair of
philosophy at nearly all the other Protestant univer-
sities, such as Göttingen, Helmstadt, Erfurt, Leipzig,
Marburg, and Hannover, came to be occupied for a
time by a Ramist. Leading philosophers, jurists, and
theologians joined the cause. The Lutherans, how-
ever, suspecting that the Ramian principles were
in some way an outgrowth of Calvinism, made a
propaganda of the dialectic of Melanchthon? in
opposition, and prominent adversaries of Ramism
arose at Tübingen, Altorf, Heidelberg, Wittenberg,
i The Melanchthonian logic, which was in general use at German
universities, was based on that of Aristotle, although somewhat
improved and rhetorically written. While Melanchthon admitted
that certain of Aristotle's writings had been lost, he would not
concede that merely fragments were left, as Ramus claimed.
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
215
9
and other universities, and the contest waxed fast
and furious.
The controversy at the University of Leipzig be-
tween 1576 and 1592, of which we possess a detailed
account,' is probably a fair type of what was gener-
ally occurring at most of the institutions. Johannes
Cramer, a master of standing at Leipzig, several times
dean of the philosophical faculty and twice even
rector of the university, was an ardent Ramist and
challenged the professor of dialectic, who was ortho-
dox in his philosophy, to a public debate. When,
however, the theses of Cramer were sent to the dean,
he condemned them as Ramistic, and declared the
debate out of order. Cramer continued, however,
both in public and private, to present Ramism to
the youth of the university, and for a series of years
was in a wrangle with one or another of his colleagues.
An interdict against his lectures on the subject was
issued by the faculty of philosophy and the rector
without much effect, and, after examination of the
notes of his students and the discovery of much hereti-
cal logic, he was suspended from his chair. This led
to a riot on the part of the students, and while it was
a
1
Voigt, Ramismus an der Universität Leipzig, in Leips. Sächs.
gesell. der wiss. Berichte phil., 1881.
216
PETER RAMUS
suppressed by the rector, the faculty was forced by
public sentiment to reinstate Cramer, after a public
statement that he had never intended to calumni-
ate Aristotle or Melanchthon. However, he clearly
continued to teach the Ramian doctrines, and the
effects of this instruction were only too obvious when
students were examined for their degree. In three
cases they were allowed to graduate only upon prom-
ising the faculty never to teach Ramism. More
trouble was soon precipitated and Cramer was once
more unseated, but this time the case was appealed
to the elector. As this sovereign was getting along
in years, he referred the matter to his progressive
son, who, much to the chagrin of the conservative
faculty, expressed his surprise that university
instruction in philosophy should be limited to tra-
ditional doctrines, and declared that only by free
expression could any progress be made. He repri-
manded the faculty for their attempt to dispossess a
professor appointed by the sovereign, and demanded
that Cramer be restored. After his rehabilitation
half a dozen outbreaks against Cramer occurred, and
both he and his supporters were as far as possible de-
prived of official recognition and constantly hounded
by the faculty. Finally, in 1592, Cramer, worn out
VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM
217
1
with the controversy, resigned voluntarily and be-
came the municipal physician for his native town.
The faculty then were careful to see that his successor
was not a Ramist.
Similar contests over Ramism must have been go-
ing on at the other universities. These seats of con-
servatism were not quickly or easily aroused from
their routine, as we have seen in the case of Ramus
himself at Strassburg and Heidelberg. Early in
the seventeenth century Ramism was generally pro-
scribed at the universities of Saxony, the Palatinate,
and Bavaria, and the Ramists sought to compromise
by combining their dialectic with that of Melanch-
thon. A new school arose out of this union, the
so-called 'Philippo-Ramists,' which included such
philosophers as Frisius, Buscher, Casmann, Kecker-
mann, and Alstedt, the teacher and friend of Co-
menius. But, like most compromises, this syn-
cretism was unsatisfactory and led rather to the
preservation of Aristotle than of Ramus.
Yet the influence of Ramism cannot be regarded
as entirely lost to philosophy or human intelligence,
either in Germany or elsewhere. The authority of
Aristotle was rudely shaken, and the way to free
See pp. 96 f.
