The severest thing they say against the plan is in this wise, when speaking directly of the two highest grades: "Perpetuity of that kind may give occasion to mere idleness and indifference; for after acquiring, in the first years, some esteem and name for their learning (in Poetry or Rhetoric), Masters prefer to enjoy the fruit and name of the labor already undergone, however moderate that was, rather than wear themselves out with new labors. Hence they make no new acquisitions in the learning and accomplishments proper to their branch; they get rooted in very much the same spot, and teach what they have taught before over and over again, though with some variations. What is worse, as if they were quite worn out with their prolonged exertions, they say that they cannot any longer stand all the labor of exercising their students; whence everything freezes, and they ask for an assistant, who, if he is unlearned, does more harm than good; if learned, then why are two doing the work of one?"
The solution which they arrive at is a compromise, which recognizes peculiar advantages in both arrangements. It is embodied in several rules of the _Ratio Studiorum_.[190] As many perpetual Professors as possible, for Grammar and Rhetoric, are to be provided; and some candidates for admission to the Order, who seem qualified for this field of work, though apparently not likely to succeed in the higher studies of the Society, may be admitted on this condition, that they devote themselves in perpetuity to this work of zeal. Thus such exigencies are provided for as postulate a perpetuity of professorship within the same limited curriculum.
On the other hand, the normal process is that which arranges a constant succession of teachers in the college, but not a constant change with the same boys. The same boys go hand in hand with the one Master, with whom they have most to do. And no one is to take charge of them, however transiently, says the General Vitelleschi, "whether on account of fewness of numbers, or merely to supply for another in his absence, of whom it is not certain that he is qualified for the post."[191] The very frequent mention, in all these discussions, of something like domestic tragedies resulting from the change of masters, seems to show two things; first, it justifies the practice of keeping the same Professor over the same boys for a certain term of years, if not until the class itself dissolves into higher courses; secondly, it shows what a usual condition it was for masters to have won the most absolute attachment to themselves, in the exercise of their magisterial duties, both on the side of parents and on the part of the scholars. Thus, speaking of the Professors mounting with their classes, the critics say: "They will have observed what their disciples need; they will take them up to the next class. And hence, that changing of Masters, which has caused so many tragic scenes, will not be felt so much."[192]