COLLEGE DISCIPLINE
We are now in a position to approach the main part of our
subject--life in a medieval University of masters--and we propose to
proceed at once to its most characteristic feature, life in a medieval
College. The system originated in Paris. In the early days of the
University, students at Paris lived freely in private houses, which a
number of "socii" hired for themselves. A record of a dispute which
occurred in 1336 shows that it was usual for one member of such a
community to be responsible for the rent, "tanquam principalis dictae
domus," and the member who was held to be responsible in the
particular case is described as a "magister." At first it was not
necessary that he should be a master, but this soon became usual, and
ultimately (though not till the close of the Middle Ages) it was made
compulsory by the University. Dr Rashdall has drawn attention to the
democratic character of these Hospicia or Halls, the members of which
elected their own principal and made the regulations which he
enforced. This democratic constitution is found at Oxford as well as
at Paris, and was, indeed, common to all the early universities. (p. 050)
When a benevolent donor endowed one of these halls, he invariably gave
it not only money, but regulations, and it was the existence of an
endowment and of statutes imposed by an external authority that
differentiated the College from the Hall. The earliest College
founders did not necessarily erect any buildings for the scholars for
whose welfare they provided; a College is essentially a society, and
not a building. The quadrangular shape which is now associated with
the buildings of a College was probably suggested accidentally by the
development of Walter de Merton's College at Oxford; but, long after
the foundation of Merton College in 1263 or 1264, it was not
considered necessary by a founder to build a home for his scholars,
who secured a suitable lodging-house (or houses) and were prepared to
migrate should such a step become desirable in the interest of the
University.
The statutes of Merton provide us with a picture of an endowed Hall at
the period when such endowments were beginning to change the character
of University life. The conception of a College, as distinguished from
the older Halls, developed very rapidly, and the Founder's provisions
for the organisation of his society were altered three times within ten
years. In 1264, Walter de Merton, sometime Chancellor of England, (p. 051)
drew up a code of statutes for the foundation of a house, to be called
the House of the Scholars of Merton. His motive was the good of Holy
Church and the safety of the souls of his benefactors and relations,
and these objects were to be served by providing for the maintenance
of twenty poor scholars and two or three priests in the schools of
Oxford, or elsewhere, if learning should, in these days of civil war,
flourish elsewhere than at Oxford. The endowment which he provided was
to consist of his manors of Maldon and Farleigh, in Surrey, to which
was added the Merton estate, at the end of what are now the "Backs" in
Cambridge. This was purchased in 1269-70. The lands were given to his
scholars, to be held under certain conditions, in their own name. His
own kindred were to have the first claim upon places in the new
Society, and, after them, natives of the diocese of Winchester; they
were to have allowances of forty shillings each per annum, to live
together in a Hall, and to wear uniform garb in token of unity and
mutual love. As vacancies arose, by death, by admission into a
religious order, by the acceptance of livings in the Church, or by
appointments in other callings, they were to be filled up, and if the
funds of the society permitted, the numbers, both of scholars and of
priests, were to be increased. Scholars who proved to be incorrigibly
idle, or who led evil lives, were to be deprived; but the sick and (p. 052)
infirm were to be treated generously, and any of the Founder's kin who
suffered from an incurable malady, and were incapable of earning an
honest living in the Studium or elsewhere, were to be maintained till
their death. It was assumed that the scholars had already received the
preliminary training in Latin which was necessary for their studies,
but provision was made for the elementary instruction of poor or
orphan boys of the Founder's kin, until they were ready to enter the
University. Once or twice a year all the members of the foundation
were to meet and say mass for their Founder and his benefactors,
living and dead. The management of the property was entrusted to a
Warden, who was to reside not at Oxford or any other Studium where the
Hall might happen to be, but at Maldon or Farleigh. The Warden was a
member of the Society, but had no authority over the scholars, except
that, in cases of disputed elections, he, or the Chancellor or Rector
of the University where the Hall happened to be at the time, was to
act on the advice of six or seven of the senior scholars, and the
senior scholars, rather than the Warden, were looked upon by the
founder as the natural leaders of his Society. Every year, eight or
ten of the seniors were to go to Surrey to stay for eight days to
inquire into the management of their property, and, if at any (p. 053)
other time, evil rumours about the conduct of the Warden reached the
Hall, two or three of them were to go to investigate. The scholars
could, with the consent of the Patron, the Bishop of Winchester, bring
about the deposition of the Warden, and elections to the Wardenship
were entrusted to the twelve seniors. They were to consult the
"brothers" who assisted the Warden at Merton, and were also to obtain
the sanction of the Bishop of Winchester.
These first Merton statutes clearly contemplate an endowed Hall,
differing from other Halls only in the existence of the endowment.
Some regulations are necessary in order that the tenure of the
property of the Society may be secure and that its funds may not be
misapplied, and the brief code of statutes is directed to these ends.
Walter de Merton's earliest rules make the minimum of change in
existing conditions. But the preparation of this code of statutes must
have suggested to the Founder that his generosity gave him the power
of making more elaborate provisions. The Mendicant Orders had already
established at Oxford and at Paris houses for their own members, and
the Monastic Orders in France were following the example of the
Friars. These houses were, of course, governed by minute and detailed
regulations, and it may have seemed desirable to introduce some
stricter discipline into the secular halls. At all events, in (p. 054)
1270, Walter de Merton took the opportunity of an increase in his
endowments to issue a code of statutes more than twice as long as that
of 1264. These new statutes mark a distinct advance in the Founder's
ideal of College life. The Warden becomes a much more important factor
in the conduct of the Hall as well as in the management of the
property; in the election and in the expulsion of scholars he is given
a greater place; his allowances are increased, and his presence at
Oxford seems to be implied. The scholars are to proceed from Arts to
Theology; four or five of them may be permitted to study the Canon
Law, and the Warden may allow some of them to devote some time to the
Civil Law. Two Sub-Wardens are to be appointed, one at Maldon and one
in Oxford; Deans are to watch over the morals of the scholars, and
senior students are to preside over the studies of the freshmen. The
scholars are to be silent at meals and to listen to a reader; there
must be no noise in their chambers, and a senior is to be in authority
in each chamber, and to report breaches of regulations. Conversation
is to be conducted in Latin.