2 Cf. the Philippo-Ramian Grammar on p. 132.
218
PETER RAMUS
1
I
1
thought was opened. Early in the next century
came the work of Bacon, Descartes, and Comenius,
and from them has grown that apostolic succession
of modern thought, - Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz,
Hume, Kant, and Hegel in the realm of speculation,
and, in the reformation of education, Rousseau,
Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Froebel. While Ramus and
his philosophy cannot be interpreted as belonging to
this awakened group, it was to some extent through
his efforts that the transition was made from scho-
lasticism to modern philosophy and education. He
at least freed the human spirit from the dungeon of
Aristotle, and drew it forth from the medieval twi-
light. He improved all the literary and expression
studies, and helped give mathematics and science a
start. It seems fitting, therefore, to account Peter
Ramus a leader in sixteenth-century reforms and in
the progress toward modern civilization and enlight-
enment.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES
BANOSIUS, T. Rami vita in Commentaria de religione Chris-
tiana (Frankfurt, 1576).
CARPENTARIUS, J. Contra importunas Rami actiones (Paris,
1566).
FÉLIBIEN, M. Histoire de la ville de Paris.
FREIGIUS, J. T. Commentaires de Ramus sur les discours de
Ciceron (Bâle, 1574). Preface on the Life of Ramus.
,
MILTON, J. Artis logicæ plenior institutio (London, 1672).
NANCEL, N. DE. Petri Rami Veromandui, eloquentia et
philosophiæ apud Parisios professoris regii vita (Paris,
1599).
RAMUS, P. Dialecticæ partitiones (sive Institutiones), 1543 ;
Aristotelicæ animadversiones, 1543 ; Tres Orationes a
tribus liberalium disciplinarum professoribus,
1544;
Euclides, 1544; Oratio habita Lutetia in gymnasio
Prælleorum, 1545; Somnium Scipionis ex libro 6 Cice-
ronis de Republica, 1546; Oratio de studiis philosophiæ
et eloquentiæ conjungendis, 1546; Brutinæ quæstiones
in Oratorem Ciceronis, 1547; Rhetoricæ distinctiones,
1549; Platonis epistolæ latinæ factæ, 1549; M. T.
Ciceronis de fato liber, 1550 ; M. T. Ciceronis epistola
nona ad P. Lentulum, 1550 ; Pro philosophica Parisien-
sis Academia disciplina Oratio, 1551; Oratio initio
219
220
PETER RAMUS
piecat
sua professionis habita, 1551; M. T. Ciceronis pro Caio
Rabirio perduellionis reo oratio, 1551; Prælectiones in
librum I Ciceronis de legibus, 1554; M. Tullii Ciceronis
de lege agraria contra P. Servilium Rullum tribunum plebis
orationes tres, 1552; M. Tullii Ciceronis in L. Catilinam
Orationes IIII, 1553; Arithmeticæ libri tres, 1555;
Dialectique, 1555; P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica, 1555;
P. Virgilii Maronis Georgica, 1556; Dialecticæ libri duo,
1556; Audomari Talæi Admonitio ad Adrianum Turne-
bum, 1556; M. T. Ciceronis de optimo genere oralorum
præfatio in contrarias Æschinis et Demosthenis orationes,
1557; Ciceronianus, 1557; Marci Tulii Ciceronis fami-
liarium epistolarum libri XVI, 1557; Oratio de legatione,
1557 ; Liber de moribus veterum Gallorum, 1558; Libri
de Cæsaris militia, 1559; Grammaticæ libri quattuor, 1559;
Rudimenta grammatica (latine), 1559; Scholæ gram-
maticæ, 1559; Grammatica greca, 1560; Rudimenta
grammaticæ græcæ, 1560; Gramere, 1562; Proæmium
reformanda Parisiensis academia, and Advertissements
sur la réformation de l'université de Paris, 1562; Oratio
de professione liberalium artium, 1563; Scholarum physi-
carum libri octo, 1565; Scholarum metaphysicarum libri
quattuordecim, 1566; Actiones dua habitæ in senatu pro
regia mathematicæ professionis cathedra, 1566; Préface
sur le Proëme des mathematiques, 1566; Proæmium
mathematicuin, 1567; La Remonstrance faite au conseil
privé, 1567; Audomari Talai Rhetorica, P. Rami prælec-
tionibus illustrata, 1567; Rectori et Academiæ Pari-
siensi, 1568; Geometria libri septem et viginti, 1569;
Scholæ in liberales artes, 1569; Scholarum mathemati-
carum libri unus et triginta, 1569; P. Rami et Jacobi
>
BIBLIOGRAPHY
221
Schecii Epistolæ, 1569; Defensio pro Aristotele adversus
Jac. Schecium, 1571; Basilea ad senatum populumque
Basiliensem, 1571; Testamentum, 1574; Prelectiones
in Ciceronis orationes octo consulares, 1574; Commenta-
riorum de religione Christiana libri quattuor, 1576; Pro-
fessio regia, 1576; Collectaneæ præfationes, epistola,
orationes, 1577; M. T. Ciceronis pro M. Cl. Marcello
oratio, 1582; In Ciceronis orationes et scripta nonnulla,
1582; Arithmeticæ libri duo et Algebræ todidem, 1586;
Aristotelis Politica, 1601; Epistola varia.
