There is an excellent though condensed account of the Port-Royalists under “Jansenists” in Sonnenschein’s _Cyclopædia of Education_. In vol. ij, of Charles Beard’s Port-Royal, (2 vols., 1861) there is a chapter on the Little Schools. The most pleasing account I have seen in English of the Port-Royalists (without reference to education) is in Sir Jas. Stephen’s _Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography_. In French the great work on the subject is Sainte-Beuve’s _Port-Royal_, 5 vols. (71 ed., 6 vols.) The account of the Schools is in 4th bk., in vol. iij, of 1st ed. Very useful for studying the pedagogy of Port-Royal are _L’Education à Port-Royal_ by Félix Cadet (Hachette, 1887) and _Les Pédagogues de Port-Royal_, by I. Carré (Delagrave, 1887). These last give extracts from the main writings on education by Arnauld, Nicole, Lancelot, Coustel, &c. The article, _Port-Royal_, in Buisson’s _D._, is the “Introduction” to Carré’s book. A 3-vol. ed. of Rollin’s _Traité_ was published (Paris, Didot) in 1872. The more interesting parts of this book are contained in F. Cadet’s _Rollin: Traité des Études_ (Delagrave, 1882). Rollin’s work was at one time well-known in the English trans., and copies of it are often to be found “second-hand.” The best part comes last; which may account for the neglect into which the book has fallen. The accounts of Port-Royal and of Rollin in G. Compayré’s _Histoire Critique_ are very good parts of a very good book. Vérin’s _Étude sur Lancelot_ I have not seen, and it is only too probable that I have not given to Lancelot the attention due to him.
§ 1. The beginning of the 17th century brought with it a change in the main direction of thought and interest. As we have seen, the 16th century adored literature and was thrown back on the remote past. Some of the great scholars like Sturm had indeed visions of literary works to be written, that would rival the old models on which they were fashioned; but whether they hoped or not to bring back the Golden Age all the scholars of the Renascence thought of it as _having been_. With the change of century, however, a new conception came into men’s minds. Might not this worship of the old writers after all be somewhat of a superstition? The languages in which they wrote were beautiful languages, no doubt, but they were ill adapted to express the ideas and wants of the modern world. As for the substance of these old writings, this did not satisfy the cravings of men’s minds. It left unsolved all the main problems of existence, and offered for knowledge mere speculations or poetic fancies or polished rhetoric. Man needed to understand his position with regard to God and to Nature; but on both of these topics the classics were either silent or misleading. Revelation had supplied what the classics could not give concerning man’s relation to God; but nothing had as yet thrown light on his relation to Nature. And yet with his material body and animal life he could not but see how close that relation was, and could not but wish that something about it might be _known_, not simply guessed or feigned. Hence the demand for _real_ knowledge, that is, a knowledge of the facts of the universe as distinct from the knowledge of what men have thought and said. We have heard of the mathematician who put down Paradise Lost with the remark that it seemed to him a poor book, for it did not prove anything; and it was just in this spirit that the new school of thinkers, the Realists, looked upon the classics. They wanted to know Nature’s laws: and words which did not convey such knowledge seemed to them of little value.