We have here the beginnings of a new system of University life, and we
can trace the tendency towards collegiate discipline still more
clearly in the Founder's statutes of 1274, which are much longer and
more elaborate than in 1270. The scholars or Fellows are now to (p. 055)
obey the Warden, as their Superior; the Deans and the seniors in
chambers are to bear rule under him and, in the first instance, to
report to him; the Sub-Warden is to take his place in his absence and
to assist him at other times; three Bursars are to help him in the
management, of the property. The Patron or Visitor, may inquire into
the conduct of the Warden or into any accusations brought against him,
and has the power of depriving him of his office. The Warden is not an
absolute sovereign; the thirteen seniors are associated with him in
the government of the College, and the Sub-Warden and five seniors are
to inspect his accounts once a year. At the periodical scrutinies,
when the conduct of all the members of the College is to be examined,
accusations can be brought against him and duly investigated. This
custom, and others of Walter de Merton's regulations, were clearly
borrowed from the rules of monastic houses, and a company of secular
clerks seems to have had difficulty in realising that they were bound
by them, for as early as 1284 the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had
become the Visitor of the College, had to issue a series of orders for
the observances of the statutes. The Warden and Fellows of Merton had
permitted the study of medicine: they had interpreted too liberally the
permission to study law; they had increased their own allowances (p. 056)
and the salaries of their brewer and their cook; the Fellows had
resisted the authority of the Warden; they had neglected the
attendances at divine service enjoined by the Founder, and they had
been lax about expulsions. The change which Walter de Merton had made
in a scholar's life was so far-reaching that a secular would probably
not have shared the astonishment of Archbishop Peckham (himself a
friar) at the unwillingness of the Merton scholars to recognise the
loss of their traditional freedom.
The system inaugurated by Walter de Merton was destined to have a
great development. In the document of 1284, Peckham speaks of Merton
as a "College," and its Founder was the founder of the Oxford College
system. Although he repeated in his last statutes his permission to
move his Society from Oxford, he regarded Oxford as its permanent
home. Now that the civil war was over and England at peace, he had, he
says, purchased a place of habitation and a house at Oxford, "where a
University of students is flourishing." Not only had he provided a
dwelling-place, he had also magnificently rebuilt a parish church to
serve as a College-Chapel. The example he set was followed both at
Oxford and at Cambridge, and the rule of Merton became the model on
which College founders based elaborate codes of statutes. English
founders generally followed Walter de Merton in making their (p. 057)
societies self-governing communities, with an external Visitor as the
ultimate court of appeal. There were in many colleges "poor boys" who
were taught grammar, performed menial offices, and were not members,
nor always eligible for election as members, of the Society; but as a
general rule the Fellows or Socii all had a share in the management of
the affairs of the House. Routine business was frequently managed by
the Head, the officers, and a limited number of the Senior Fellows,
but the whole body of Fellows took part in the election of a new Head.
A period of probation, varying from one year to three, was generally
prescribed before an entrant was admitted a "full and perpetual"
Fellow, and during this period of probation he had no right of voting.
This restriction was sometimes dispensed with in the case of
"Founder's kin," who became full Fellows at once, and the late Sir
Edward Wingfield used to boast that in his Freshman term (1850) he had
twice voted in opposition to the Warden of New College in a College
meeting. As in a monastic house, this freedom was combined with a
strict rule of obedience, and though the Head of a medieval College
might be irritated by incidents of this kind, he possessed great
dignity and high authority within his domain. As founders did more for
their students, they expected a larger obedience from them, and (p. 058)
attempted to secure it by minute regulations; and the authority of the
Head of the College increased with the number of rules which he was to
enforce. The foundation of New College at Oxford in 1379 marks the
completion of the collegiate ideal which had advanced so rapidly under
the successive constitutions of Merton College a hundred years before.
William of Wykeham, in providing for the needs of his scholars,
availed himself of the experience of the past and created a new model
for the future. The Fellows of New College were to be efficiently
equipped at Winchester for the studies of the University, and, as we
shall see, they were to receive in College special instruction in
addition to the teaching of the University. Their magnificent home
included, besides their living-rooms, a noble chapel and hall, a
library, a garden, and a beautiful cloister for religious processions
and for the burial of the dead. King Henry VI. built a still more
magnificent house for his Cambridge scholars, and his example was
followed by Henry VIII. The later College-founders, as we have said,
expected obedience in proportion to their munificence, and the simpler
statutes of earlier colleges were frequently revised and assimilated
to those of later foundations. We reserve for a later section what we
have to say about education, and deal here with habits and customs.
The Merton rule that conversation must be in Latin is generally (p. 059)
found in College statutes. At Peterhouse, French might occasionally be
spoken, should just and reasonable cause arise, but English very
rarely. At New College, Latin was to be spoken even in the garden,
though English might be used in addressing a layman. At Queen's
College, Oxford, which was founded by a courtier, French was allowed
as a regular alternative for Latin, and at Jesus College, Oxford,
conversation might be in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. In spite of the
influence of the Renaissance, it seems unlikely that either Greek or
Hebrew was much used as an alternative to Latin, but the Latin-speaking
rule had become less rigid and in sixteenth-century statutes more
generous provision is made for dispensations from it. The Latin rule
was not merely an educational method; it was deliberately intended to
be a check upon conversation. College founders accepted the apostolic
maxim that the tongue worketh great evil, and they were convinced that
a golden rule of silence was a protection against both ribaldry and
quarrels. In the later statutes of Clare, the legislator recognises
that not merely loss of time, but the creation of a disposition to be
interested in trifles can be traced to "frequentes collocutiones," and
he forbids any meetings in bedrooms (even meetings of Masters of Arts)
for the purpose of feasting or of talking. If anyone wishes to (p. 060)
receive a friend at dinner or supper, he must apply to the Master for
leave, and such leave is to be very rarely given. Conversation in Hall
was prohibited by the rule of silence and by the provision of a
reader, which we have already found at Merton. The book read was
almost invariably the Bible. William of Wykeham, who was followed in
this, as in other respects, by later College founders, forbade his
scholars to remain in Hall after dinner or supper, on the ground that
they were likely to talk scandal and quarrel; but on great Feast days,
when a fire was allowed in the Hall, they might sit round and indulge
in canticles and in listening to poems and chronicles and "mundi hujus
mirabilia." The words, of the statute (which reappear in those of
later colleges) seem to imply that even on winter evenings a fire
burned in the Hall only on Feast days, and the medieval student must
have suffered severely from cold. There were, as a rule, no fireplaces
in private rooms until the sixteenth century, when we find references
to them, _e.g._ in the statutes of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; and
the wooden shutters which took the place of windows shut out the
scanty light of a winter day. When a Disputation (_cf._ p. 146) was
held in Hall at night, a fire was lit, but we are not told how, when
there was no Disputation or Colleges meeting, the medieval student
spent the time between supper and the "nightcap" which accompanied (p. 061)
Compline. Dinner was at ten in the morning and supper at six in the
evening. Dr Caius, in the middle of the sixteenth century, ordered his
students to be in bed by eight o'clock in the evening, and "early to
bed" must have been the custom on winter nights in a medieval College.