II. SECONDARY SOURCES
BAILLET, A. Jugements des Savans sur les principaux
ouvrages des auteurs, Amsterdam, 1725. V, 125 f.; VIII,
204 f.
>
BARNI, J. R. Les Martyres de la libre pensée. Pp. 107-135.
BAYLE, P. Dictionnaire historique et critique, Rotterdam,
1697. Ramus.
CARAMAN, LE DUC DE. Histoire des revolutions de la philoso-
phie en France. III, pp. 245 ff.
CREVIER, J. B. Histoire de l'Université de Paris, Paris, 1761.
V and VI.
DENIFLE, H., et CHATELAIN, Æ. Chartularium universitatis
Parisiensis, Paris, 1889-1897.
DESMAZE, C. A. Petrus Ramus, professeur au Collège de
France, sa vie, ses écrits, sa mort, Paris, 1864.
DU BOULAY, N. Histoire de l'Université de Paris.
GAILLARD, G. N. Histoire de François 1, Paris, 1766. VII
and VIII.
GUGGENHEIM, M. Beiträge zur Biographie des Petrus Ramus
222
PETER RAMUS
(Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik,
Band 120, Heft 2, ss. 140-153), Leipzig, 1903.
JOURDAIN, C. Histoire de l'Université de Paris au XVIIe et
au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1862-1866.
LANTOINE, H. Histoire de l'enseignement secondaire en
France au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1874.
LOBSTEIN, P. Petrus Ramus als Theologe, Strassburg, 1878.
OWEN, J. The Skeptics of the French Renaissance, London,
1893. Chap. II.
PRANTL, K. VON. Ueber P. Ramus (Münchener Sitzungs-
.
berichte, 1878).
SAISSET, E. E. Les précurseurs de Descartes, Paris, 1862.
SCHWEITZER, A. Die Philosophie des Petrus Ramus (Erster
Artikel, 10, of Die Entwickelung des Moralsystems in der
Reformirten Kirche), Leipzig, 1850.
Voigt, G. Ueber den Ramismus an der Universität Leipzig
(Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften, Band 99), Leipzig, 1887.
WADDINGTON, C. De Petri Rami vita, scriptis, philosophia,
Paris, 1848.
WADDINGTON, C. Ramus, sa vie, ses écrits, et ses opinions,
,
Paris, 1855
WÜRKERT, G. Die encyclopädie des Petrus Ramus, Ein
Reformversuch der Gelehrtenschule des 16. Jahrhunderts,
Leipzig, 1898.
INDEX
Abelard, 16.
Bullinger, 95.
Academic, 52.
Buscher, 217.
Academy, Talon, 42.
Advice on the Reformation of the Uni- Calvin, 7, 10, 72, 95, 191, 198.
versity of Paris, 78-84, 202.
Calvinism 11, 214.
Agricola, 2, 17, 98, 142, 205.
Cambridge, 4, 212, 213.
Aim of Ramus, 108.
Camerarius, 61.
Albigenses, 7.
Carpentarius, 41, 45, 46, 63 f., 70, 88 ff.,
Alexander of Villedieu, 16, 38, 121. 104, 106, 212.
Alexandre, Barthélemy, 28, 210. Casmann, 217.
Alstedt, 217
Catherine de' Medici, 11.
Altorf, 214.
Catherine Petit, 95.
Amboise, Peace of, 86.
Catholics in France, 10 ff.
Amesius, 213
Cayet, 19.
'Analysis,'117, 140, 165.
Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, see
Animadversions on Aristotle, 30, 34, Lorraine.
39, 59, 143.
Charles V, 8, 10.
Apollonius, 60.
Charles IX, II.
Archimedes, 43, 60, 61.
Charpentier, see Carpentarius.
Aretius, 213.
Cheke, 4.
Aristotelianism, 98.
Chytræus, 214.
Aristotle, 16, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 64, Cicero, 17, 42, 43, 134, 135, 157,
72, 144, 169, 175, 176, 206, 217.
206.
Arminius, 213.
Coccius, 95.
Ascham, 4, 61, 73, 212.
Calet, 5, 6.
Augsburg, 98.
Coligny, Admiral, 12, 13.
College of Ave Maria, 28, 29, 59.
Bacon, 212, 218.
College of Beauvais, 33.
Banosius, 19.
College of Boncour, 32, 45.
Basel, 10, 94, 96, 213, 214.
College of Clermont, 87.
Bavaria, 217.
College of France, 4, 13, 15, 40, 45,
Bellon, 210.
100, 104, 162.
Berkeley, 218.
College of Mans, 27.
Bern, 213.
College of Navarre, 16, 20, 27, 108.
Beza, 10, 74, 99, 103, 200, 201, 213. College of Presles, 13, 14, 39, 45, 47,
Bourbon, Charles of, 31, 104.
85, 100, 104.
Bourbons, II, 12.
Collège Royal, see College of France.
Brahé, 99.
Colloquy of Poissy, 10, 73, 100.
Bruno, 212.
Comenius, 217, 218.
Buchanan, George, 213.
Commentaries on the Christian Relig jan,
Budæus, 4.
223
97, 184 ff.
224
INDEX
Committee of Seven, 69, 78.
Forcadel, 61.
Condé, Prince of, 12, 13, 70.
Francis I, 4, 10, 31, 34.
Consonants, Ramist, 125.
Francis II, 11.
Cosel, Dampestre, 88.
Francis, Duke of Guise, see Guise.
Cramer, 215 f.
Frankfurt, 99.
Curriculum in University of Paris, Frederick III, 97.
14 f.
Freiburg, 94, 214.
Cust, 19.
Freigius, 19, 94, 213, 214.
'French Plato,' 92.
De Disciplinis, 29.
Frisius, 217.
De Gorris, 210.
Froebel, 218.
De l'Hospital, 76.
De Montuelle, 33.
Galen, 17, 24, 43.
Demosthenes, 157.
Galland, 32, 33, 41, 44, 45, 63, 70.
Descartes, 162, 211, 218.
Gassendi, 211.
Despantère, 121.
'Genesis,' 117, 140, 165.
Dialectic, 17, 21, 29, 58, 141-159. Geneva, 10, 99, 103.
' Dichotomy,' 130, 164.
Göttingen, 214.
Digby, Everard, 212.
Govéa, 32, 33.
Diplomatic missions of Ramus, 67 ff. Grammar, 57, 121-134.
Disputation, 21 f., 29, 114.
Grocyn, 4.
Doctrinale, 121.
Grynæus, Samuel, 95.
Dolet, Etienne, 18.
Guise, Duke of, 11, 77.
Donatus, 6, 121, 123, 206.
Guises, 12, 13, 69, 71, 78, 88, 90.
D'Ossat, 87.
Gymnasien, 3.
Douai, 212.
Dream of Scipio, 40.
Hannover, 214
Du Bellay, 44.
Hegel, 218.
Dubois, 18.
Heidelberg, 4, 93, 96, 98, 214, 217.
Du Chastel, 33, 43.
Heliogabalus, 117.
Helmstadt, 214.
Edict of Francis against Ramus, 36. Hennuyer, 27, 32.
Edict of Nantes, 13.
Henry II, 11, 41, 42, 49, 50.
Edict of Toleration, 12, 76.
Henry III, 11.
Edward VI, 9.
Henry IV, 13.
Elegancies of Latin, 121.
Henry VIII, 7, 9.
Elizabeth, 9.
Herbart, 218.
Erasmus, 2, 4, 6, 7, 16, 115.
Hervagius, 94.
Erfurt, 4, 214.
Hieronymians, 2.
* Esoteric,' 120.
Hippocrates, 24, 43.
Ethics, 73.
Holy League, 13.
Ethics of Ramus, 173–184.
Huguenots, 11, 105; of state, 12, 85;
Euclid, 38, 43, 59, 161, 165.
of religion, 12, 13.
Exoteric,' 120.
Humanism, 1 ff., 15, 98.
' Explanation,' 116, 117, 118, 140. Hume, 218.
Huss, 7.
Fatricius, 214.
fer linand of Hapsburg, 9.
Inaugural address, 48 ff.
Fernel, 210.
Institutes of Christianity, 10.
Finée, 18, 59.
Institutions of Dialectic, 30, 35, 58.
*
6
INDEX
225
Platter, 04.
Jena, 4.
Ecolampadius, 95.