"Early to rise" was the stern law, even in the dark mornings, for the
student's day began at six o'clock, and he must often have listened to
lectures which commenced in the dark, although dawn overtook the
lecturer before he finished his long exposition. In early times there
was no provision for breakfast, and, though the existence of such a
meal is distinctly contemplated in the statutes of Queen's College,
Oxford, there is no hint of it in those of New College. Probably some
informal meal was usual everywhere, and was either paid for privately
or winked at by the authorities. The absence of any general provision
for breakfast led to its being taken in private rooms and not in Hall,
and this is the humble origin of the College breakfast party.
The number of occupants of a single room varied in different colleges.
Special provision was made in later College statutes for the Head of
the College; at New College he was given (for the first time) a separate
establishment and an allowance of plate and kitchen utensils; he (p. 062)
was to dine in Hall only on some twenty great Feasts of the Church,
and to sit at a separate table on these occasions. Henry VI. followed
this precedent at King's, and elsewhere we find that the Head of a
College is to have "principalem mansionem" with garden and stabling
for the horses, without which it was not becoming that he should
travel on College business. It was generally the duty of the Head to
apportion the rooms among other members of the College, and to see
that the juniors were under proper supervision. At Peterhouse, and in
many other colleges, there were to be two in each chamber. When
William of Wykeham built on a large scale, he ordered that there
should be four occupants in the ground-floor rooms and three in the
first-floor rooms. At King's, the numbers were three in ground-floor
rooms and two in first-floor rooms. At Magdalen, the numbers were the
same as at New College, but two of the beds in the upper rooms and one
in the lower were to be "lectuli rotales, _Trookyll beddys_ vulgariter
appellati." Separate beds were usually provided, though sometimes boys
under fourteen or fifteen years of age were denied this luxury. The
bedrooms were also studies; at Oxford there was no general sitting-room,
except in monastic colleges, though Cambridge College statutes speak
of a "parlura," corresponding to the modern parlour or combination
room. Each of the occupants of a room in New College was the (p. 063)
proprietor of a small window, at which he worked, probably at some
"study" or desk like the old Winchester "toys." The rooms had four
windows and four "studiorum loca," and the general type of a College
chamber, after the foundation of New College, was a room with one
large window, and two, three, or four small windows for "studies."
A large proportion of the care of statute-makers was devoted to the
prohibition of amusements. The statutes of Peterhouse forbade dogs or
falcons, "for if one can have them in the House, all will want them,
and so there will arise a constant howling" to disturb the studious.
Dice and chess, being forbidden games to clerks, were also prohibited,
and the scholars of Peterhouse were forbidden to frequent taverns, to
engage in trade, to mix with actors, or to attend theatrical
performances. These enactments are repeated in later College statutes,
with such additions as the legislator's knowledge of human nature
dictated and with occasional explanations of some interest in
themselves. The keeping of dogs is often described as "taking the
children's bread and giving it to dogs," and the Founder of Queen's
College, Oxford, ordered that no animals were to be kept under the
Fellows' rooms, since purity of air is essential for study. William
of Wykeham expressly forbade chess, which he classed with games (p. 064)
leading to the loss of money or estate, but King Henry VI., who made
large use of the statutes of New College, omitted the mention of chess
from his King's College statutes, while he added to Wykeham's
denunciation of ferrets and hawks, an _index expurgatorius_ of animals
which included monkeys, bears, wolves, and stage, and he expressly
forbade nets for hunting or fishing. The principle on which modern
Deans of colleges have sometimes decided that "gramophones are dogs"
and therefore to be excluded from College, can be traced in numerous
regulations against musical instruments, which disturb the peace
essential to learning. That the medieval student felt the temptations
of "ragging" in much the same way as his modern successors, appears
from many threats directed against those who throw stones and other
missiles to the danger of the buildings. Wykeham thought it necessary
to forbid the throwing of stones in Chapel, to the danger of the
windows and reredos, and for the safety of the reredos he prohibited
dancing or jumping in the Hall, which is contiguous to the Chapel.
Games in the Hall were also forbidden for the comfort of the chaplains
who lived in the rooms underneath. King Henry VI. forbade dancing or
jumping, or other dangerous and improper games in the Chapel,
cloister, stalls, and Hall of King's College.
Other disciplinary regulations common to all colleges deal with (p. 065)
carrying arms, unpunctuality, talking during the reading in Hall or
disturbing the Chapel services, bringing strangers into College,
sleeping out of College, absence without leave, negligence and
idleness, scurrilous or offensive language, spilling water in upper
rooms to the detriment of the inhabitants of the lower rooms, and
failure to attend the regular "scrutinies" or the stated general
meetings for College business. At these scrutinies, any serious
charges against members of the Society were considered, and it is in
keeping with some of the judicial ideas of the time that some statutes
forbid the accused person to have a copy of the indictment against
him. For contumacy, for grave moral offences, for crimes of violence,
and for heresy, the penalty was expulsion. Less serious offences were
punished by subtraction of "commons," _i.e._ deprivation of allowances
for a day or a week (or longer), or by pecuniary fines. When College
founders provided clothes as well as board and lodging for their
scholars, the forfeiture of a robe took its place among the penalties
with which offenders were threatened. The "poor boys" who sang in
Chapel and waited on the Fellows were whipped like boys elsewhere, who
were being taught grammar, but the birch was unknown as a punishment
for undergraduates till late in the middle ages. The introduction (p. 066)
of corporal punishment into college life in England may be traced by a
comparison of William of Wykeham's statutes with those of Henry VI.