Jesuit colleges, 3, 87.
Organon, 23, 142.
Jesuits, 211.
Oxford, 4, 212.
Palatinate, 92, 96, 217.
Kant, 218.
Keckermann, 217.
Pappus, 60.
Königsberg, 4.
Parlement of Paris, 13, 33.
Périon, 32, 43, 63.
Krag, 212.
Peripatetics, 31, 37.
Pestalozzi, 218.
La Rochelle, 12, 200.
Petromachy, 44.
Latin grammar school, 5.
Philip II, 9.
Lausanne, 99, 213.
Philippo-Ramian Grammar, 132.
Law, 79, 82, 202.
Philippo-Ramists, 217.
Laws of 'truth,' `justice,' and 'wis-
Physics, 62, 168-172.
dom,' 11 f., 135, 163, 206.
Plato, 16, 17, 24, 27, 42.
Lefèvre, 6, 7, 18.
94
Leibniz, 218.
Pliny, 169.
Leipzig, 4, 214, 215.
Poles, the, 105.
Le Masson, 18.
Port Royalists, 211.
Lesage, 39, 41.
'Practice,' 109, 114-118, 140.
Leyden, 212.
Principles of Ramus, 109–119, 206.
Linacre, 4.
Principles of ‘system,' 110-113.
Locke, 218.
Priscian, 16, 121, 123, 206.
Lorraine, Charles, Cardinal of, II, 15,
Proclus, 61.
31, 41, 46, 49, 51, 74, 78, 100, 105.
Pronunciation, 62 f., 125.
Loyola, 3.
Protestants, 10 ff., 72, 95.
Luther, 6, 7, 72, 196, 198.
Lutherans, 214.
Quadrivium, 59, 120, 160–172.
Quintilian, 18, 42, 43, 44, 134, 135,
‘Mæcenas,’ 53 ff., 88.
Marburg, 214.
Margaret of Navarre, 10.
Rabelais, 44.
Masters of university colleges, 16.
Reformation, 6, 8, 188.
Mathematics, 59, 88 f., 160-165.
Renaissance, 1, 2, 5, 8, 188.
Medicine, 80, 82, 202.
Republic, 39.
Meigret, 18.
Reuchlin, 2.
Melanchthon, 6, 113, 131, 134, 139, Rheims, 210.
205, 214, 217.
Rheticus, 61.
Metaphysics, 87.
Rhetoric, 58, 134-141.
Methods, 21 ff., 56 f.
Rostock, 214.
Milton, 213.
Rousseau, 218.
Montauban, 12.
Royal lecturers, 16.
Montluc, Jean de, 105.
Rue de Fouarre, 14.
More, 4.
St. Bartholomew's Day, massacre of,
'Nature,' 109 f.
13, 105.
Nicholas of Nancel, 19, 212.
St. Denis, 90, 102.
Nimes, 12, 200.
St. Germain, 67.
Nüremberg, 98.
St. Paul's School, 5.
139, 206.
)
226
INDEX
144
Sanchez, 211.
Tremellius, 96.
Sapiens, 29.
Trivium, 57, 59, 120-159.
Savern, 214.
Tübingen, 4, 96, 214.
Saxony, 247
Turnebus, 65 f., 70.
Schegk (96.212.
Schreckluchs, 94.
University of Bologna, 93, 211.
Serenus, 60.
University of Düsseldorf, 214.
Sidney, 212.
University of Leipzig, 215–217.
Simler, 95.
University of Paris, 3, 10, 13, 14, 28,
Simoni, 211.
36.
Snellius, 212.
University of St. Andrews, 213.
Social efficiency, 208.
University of Salamanca, 211.
Socrates, 17, 24, 38.
'Usuarius,' 57.
Sorbon, Robert, 14.
Sorbonne, 14, 62, 125.
Valla, 17, 142.
Stoics, 17.
Valence, Bishop of, 105.
Strassburg, 3, 93, 98, 214, 217.
Varro, 206.
Stuart, James, 213.
Vassy, massacre at, 12, 85.
Studies in Dialectic, 21, 144.
Vergil, 121, 169.
Studies in Physics, 168.
Vives, 17, 113, 115, 118, 142, 205.
Studies in the Liberal Arts, 17, 96.
Voltaire, 211.
Sturm, 3, 6, 17, 29, 73, 93, 113, 115,
118, 161, 205, 214.
Waldenses, 7, 10.
Sulzer, 95.
Westphalia, 92.
Syntax, 124, 128 f.