The King's College statute "De correctionibus faciendis circa delicta
leviora" is largely a transcript of a New College statute, with the
same title, and both contemplate subtraction of commons as the regular
penalty. But the King's College statute contains an additional clause,
to the effect that scholars and younger Fellows may be punished with
stripes. In the statutes of Magdalen, dated some seventeen years
later, William of Waynflete returned to the New College form of the
statute, but he provided that his demys (_i.e._ scholars who received
half the commons of a Fellow) should be subject to the penalty of
whipping in the Grammar School. The statutes of Christ's College
prescribe a fine of a farthing for unpunctuality on the part of the
scholars, studying in the Faculty of Arts, and heavier fines for
absence, and it is added that if the offender be not an adult, a
whipping is to be substituted for the pecuniary penalty. At Brasenose,
where the Fellows were all of the standing of at least a Bachelor of
Arts, the undergraduate scholars were subjected to an unusually strict
discipline, and offenders were to be punished either by fines or by
the rod, the Principal deciding the appropriate punishment in each
case. For unpunctuality, for negligence and idleness, for playing, (p. 067)
laughing, talking, making a noise or speaking English in, a
lecture-room, for insulting fellow-students, or for disobedience to
his pastors and masters, the Brasenose undergraduate was to be
promptly flogged. Among the crimes for which the birch is ordered we
find "making odious comparisons," a phrase which throws some light on
the conversational subjects of sixteenth-century undergraduates. The
kind of comparison is indicated in the statute; remarks about the
country, the family, the manners, the studies, and the ability, or the
person, of a fellow-student must be avoided. Similarly, at Jesus
College, Cambridge, it is forbidden to compare country to country,
race to race, or science to science, and William of Wykeham and other
founders had to make similar injunctions. The medieval student was
distinctly quarrelsome, and such records as the famous Merton
"scrutiny" of 1339, and investigations by College Visitors, show that
the seniors set the undergraduates a bad example. The statutes of
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, provide for two new penalties. An
offending undergraduate might be sentenced to feed by himself, at a
small table in the middle of the Hall, and in aggravated cases to the
monastic penalty of bread and water. An alternative penalty was
detention in the library at the most inconvenient time ("per horam (p. 068)
vel horas cum minime vellet"), and the performance of an imposition to
be shown up in due course. The rough and ready penalty of the birch
is, however, frequently mentioned in the statutes of Corpus and of
other sixteenth-century Colleges. Cardinal Wolsey thought it proper
that an undergraduate should be whipped until he had completed his
twentieth year. At Trinity, Cambridge (where offenders were sociably
flogged before the assembled College on Friday evenings) the age was
eighteen. Dr Caius restricted the rod to scholars who were not adult.
"We call those adults," he says, "who have completed their eighteenth
year. For before that age, both in ancient times and in our own memory,
youth was not accustomed to wear _brâccas_, being content with
_tibialia_ reaching to the knees." The stern disciplinarian might find
an excuse for prolonging the whipping age in the Founder's wish that,
"years alone should not make an adult, but along with years, gravity
of deportment and good character." As late as the foundation of
Pembroke College at Oxford (1624) whipping is the penalty contemplated
for undergraduates under eighteen. But when we come to the statutes
which were drawn up in 1698 with a view to the foundation of Worcester
College, not only is there no mention of the birch, but even pecuniary
penalties are deprecated for minor offences, for which impositions (p. 069)
and gating are suggested.
Minor penalties were enforced by the Head of a college, the Vice-Head,
the Deans, and, in sixteenth-century colleges, by the tutors. By later
college statutes, these officers received for their personal use a
portion of the fines they inflicted, and appeals were sometimes
permitted from an officer to the Head, and even to the Chancellor or
Vice-Chancellor of the University. The oath taken by scholars
frequently bound them to reveal to the authorities, any breach of the
statutes, and there are indications that members of the College were
encouraged to report each other's misdeeds. Thus the Master of
Christ's is to fine anyone whom he hears speaking one complete
sentence in English, or anyone whom he may know to have been guilty of
this offence, except in sleeping-rooms or at times when permission had
been given.
Oxford and Cambridge Colleges were, as we have seen, endowed homes for
the education of secular clerks. All of them, on entrance, had to have
the tonsure, and provision was often made for the cutting of their
hair and beard. At Christ's College, there was a regular College
barber "qui ... caput et barbam radet ac tondebit hebdomadis singulis."
They wore ordinary clerical dress, and undue expenditure on clothes
and ornaments was strictly prohibited, _e.g._ the Fellows of (p. 070)
Peterhouse were forbidden to wear rings on their fingers "ad inanem
gloriam et jactantiam." The early founders did not insist upon Holy
Orders for the Heads or Fellows of their colleges, though many of them
would naturally proceed to the priesthood, but in later college
statutes all the Fellows were ultimately to proceed, at stated times,
to Holy Orders and to the priesthood, though dispensations for delay
might be granted, and students of Medicine were sometimes excused from
the priesthood. When they became priests they were, like other
priests, to celebrate mass regularly in the Chapel, but were not to
receive payment for celebrations outside the College. As mere tonsured
undergraduates, they were not, at first, subject to regulations for
daily attendance at divine service; but later founders were stricter
in this, as in other matters. Bishop Bateman, who, in the middle of
the fourteenth century, legislated for the infant Gonville College,
ordered that every Fellow should hear one mass daily and say certain
prayers, and in his own foundation of Trinity Hall, he repeated the
injunction. The prescribed prayers included petitions for the Founder,
or for the repose of his soul; every Fellow of Trinity Hall was to
say, immediately upon rising in the morning and before going to bed at
night, the prayer "Rege quaesumus Domine," during the Bishop's lifetime,
and after his death, "Deus qui inter Apostolicos Sacerdotes," and (p. 071)
to say the psalm "De profundis clamavi" and a "Kurie eleeson" for the
repose of the soul of the Founder's father and mother, his predecessors
in the see of Norwich, and after his death for his own soul. The ten
priests, who served the Chapel at New College, said masses for the
Founder and his benefactors, but every Fellow was to attend mass every
day and to say prayers in his own room, morning and evening, including
"Rege, quaesumus, Domine, Willielmum Pontificem Fundatorem nostrum"
or, after his death, "Deus qui inter Apostolicos sacredotes famulum
tuum Fundatorem nostrum pontificali dignitate"; and every day, both
after High Mass in Chapel, and after dinner and supper in Hall, the
psalm "De profundis" was said. Penalties were prescribed for
negligence, and as time went on, a whipping was inflicted for absence
from Chapel, _e.g._ at Christ's College, and at Balliol, for which new
statutes were drawn up in 1507.
Residence in College was continuous throughout the year, even during
the University vacation, which lasted from early in July to the
beginning of October. Leave of absence might be granted at any time in
the year, on reasonable grounds, but was to be given generally in
vacations. General rules were laid down for behaviour in keeping with
the clerical profession during absence, and students on leave were (p. 072)
forbidden to frequent taverns or otherwise transgress the rules which
were binding upon them in the University. Occasionally we find some
relaxation in these strict regulations, as when the Founder of Corpus
Christi at Oxford allows "moderate hunting or hawking" when one of his
scholars is on holiday away from Oxford. The same indulgent Founder,
after the usual prohibition of games in College, allows a game of ball
in the garden for the sake of healthy exercise. ("Non prohibemus tamen
lusum pilae ad murum, tabulata, aut tegulas, in horto, causa solum
modo exercendi corporis et sanitatis.") Associations with home life
were maintained by vacation visits, but the influx of "people" to the
University was, of course, unknown. The ancient statutes of Peterhouse
permit a woman (even if she be not a relation) to talk with a Fellow
in the Hall, preferably in the presence of another Fellow, or at
least, a servant; but the legislator had grave fears of the results of
such "confabulationes," and the precedent he set was not followed. A
Fellow or scholar is frequently permitted by College statutes to
entertain his father, brother, nephew, or a friend, obtaining first
the consent of the Head of the College, and paying privately for the
entertainment, but no such guest might sleep in College, and the
permission is carefully restricted to the male sex. Women were, as (p. 073)
a rule, not allowed within a College gate; if it was impossible to
find a man to wash clothes, a laundress might be employed, but she
must be old and of unprepossessing appearance. A scholar or Fellow of
a college had not, however, committed himself irrevocably to a
celibate life, for marriage is included among the "causas rationabiles
et honestas" which vacated a fellowship. It was possible, though
probably infrequent, for a Fellow who had not proceeded to Holy Orders
to leave the College "uxore ducta," giving up his emolument, his
clerical dress, and the tonsure. Even if a Fellow enjoyed the
Founder's provision for the long period of his course in Arts and
Theology, and proceeded in due time to Holy Orders, it was not
contemplated that he should remain a Fellow till his death.
"... he had geten him yet no benefyce,
Ne was so worldly for to have offyce,"
says Chaucer, indicating the natural end of a scholar's career. He
might betake himself to some "obsequium," and rise high in the service
of the king, or of some great baron or bishop, and become, like one of
Wykeham's first New College scholars, Henry Chichele, an archbishop
and a College founder himself. Should no such great career open up for
him, he can, at the least, succeed to one of the livings which the
founders of English colleges purchased for this purpose. His "obsequium"
would naturally lead to his ceasing to reside, and so vacate his (p. 074)
fellowship, and his acceptance of a benefice over a certain value
brought about the same result. Some such event was expected to happen
to every Fellow; unless he happened to be elected to the Headship, it
was not intended that he should grow old in the College, and at
Queen's College, Oxford, the arbitrary or unreasonable refusal of a
benefice vacated a Fellowship. The object of the College Founder was,
that there should never be wanting a succession of men qualified to
serve God in Church and State, and to Chaucer's unworldly clerk, if he
was a member of a College, there would come, in due course, the
country living and goodbye to the University. But statutes were not
always strictly observed and the idle life-Fellow, who survived to be
the scandal of early Victorian days, was not unknown in the end of the
Middle Ages.
One of the causes of vacating a fellowship throws some light upon the
class of men who became members of Oxford and Cambridge Colleges. The
opening sentences of founders' statutes usually contain some such
phrase as "collegium pauperum et indigentium scholarium"; but later
sections of the statutes contemplate the possibility of their succeeding
to property--"patrimonium, haereditatem, feudumve saeculare, vel
pensionem annuam"--and if such property exceeded the annual value of
a hundred shillings, a Fellowship was _ipso facto_ vacated. The (p. 075)
"pauperes et indigentes" expressions must not be construed too
literally; the Founder was establishing a claim to the merits of him
that considereth the poor, and the language he used was part of the
ordinary formulas of the time, and ought not to be interpreted more
strictly than the ordinary phrases of legal and Diplomatic documents
or than the conventional terms of courtesy, which begin and conclude a
modern letter. That an English College Founder wished to give help
where help was required, is undeniable, but help was required by
others than the poorest. The advancement of the study of theology was
near the heart of every medieval founder, and the study of theology
demanded the surrender of the best years of a man's life, and the
extension of the period of education long after he might be expected
to be earning his own living. A curriculum in the University which
covered at least sixteen years, and might be followed by nothing more
remunerative than the cure of Chaucer's poor priest, required some
substantial inducement if it was to attract the best men. Canon Law,
Civil Law and Medicine, if they offered more opportunity of attaining
a competency, required also a very long period of apprenticeship in
the University. There were many youths in the Middle Ages (as there
are to-day) neither "pauperes" nor "indigentes" in the strict (p. 076)
sense of the word, but too poor to be able to afford sixteen years of
study in the University. The length of the medieval curriculum
produced some of the necessities which colleges were established to
meet.
That the founders were not thinking of the poorest classes of the
community, is evident from many provisions of their statutes. They
frequently provided only board and lodging, and left their
beneficiaries to find elsewhere the other necessities of life; they
appointed penalties (such as the subtraction of commons for a month)
which would have meant starvation to the penniless; they contemplated
entertainments and journeys, and in the case of a New College Doctor,
even the maintenance of a private servant, at the personal expense of
their scholars and Fellows; they prohibited the expenditure of money
on extravagant dress and amusements. William of Wykeham made
allowances for the expense of proceeding to degrees in the University
when one of his Fellows had no private means and no friends to assist
him ("propter paupertatem, inopiam, et penuriam, carentiamque
amicorum"); but the sum to be thus administered was strictly limited
and the recipient had to prove his poverty, and to swear to the truth
of his statement. The very frequent insistence upon provisions for a
Founder's kin, suggests that the society, to which he wished a (p. 077)
large number of his relations to belong, was of higher social standing
than an almshouse; and the liberal allowances for the food of the
Fellows, as contrasted with the sums allotted to servants and
choristers, show that life in College was intended to be easy and
comfortable. The fact that menial work was to be done by servants and
that Fellows were to be waited on at table by the "poor boys" is a
further indication of the dignity of the Society. At New College, it
was the special duty of one servant to carry to the schools, the books
of the Fellows and scholars. The possession of considerable means by a
medieval Fellow, is illustrated by two wills, printed in "Munimenta
Academica." Henry Scayfe, Fellow of Queen's College, left in 1449,
seven pounds to his father, smaller sums to a large number of friends,
including sixpence to every scholar of the College, and also disposed
by will of sheep, cattle and horses. In 1457, John Seggefyld, Fellow
of Lincoln College, bequeathed to his brother tenements in Kingston by
Hull, which had been left him by his father, twelve pence to each of
his colleagues, and thirteen shillings and four pence to his executor.
Whether the possessions of these men ought to have led to the
resignation of their Fellowships, is a question which may have
interested their colleagues at the time; to us the facts are
important, as illustrating the private means of members of a (p. 078)
society of "poor and indigent" scholars, and as indicating the class
from which such scholars were drawn.
College regulations in other countries add considerably to our
knowledge of medieval student-life. In Paris, where the system had its
humble beginning in the hire of a room for eighteen poor scholars, by
a benevolent Englishman returning from a pilgrimage to Palestine in
1180, the college ideal progressed slowly and never reached its
highest development. Even when most of the students of Paris came to
live in colleges, the college was not the real unit of university
life, nor was a Parisian college a self-governing community like
Merton or Peterhouse. The division of the University of Paris into
Nations affected its social life, and the Faculties were separated at
Paris in a manner unknown in England. A college at Paris was organised
in accordance with Faculty divisions, an arrangement so little in
harmony with the ideas of English founders, that William of Wykeham
provided that Canonists and Civilists, should be mixed in chambers
with students of other Faculties "ad nutriendam et conservandam
majorem dilectionem, amicitiam et charitatem inter eosdem." As
colleges at Paris were frequently confined to natives of a particular
district, they tended to become sub-divisions of the Nations. The (p. 079)
disadvantages of restricting membership of a college to a diocese or
locality, were seen and avoided by the founder of the College of
Sorbonne, in the middle of the thirteenth century, and the founder of
the sixteenth century College of Mans protested against the custom, by
instructing his executors to open his foundation to men, from every
nation and province, insisting that association with companions of
different languages and customs, would make the scholars "civiliores,
eloquentiores, et doctiores," and that the friendships thus formed
would enable them to render better service to the State. The tenure of
his _bursa_ or emolument, by a member of a Paris college, was so
precarious that he could not count upon proceeding to a higher Faculty
in his own college, and the existence of an outside body of governors
and of Patrons or Visitors, who had the power of filling up vacancies
further checked the growth of corporate feeling and college
patriotism. The large powers entrusted to an external authority made
the position of the Head of a college at Paris, much less important
than at Oxford or Cambridge.
The differences between English and Parisian colleges may best be
realised by a reference to the statutes of some early Paris founders.
About 1268, Guillaume de Saone, Treasurer of Rouen, founded at Paris,
the "Treasurer's College" for natives of his own diocese. It was (p. 080)
founded for poor clerks, twelve of whom were to be scholars in
Theology, and twelve in Arts. They were to be selected by the
archdeacons of the Cathedral of Rouen, who then resided at Grand-Caux
and Petit-Caux, from natives of these places, or, failing them, from
the Diocese of Rouen. The scholars were to have rooms and a weekly
allowance, not for the whole year, but for forty-five weeks from the
feast of St Dionysius; no provision was made for the seven weeks of
the vacation, except for two theologians, who were to take charge of
the house at Paris. The revenues were collected and distributed by the
Prior of the Hospital of St Mary Magdalen at Rouen, and the Archbishop
of Rouen was Rector and Patron. The students in Arts never formed part
of the foundation, for the Treasurer almost immediately restricted his
community to Theologians, and their tenure of the endowment was
strictly limited to two years after obtaining their licence. "For we
do not wish to grant them anything more, because our intention is only
to induce them to proceed to the degree of master in theology." They
were furnished with books, which they were forbidden to lend, and they
were placed under the immediate superintendence of the senior Bursar
or Foundationer, whose duty it was to call them together once a week,
and inquire into their conduct and their progress in their (p. 081)
studies. Some general rules were laid down by the Founder, and
offenders against them were to be expelled at these meetings. They
were permitted to receive a peaceful commoner, who paid for his
chamber and was a student of Theology. The interest of the Treasurer
of Rouen in Theology is characteristic, and the great College of the
Sorbonne, founded about the same time, was also restricted to
theologians. The College of Navarre, founded in 1304, provided for
twenty students of grammar, twenty in logic and philosophy (Arts) and
twenty in Theology, each Faculty forming a sub-college, with a
separate hall. A doctor in grammar was to superintend both the studies
and the morals of the grammarians and to receive double their weekly
allowance of four shillings, and similarly, a master of Arts was to
supervise the Artists and receive double their weekly allowance of six
shillings. The "Dean and University of the masters of the scholars of
the theological Faculty at Paris" were to choose a secular clerk to be
Rector of the College, and to govern it in conjunction with the body
that appointed him. The masters of the Faculty of Theology, or their
representatives, were to visit the College annually, to inquire into
the financial and domestic arrangements, and into the behaviour of the
Rector, masters, and scholars, and to punish as they deemed necessary.
Membership of the College was restricted to the kingdom of France. (p. 082)
Similarly, the College du Plessis, founded in 1322, by Geoffrey du
Plessis, Notary Apostolic, and Secretary of Philip the Long, was
restricted to Frenchmen, with preference to certain northern dioceses.
Its forty scholars were in separate societies, with a Grand Master who
had to be a master or, at least, a bachelor in Theology. The affairs
of the College, as far as concerned the election, discipline and the
deprivation of its members, were to be administered by two bishops and
an abbot, in conjunction with the Master and with the Chancellor of
the Cathedral of Paris, or, in the absence of the great dignitaries,
by the Master and the Chancellor. But the financial administration was
entrusted to a provisor or procurator, who undertook the collection
and distribution of the revenues.
The details of college statutes at Paris, bear a general resemblance
to the regulations of Oxford and Cambridge founders, and discipline
became more stringent as time went on. Attendance at Chapel (the only
meeting-place of students in different Faculties in the same College)
came to be strictly required. Punctuality at meals was frequently
insisted upon, under pain of receiving nothing but bread. Silence was
enjoined at meal times and the Bible was read. Latin was, from the
first, the only lawful medium of conversation. All the members of (p. 083)
a college, had to be within the gates when the curfew bell rang.
Bearing arms or wearing unusual clothes was forbidden, and singing,
shouting and games were denounced as interfering with the studies of
others, although the Parisian legislators were more sympathetic with
regard to games, than their English contemporaries. Even the Founder
of the Cistercian College of St Bernard, contemplated that permission
might be obtained for games, though not before dinner or after the
bell rang for vespers. A sixteenth-century code of statutes for the
College of Tours, while recording the complaints of the neighbours
about the noise made by the scholars playing ball ("de insolentiis,
exclamationibus et ludis palmariis dictorum scolarium, qui ludunt ...
pilis durissimis") permitted the game under less noisy conditions
("pilis seu scophis mollibus et manu, ac cum silentio et absque
clamoribus tumultuosis"). The use of dice was, as a rule, absolutely
prohibited, but the statutes of the College of Cornouaille permitted
it under certain conditions. It might be played to amuse a sick fellow
on feast days, or without the plea of sickness, on the vigils of
Christmas, and of three Holy Days. But the stakes must be small and
paid in kind, not in money ("pro aliquo comestibili vel potabili").
Penalties for minor offences were much the same as in England--forfeiture
of commons for varying periods, pecuniary fines, and in the (p. 084)
sixteenth century, whipping. In the College of Le Mans, bursars who
were not graduates were to be whipped for a first offence in a school,
and for a second offence in the Hall ("prout mos est in universitate
Parisiensi"). The obligation of reporting each other's faults, of
which there are indications in English statutes, was almost universal
at Paris, where all were bound to reveal offences "sub secreto" to the
authorities. The penalty of "sconcing," still inflicted at Oxford, for
offences against undergraduate etiquette, finds a place in the
Parisian statutes among serious punishments. We find it in the
Statutes of Cornouaille for minor offences; if a man carries wine out
of the College illicitly, he is to pay for double the quantity to be
drunk by the members who were present at the time; if anyone walks
through the confines or chambers in pattens ("cum calepodiis, id est
cum patinis") he is to be mulcted in a pint of wine. If a stranger is
introduced without leave ("ad mensam communitatis ad comedendum vel
videndum secretum mensae"), the penalty is a quart of good wine for
the fellows present in Hall. For unseemly noise, especially at meals,
and at time of prayers, the ordinary penalty is a quart of ordinary
wine ("vini mediocris"). For speaking in the vernacular, there is a
fine of "the price of a pint of wine," but, as the usual direction
about drinking it, is omitted, this was probably not a sconce; at (p. 085)
the Cistercian College, the penalty for this offence was a sconce. So
far, the offences for which a sconce is prescribed, might in most
cases, be paralleled in more recent times in an English college, but
the statutes of Cornouaille also make sconcing the penalty for striking
a servant, unless the injury was severe, in which case, more serious
punishments were imposed. The whole sentence is an illustration of the
lack of control over outbursts of bad temper, which is characteristic
of medieval life. All the scholars are to be careful not to strike the
servants in anger or with ill-will, or to injure them; he who inflicts
a slight injury is to be fined a quart of wine; if the injury be more
severe, the master is to deprive him of his burse for one day or more,
at his own discretion and that of a majority of the scholars: if there
is a large effusion of blood or a serious injury, the provisor (the
Bishop of Paris or his Vicar General) is to be informed, and to
deprive the offender of his burse, or even punish him otherwise. At
the Sorbonne, an assault on a servant was to be followed by the
drinking of a quart of specially good wine by the Fellows, at the
culprit's expense; for talking too loud in Hall, the sconce was two
quarts (presumably of ordinary wine). Dr Rashdall quotes from the MS.
Register of the Sorbonne, actual instances of the infliction of
sconces: "A Doctor of Divinity is sconced a quart of wine for (p. 086)
picking a pear off a tree in the College garden, or again, for
forgetting to shut the Chapel door, or for taking his meals in the
kitchen. Clerks are sconced a pint for 'very inordinately' knocking
'at the door during dinner ...' for 'confabulating' in the court late
at night, and refusing to go to their chambers when ordered.... The
head cook is sconced for 'badly preparing the meat for supper,' or for
not putting salt in the soup." Among the examples given by Dr Rashdall
from this source are a sconce of two shillings for drunkenness and a
sconce in wine inflicted upon the head cook for being found "cum una
meretrice." An offence so serious in a bursar, is by many college
statutes to be followed by expulsion, and Dr Rashdall quotes an
instance of this penalty: but Parisian College Founders, were less
severe in dealing with moral offences than English Founders. At the
monastic College of Marmoutier, it was only on the second offence that
bringing into College ("mulierem suspectam et inhonestam") led to
expulsion, and at the College of Cornouaille, the penalty for a first
offence was loss of commons or bursa for fifteen days, and for a
second offence a month's deprivation; but even at Cornouaille actual
incontinence was to be punished by expulsion.
A late code of statutes of the fourteenth-century College of (p. 087)
Dainville, give us a picture of a student's day. The hour of rising
was five o'clock, except on Sundays and Feast days when an hour's
grace was allowed. Chapel service began at 5.30, prayers, meditation,
and a New Testament lesson being followed by the mass of the College
at six. All students resident in the College had to be present. The
reception of commoners, an early instance of which we noted in the
College of the Treasurer, had developed to such an extent, that all
Colleges had, in addition to their bursars or foundations, a large
number of "foranei scholares," who paid their own expenses but were
subject to College discipline, and received a large part of their
education in College. After mass, the day's work began; attendance at
the Schools and the performance of exercises for their master in
College. Dinner was about twelve o'clock, when either a bursar or an
external student read, "first Holy Scripture, then a book appointed by
the master, then a passage from a martyrology." After dinner, an hour
was allowed for recreation--walking within the precincts of the
College, or conversation--and then everyone went to his own chamber.
Supper was at seven, with reading as at dinner, and the interval until
8.30 was again free for "deambulatio vel collocutio." At 8.30 the
gates of the College were closed, and evening Chapel began. Rules
against remaining in Hall after supper occur in Parisian as well (p. 088)
as in English statutes, and we find prohibitions against carrying off
wood to private rooms. The general arrangement of Parisian college
chambers, probably resembled those of Oxford, or Cambridge, and we
find references to "studies." The statutes of the monastic college of
Clugny order that "because the mind is rendered prudent by sitting
down and keeping quiet, the said students at the proper and wonted
hours for study shall be, and sit, alone in their cells and at their
studies." Parisian statutes are stricter than English statutes in
insisting upon frequent inspections of students' chambers, and a
sixteenth-century code for a Parisian college orders the officials to
see their pupils every night before bed time, and to make sure, before
they themselves retire for the night, that the students are asleep and
not wandering about the quadrangles.
Strict supervision is found in colleges in other French universities,
even in those which belong to the student type. It was, of course,
especially strict in monastic colleges, which carried their own
customs to the University; in the College of Notre Dame de Pitié, at
Avignon, the master of the novices lived in a room adjoining their
dormitory, and had a window, through which he might watch their
proceedings. Supervision was sometimes connected with precautions
against fire, _e.g._ at the College of Saint Ruf, at Montpellier, (p. 089)
an officer was appointed every week to go round all chambers and rooms
at night, and to warn anyone who had a candle or a fire in a dangerous
position, near his bed or his study. He was to carry a pail of water
with him to be ready for emergencies. A somewhat similar precaution
was taken in the Collegium Maius at Leipsic, where water was kept in
pails beside the dormitories, and leather pails, some centuries old,
are still to be seen at Oxford. As a rule, the dormitories seem to
have contained a separate bed for each occupant, but in the College of
St Nicholas de Pelegry at Cahors, students in arts (who entered about
the age of fourteen) were to sleep two in a bed. Insistence on the use
of Latin is almost universal; the scholars of the College de Foix at
Toulouse are warned that only ploughmen, swineherds and other rustics,
use their mother tongues. Silence and the reading of the Bible at
meals was usual, and students are sometimes told to make their needs
known, if possible, by signs. Fines for lateness at meals are common,
and there are injunctions against rushing into Hall with violence and
greed: no one is to go near the kitchen to seize any food, and those
who enter Hall first, are to wait till the rest arrive, and all are to
sit down in the proper order. Prohibitions against dogs are infrequent
in the French statutes; at the College des Douze Medecins at
Montpellier, one watchdog was allowed to live in College. Women (p. 090)
were often forbidden to enter a college, "quia mulier caput est
peccati, arma dyaboli, expulsio paradysi, et corruptio legis
antiquae." The College of Saint Ruf at Montpellier, in the statutes of
which this formula occurs, did, however, allow women to stand in the
Chapel at mass, provided that they did not enter the choir. The
monastic institution of Our Lady of Pity at Avignon, went so far as to
have a matron for the young boys, an old woman, entitled "Mater
Novitiorum Collegiatorum." At the College of Breuil at Angers, a woman
might visit the College by day if the Principal was satisfied that no
scandal could arise. Penalties for going about the town in masked
bands and singing or dancing, occur in many statutes, but processions
in honour of saints and choruses to celebrate the taking of degrees,
are sometimes permitted. Blasphemy and bad language greatly troubled
the French statute-makers, and there are many provisions against
blaspheming the Blessed Virgin. At the College of Breuil at Angers, a
fine of twopence, was imposed for speaking or singing "verba inhonesta
tam alte," especially in public places of the College; in Germany, the
Collegium Minus at Leipsic provides also against writing "impudentia
dicta" on the walls of the College. The usual penalties for minor
offences are fines and subtraction of commons: references to (p. 091)
flogging are rare, though it is found in both French and German
colleges. More serious crimes were visited with suspension and
expulsion. At the College of Pelegry, at Cahors, to enter the college
by a window or otherwise after the great gate was closed, involved
rustication for two months for the first offence, six months for the
second offence, and expulsion for a third. At the College de Verdale,
at Toulouse, expulsion was the penalty for a list of crimes which
includes theft, entering the college by stealth, breaking into the
cellar, bringing in a meretrix, witch-craft, alchemy, invoking demons
or sacrificing to them, forgery, and contracting "carnale vel
spirituale matrimonium."
We may close our survey of the Medieval College, with a glimpse of a
French college in the fourteenth century. We have the record of a
visitation of the Benedictine foundation of St Benedict, at
Montpellier, partly a monastery and partly a college. The Prior is
strictly questioned about the conduct of the students. He gives a good
character to most of them: but the little flock contained some black
sheep. Peter is somewhat light-headed ("aliquantulum est levis
capitis") but not incorrigible; he has been guilty of employing "verba
injuriosa et provocativa," but the Prior has corrected him, and he has
taken the correction patiently. Bertrand's life is "aliquantulum (p. 092)
dissoluta," and he has made a conspiracy to beat (and, as some think,
to kill) Dominus Savaricus, who had beaten him along with the rest,
when he did not know his lessons. (Bertrand says he is eighteen and
looks like twenty-one, but this is a monastic college and the beating
is monastic discipline.) The Prior further reports that Bertrand is
quarrelsome; he has had to make him change his bed and his chamber,
because the others could not stand him; he is idle and often says
openly, that he would rather be a "claustralis" than a student. Breso
is simple and easily led, and was one of Bertrand's conspirators.
William is "pessimae conversationis" and incorrigible, scandalous in
word and deed, idle and given to wandering about the town. Correction
is vain in his case. After the Prior has reported, the students are
examined _viva voce_ upon the portions of the decretals, which they
are studying, and the results of the examination bear out generally
the Prior's views. Bertrand, Breso and William, are found to know
nothing, and to have wasted their time. The others acquit themselves
well, and the examiners are merciful to a boy who is nervous in _viva
voce_, but of whose studies Dominus Savaricus, who has recovered from
the attack made upon him, gives a good account. Monks, and especially
novices, were human, and the experience of St Benedict's at
Montpellier was probably similar to that of secular colleges in (p. 093)
France and elsewhere. Even in democratic Bologna, it was found
necessary in the Spanish College (from the MS. statutes of which, Dr
Rashdall quotes) to establish a discipline which included a penalty of
five days in the stocks and a meal of bread and water, eaten sitting
on the floor of the Hall, for an assault upon a brother student; if
blood was shed, the penalty was double. The statutes of the Spanish
College were severe for the fourteenth century, and they penalise
absence from lecture, unpunctuality, nocturnal wanderings and so
forth, as strictly as any English founder.