System,' 109, 110-114.
Wittenberg, 4, 214.
Wolsey, 4.
Talon, 28, 38, 39, 40.
Wyclif, 7.
Temple, William, 212.
Theodosius, 60.
Theology, 98, 184–202.
Zürich, 213.
Toulouse, 210.
Zwinger, 94, 98, 213.
Tousan, 65.
Zwingli, 7, 72, 191, 196, 198.
Wolf, 94.
,
tiGAN,
THE
following pages contain advertisements of
books by the same author or on kindred subjects.
1
1
History of Education during the Middle Ages
and the Transition to Modern Times
BY FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES, PH.D.
Professor of the History of Education in the Ohio State University
Cloth, 12mo, $1.10 net
This volume is a continuation of the “History of Education
before the Middle Ages.” Without dwelling upon matters re-
motely related to the educational problems of to-day, an accurate
picture is afforded of educational history between the sixth and
the eighteenth centuries. The sources are extensively quoted,
and selected lists of supplementary reading are given at the end
of each chapter. The book is suitable as a text or a work of ref-
erence.
“In the same spirit of careful research and open-minded discussion
that marked the first part of his work.” — The Independent.
“ The present volume is not only as good as, but better than, the pre-
vious one. The work is conspicuous among histories of education as
one of the most complete and interesting.”
- Journal of Educational Psychology.
“ He has made of dry historical facts a narrative full of interest, one
that touches the life, politics, religion, and philosophy of the times."
Pedagogical Seminary.
A History of Education during Modern Times
By FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES, Ph.D.
Professor of the History of Education in the Ohio State University
In preparation
In continuation of the two preceding volumes, this work will
cover the history of education from the days of Rousseau and the
French Revolution to the present time.
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York
1
Great Educators of Three Centuries
BY FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES, PH.D.
Professor of the History of Education in the
Ohio State University
This book furnishes a popular account of the life and work of
*ae men who, during the past three centuries, have introduced
various innovations and reforms into modern education. While
ihe facts of biography are narrated somewhat at length, an effort
has been made to eliminate everything that does not have some
bearing upon the contributions of the educator under consideration.
* As history is largely a matter of biography, and as institutions are usually
the lengthened shadow of a man, so the historic trend of education can be
indicated well enough for the casual reader by an intelligent summary of the
work of a few great educators, together with comments on the tendencies and
interrelations of that work. Professor Graves has gotten up such a summary
in his brief volume, in which he has judiciously selected and clearly stated his
facts. His comments on these facts are illumination and his comments would
seem to be well founded.” — Boston Evening Transcript.
“The thoroughly painstaking method of Professor Graves is evident on
every page of these splendidly written books. A scientific and scholarly atti-
tude combined with common-sense makes these by all odds the most practical
text-books yet published in this field.” – President W. G. CLIPPINGER, of
Otterbein University.
“The social settings, dialectic methods, and ultimate achievements of
nearly a score of illustrious world reformers are here brilliantly outlined.”.
The Philadelphia North American.
Some »
Lose who are complaining about present-day teaching have not
ion of the origins of modern practice. ... Partisans in
to well to read Professor Graves's new book, which should
u understand contemporary educational aims and practices.”
O'SHEA in The Dial.
1
E MACMILLAN COMPANY
shers
64-66 Fifth Avenue
New York
BY WILLIAM HAWLEY SMITH
All the Children of All the People
A Study of the Attempt to Educate Everybody
Cloth
12mo
306 pages
Index
$1.50 net; by mail, $1.61
The task of trying to educate everybody which our public
schools are attempting to perform, has proved far more diffi-
cult than the originators of the system deemed it would be
when they set out upon the undertaking. The author gives
this problem careful study and consideration and his book
will prove an invaluable help toward its successful solution.
By FRANK LOUIS SOLDAN
Late Superintendent of Schools, St. Louis, Mo.
The Century and the School
AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL ESSAYS
Cloth
12mo
$1.25 net; by mail, $1.33
The essays brought together in this volume were selected
by a group of the late Superintendent Soldan's intimate asso-
ciates. The titles are: The Century and the School; Mo-
rality and Education ; What is a Fad?; Teachers' Duties;
Educational Ideas in Dickens' Novels; A Visit to German
Schools; Reading in the Higher Grades; Folklore and
Fairy Tales.
THE
MILLAN COMPANY
Publi
Fifth Avenue
New York
1
.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
DATE DUE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1
3 9015 03976 2136

DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD