public lecturer in Greek, who was to lecture to the entire University,
and was evidently designed to be one of the principal officers of the
College. This readership appears to have been the first permanent
office created in either University for the purpose of giving
instruction in the Greek language; though, for some years before the
close of the fifteenth century, Grocyn, Linacre, and others, had taught
Greek at Oxford, in a private or semi-official capacity. On Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays, throughout the year, the Greek reader was
to give instruction in some portion of the Grammar of Theodorus or
other approved Greek grammarian, together with some part of Lucian,
Philostratus, or the orations of Isocrates. On Tuesdays, Thursdays,
and Saturdays, throughout the year, he was to lecture in Aristophanes,
Theocritus, Euripides, Sophocles, Pindar, or Hesiod, or some other
of the more ancient Greek poets, with some part of Demosthenes,
Thucydides, Aristotle, Theophrastus, or Plutarch. It will be noticed
that there is no express mention in this list of Homer, Aeschylus,
Herodotus, or Plato. Thrice a week, moreover, in vacations, he was to
give private instruction in Greek grammar or rhetoric, or some Greek
author, to all members of the College below the degree of Master of
Arts. Lastly, all Fellows and scholars below the degree of Bachelor in
Divinity, including even Masters of Arts, were bound, on pain of loss
of commons, to attend the public lectures of both the Greek and Latin
reader; and not only so, but to pass a satisfactory examination in them
to be conducted three evenings in the week.
Similar regulations as to teaching are laid down with regard to the
Professor of Humanity or Latin, whose special province it is carefully
to extirpate all “barbarism” from our “bee-hive,” the name by which,
throughout these statutes, Foxe fondly calls his College.[230] The
lectures were to begin at eight in the morning, and to be given all
through the year, either in the Hall of the College, or in some
public place within the University. The authors specified are Cicero,
Sallust, Valerius Maximus, Suetonius, Pliny’s _Natural History_, Livy,
Quintilian, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Juvenal, Terence, and Plautus. It
will be noticed that Horace and Tacitus are absent from the list.[231]
Moreover, in vacations, the Professor is to lecture, three times a
week, to all inmates of the College below the degree of Master of Arts,
on the _Elegantiae_ of Laurentius Valla, the _Attic Nights_ of Aulus
Gellius, the _Miscellanea_ of Politian, or something of the like kind
according to the discretion of the President and Seniors.
The third reader was to be a Lecturer in Theology, “the science
which we have always so highly esteemed, that this our bee-hive has
been constructed solely or mainly for its sake.” But, even here, the
spirit of the Renaissance is predominant. The Professor is to lecture
every working-day throughout the year (excepting ten weeks), year
by year in turn, on some portion of the Old or New Testament. The
authorities for their interpretation, however, are no longer to be such
mediæval authors as Nicolas de Lyra or Hugh of Vienne (more commonly
called Hugo de Sancto Charo or Hugh of St. Cher), far posterior in
time and inferior in learning,[232] but the holy and ancient Greek
and Latin doctors, especially Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Origen,
Hilary, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and others of that kind. These
theological lectures were to be attended by all Fellows of the College
who had been assigned to the study of theology, except Doctors. No
special provision seems to be made in the statutes for the theological
instruction of the junior members of the College, such as the scholars,
clerks, etc.; but the services in chapel would furnish a constant
reminder of the principal events in Christian history and the essential
doctrines of the Christian Church. The Doctors, though exempt from
attendance at lectures, were, like all the other “theologians,” bound
to take part in the weekly theological disputations. Absence, in
their case as in that of the others, was punishable by deprivation of
commons, and, if persisted in, it is curious to find that the ultimate
penalty was an injunction to preach a sermon, during the next Lent, at
St. Peter’s in the East.
In addition to attendance at the theological lectures of the public
reader of their own College, “theologians,” not being Doctors, were
required to attend two other lectures daily: one, beginning at seven
in the morning, in the School of Divinity; the other, at Magdalen, at
nine. Bachelors of Arts, so far as was consistent with attendance at
the public lectures in their own College, were to attend two lectures a
day “in philosophy” (meaning probably, metaphysics, morals, and natural
philosophy), at Magdalen, going and returning in a body; one of these
courses of lectures, it may be noticed, appears from the Magdalen
statutes to have been delivered at six in the morning. Undergraduates
(described as “sophistae et logici”) were to be lectured in logic, and
assiduously practised in arguments and the solution of sophisms by one
or two of the Fellows or probationers assigned for that purpose. These
lecturers in logic were diligently to explain Porphyry and Aristotle,
at first in Latin, afterwards in Greek. Moreover, all undergraduates,
who had devoted at least six months and not more than thirty to the
study of logic, were to frequent the argumentative contest in the
schools (“illud gloriosum in Parviso certamen”), as often as it
seemed good to the President. Even on festivals and during holiday
times, they were not to be idle, but to compose verses and letters on
literary subjects, to be shown up to the Professor of Humanity. They
were, however, to be permitted occasional recreation in the afternoon
hours, both on festival and work days, provided they had the consent
of the Lecturer and Dean, and the President (or, in his absence, the
Vice-President) raised no objection. Equal care was taken to prevent
the Bachelors from falling into slothful habits during the vacations.
Three times a week at least, during the Long Vacation, they were,
each of them, to expound some astronomical or mathematical work to be
assigned, from time to time, by the Dean of Philosophy, in the hall
or chapel, and all Fellows and probationers of the College, not being
graduates in theology, were bound to be present at the exercises. In
the shorter vacations, one of them, selected by the Dean of Arts as
often as he chose to enjoin the task, was to explain some poet, orator,
or historian, to his fellow-bachelors and undergraduates.
Nor was attendance at the University and College lectures, together
with the private instruction, examinations, and exercises connected
with them, the only occupation of these hard-worked students. They
were also bound, according to their various standings and faculties,
to take part in or be present at frequent disputations in logic,
natural philosophy, metaphysics, morals, and theology. The theological
disputations, with the penalties attached to failure to take part
in them, have already been noticed. The Bachelors of Arts, and, in
certain cases, the “necessary regents” among the Masters (that is,
those Masters of Arts who had not yet completed two years from the date
of that degree), were also bound to dispute in the subjects of their
faculty, namely, logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and morals,
for at least two hours twice a week. Nor could any Fellow or scholar
take his Bachelor’s degree, till he had read and explained some work
or portion of a work of some Latin poet, orator, or historian; or his
Master’s degree, till he had explained some book, or at least volume,
of Greek logic or philosophy. When we add to these requirements of
the College the disputations also imposed by the University, and the
numerous religious offices in the chapel, we may easily perceive that,
in this busy hive of literary industry, there was little leisure for
the amusements which now absorb so large a portion of the student’s
time and thoughts. Though, when absent from the University, they were
not forbidden to spend a moderate amount of time in hunting or fowling,
yet, when actually in Oxford, they were restricted to games of ball in
the College garden. Nor had they, like the modern student, prolonged
vacations. Vacation to them was mainly a respite from University
exercises; the College work, though varied in subject-matter, going on,
in point of quantity, much as usual. They were allowed indeed, for a
reasonable cause, to spend a portion of the vacation away from Oxford,
but the whole time of absence, in the case of a Fellow, was not, in
the aggregate, to exceed forty days in the year, nor in the case of a
probationer or scholar, twenty days; nor were more than six members of
the foundation ever to be absent at a time, except at certain periods,
which we might call the depths of the vacations, when the number might
reach ten. The liberal ideas of the founder are, however, shown in the
provision that one Fellow or scholar at a time might have leave of
absence for three years, in order to settle in Italy, or some other
country, for the purposes of study. He was to retain his full allowance
during absence, and, when he returned, he was to be available for the
office of a Reader, when next vacant.
This society of students would consist of between fifty and sixty
persons, all of whom, we must recollect, were normally bound to
residence, and to take their part, each in his several degree, in the
literary activity of the College, or, according to the language of the
founder, “to make honey.” Besides the President, there were twenty
Fellows, twenty scholars (called “disciples”), two chaplains, and two
clerks, who might be called the constant elements of the College.
In addition to these, there might be some or even all of the three
Readers, in case they were not included among the Fellows; four, or
at the most six, sons of nobles or lawyers (_juris-consulti_), a kind
of boarder afterwards called “gentlemen-commoners”; and some even
of the servants. The last class consisted of two servants for the
President (one a groom, the other a body-servant), the manciple, the
butler, two cooks, the porter (who was also barber), and the clerk
of accompt. It would appear from the statutes that these servants,
or rather servitors, might or might not[233] pursue the studies of
the College, according to their discretion; if they chose to do so,
they probably proceeded to their degrees.[234] Lastly, there were two
inmates of the College, who were too young to attend the lectures and
disputations, but who were to be taught grammar and instructed in good
authors, either within the College or at Magdalen School. These were
the choristers, who were to dine and sup with the servants, and to
minister in the hall and chapel; but, as they grew older, were to have
a preference in the election to scholarships.
Passing to the domestic arrangements, the Fellows and scholars--there
are curiously no directions with regard to the other members of the
College--were to sleep two and two in a room, a Fellow and scholar
together, the Fellow in a high bed, and the scholar in a truckle-bed.
The Fellow was to have the supervision of the scholar who shared his
room, to set him a good example, to instruct him, to admonish or
punish him if he did wrong, and (if need were) to report him to the
disciplinal officers of the College. The limitation of two to a room
was a distinct advance on the existing practice. At the most recently
founded Colleges, Magdalen and Brasenose, the number prescribed in the
statutes was three or four. As no provision is made in the statutes for
bed-makers, or attendants on the rooms, there can be little doubt that
the beds were made and the rooms kept in order by the junior occupant,
an office which, in those days when the sons of men of quality served
as pages in great houses, implied no degradation.
In the hall there were two meals in the day, dinner and supper, the
former probably about eleven a.m. or noon, the latter probably about
five or six p.m. At what we should now call the High Table, there were
to sit the President, Vice-President, and Reader in Theology, together
with the Doctors and Bachelors in that faculty; but even amongst them
there was a distinction, as there was an extra allowance for the dish
of which the three persons highest in dignity partook, providing one of
the above three officers were present. The Vice-President and Reader in
Theology, one or both of them, might be displaced, at the President’s
discretion, by distinguished strangers. At the upper side-table, on the
right, were to sit the Masters of Arts and Readers in Greek and Latin,
in no prescribed order; at that on the left, the remaining Fellows,
the probationers, and the chaplains. The scholars and the two clerks
were to occupy the remaining tables, except the table nearest the
buttery, which was to be occupied by the two bursars, the steward, and
the clerk of accompt, for the purpose, probably, of superintending the
service. The steward was one of the graduate-fellows appointed, from
week to week, to assist the bursars in the commissariat and internal
expenditure of the College. It was also his duty to superintend the
waiting at the upper tables, and, indeed, it would seem as if he
himself took part in it. The ordinary waiters at these tables were
the President’s and other College servants, the choristers, and,
if necessary, the clerks; but the steward had also the power of
supplementing their service from amongst the scholars. At the scholars’
tables, the waiters were to be taken from amongst the scholars and
clerks themselves, two a week in turn. What has been said above with
regard to the absence, at that time, of any idea of degradation in
rendering services in the chambers would equally apply here. Such
services would then be no more regarded as degrading than is fagging
in a public school now.[235] During dinner, a portion of the Bible
was to be read by one of the Fellows or Scholars under the degree of
Master of Arts; and, when dinner was finished, it was to be expounded
by the President or by one of the Fellows (being a theologian) who was
to be selected for the purpose by the President or Vice-President,
under pain of a month’s deprivation of commons, if he refused. While
the Bible was not being read, the students were to be allowed to
converse at dinner, but only in Greek or Latin, which languages were
also to be employed exclusively, except to those ignorant of them or
for the purposes of the College accounts, not only in the chapel and
hall but in the chambers and all other places of the College. As soon
as dinner or supper was over, at least after grace and the loving-cup,
all the students, senior and junior, were to leave the hall. The same
rule was to apply to the _bibesia_, or _biberia_, then customary in
the University; which were slight refections of bread and beer,[236]
in addition to the two regular meals. Exception, however, was made in
favour of those festivals of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the
Saints, on which it was customary to keep up the hall fire. For, on
the latter occasions, after refection and potation, the Fellows and
probationers might remain in the hall to sing or employ themselves in
any other innocent recreations such as became clerics, or to recite and
discuss poems, histories, the marvels of the world, and other such like
subjects.
The services in the chapel, especially on Sundays and festivals, it
need hardly be said, were numerous, and the penalties for absence
severe. On non-festival days the first mass was at five in the morning,
and all scholars of the College and bachelor Fellows were bound to be
present from the beginning to the end, under pain of heavy punishments
for absence, lateness, or inattention. There were other masses which
were not equally obligatory, but the inmates of the College were, of
course, obliged to keep the canonical hours. They were also charged, in
conscience, to say certain private prayers on getting up in the morning
or going to bed at night; as well as, once during the day, to pray for
the founder and other his or their benefactors.
I have already spoken of the lectures, disputations, examinations, and
private instruction, as well as of the scanty amusements, as compared
with those of our own day, which were then permitted. Something,
however, still remains to be said of the mode of life prescribed by
the founder, and of the punishments inflicted for breach of rules.
We have seen that, when the Bachelors of Arts attended the lectures
at Magdalen, they were obliged to go and return in a body. Even on
ordinary occasions, the Fellows, scholars, chaplains and clerks were
forbidden to go outside the College, unless it were to the schools, the
library, or some other College or hall, unaccompanied by some other
member of the College as a “witness of their honest conversation.”
Undergraduates required, moreover, special leave from the Dean or
Reader of Logic, the only exemption in their case being the schools.
If they went into the country, for a walk or other relaxation, they
must go in a company of not less than three, keep together all the
time, and return together. The only weapons they were allowed to carry,
except when away for their short vacations, were the bow and arrow.
Whether within the University or away from it, they were strictly
prohibited from wearing any but the clerical dress. Once a year, they
were all to be provided, at the expense of the College, with gowns
(to be worn outside their other habits) of the same colour, though of
different sizes and prices according to their position in College. It
may be noticed that these gowns were to be provided for the _famuli_
or servants no less than for the other members of the foundation; and
that, for this purpose, the servants are divided into two classes, one
corresponding with the chaplains and probationary Fellows, the other
with the scholars, clerks, and choristers.
Besides being subjected to the supervision of the various officers of
the College, each scholar was to be assigned by the President to a
tutor, namely, the same Fellow whose chamber he shared. The tutor was
to have the general charge of him; expend, on his behalf, the pension
which he received from the College, or any sums which came to him from
other sources; watch his progress, and correct his defects. If he were
neither a graduate nor above twenty years of age, he was to be punished
with stripes; otherwise, in some other manner. Corporal punishment
might also be inflicted, in the case of the juniors, for various
other offences, such as absence from chapel, inattention at lectures,
speaking English instead of Latin or Greek; and it was probably,
for the ordinary faults of undergraduates, the most common form of
punishment. Other punishments--short of expulsion, which was the last
resort--were confinement to the library with the task of writing out
or composing something in the way of an imposition; sitting alone
in the middle of hall, while the rest were dining, at a meal of dry
bread and beer, or even bread and water; and lastly, the punishment,
so frequently mentioned in the statutes, deprivation of commons. This
punishment operated practically as a pecuniary fine, the offender
having to pay for his own commons instead of receiving them free from
the College. The payment had to be made to the bursars immediately,
or, at latest, at the end of term. All members of the College, except
the President and probably the Vice-President, were subject to this
penalty, though, in case of the seniors, it was simply a fine, whereas
undergraduates and Bachelors of Arts were obliged to take their
commons either alone or with others similarly punished. The offenders,
moreover, were compelled to write their names in a register, stating
their offence and the number of days for which they were “put out of
commons.” Such registers still exist; but, as the names are almost
exclusively those of Bachelors and undergraduates, it is probable that
the seniors, by immediate payment or otherwise, escaped this more
ignominious part of the punishment. It will be noticed that rustication
and gating, words so familiar to the undergraduates of the present
generation, do not occur in this enumeration. Rustication, in those
days, when many of the students came from such distant homes and the
exercises in College were so severe, would generally have been either
too heavy or too light a penalty. Gating, in our sense, could hardly
exist, as the undergraduates, at least, were not free to go outside the
walls, except for scholastic purposes, without special leave, and that
would, doubtless, have been refused in case of any recent misconduct.
Here it may be noticed that the College gates were closed in the winter
months at eight, and in the summer months at nine, the keys being taken
to the President to prevent further ingress or egress.
Such were the studies, and such was the discipline, of an Oxford
College at the beginning of the sixteenth century; nor is there any
reason to suppose that, till the troubled times of the Reformation,
these stringent rules were not rigorously enforced. They admirably
served the purpose to which they were adapted, the education of a
learned clergy, trained to habits of study, regularity, and piety, apt
at dialectical fence, and competent to press all the secular learning
of the time into the service of the Church. Never since that time
probably have the Universities or the Colleges so completely secured
the objects at which they aimed. But first, the Reformation; then, the
Civil Wars; then, the Restoration of Charles II.; then, the Revolution
of 1688; and lastly, the silent changes gradually brought about by the
increasing age of the students, the increasing proportion of those
destined for secular pursuits, and the growth of luxurious habits in
the country at large, have left little surviving of this cunningly
devised system. The aims of modern times, and the materials with which
we have to deal, have necessarily become different; but we may well
envy the zeal for religion and learning which animated the ancient
founders, the skill with which they adapted their means to their end,
and the system of instruction and discipline which converted a body
of raw youths, gathered probably, to a large extent, from the College
estates, into studious and accomplished ecclesiastics, combining the
new learning with the ancient traditions of the ecclesiastical life.
The first President and Fellows were settled in their buildings, and
put in possession of the College and its appurtenances, by the Warden
of New College and the President of Magdalen, acting on behalf of the
Founder, on the 4th of March, 1516-17. There were as many witnesses
as filled two tables in the hall; among them being Reginald Pole
(afterwards Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury), then a B.A. of
Magdalen, and subsequently (February 14th, 1523-4) admitted, by special
appointment of the Founder, Fellow of Corpus. Of the first President
and Vice-President, and the large proportion of Magdalen men in the
original society, mention has already been made. The first Professor
of Humanity was Ludovicus Vivès, the celebrated Spanish humanist,
who had previously been lecturing in the South of Italy; the first
Professor of Greek expressly mentioned in the Register (not definitely
appointed, however, till Jan. 2nd, 1520-21), was Edward Wotton, then
a young Magdalen man, subsequently Physician to Henry VIII., and
author of a once well-known book, _De Differentiis Animalium_.[237]
The Professorship of Theology does not seem to have been filled up
either on the original constitution of the College or at any subsequent
time. It is possible that the functions of the Professor may have been
performed by the Vice-President, who was _ex officio_ Dean of Theology.
In the very first list of admissions, however, to the new society,
we find the names of Nicholas Crutcher (_i. e._ Kratzer) a Bavarian,
a native of Munich, who was probably introduced into the College for
the purpose of teaching Mathematics. He was astronomer to Henry VIII.;
left memorials of himself in Oxford, in the shape of dials, in St.
Mary’s churchyard and in Corpus Garden;[238] and still survives in the
fine portraits of him by Holbein. The sagacity of Foxe is singularly
exemplified by his free admission of foreigners to his Readerships.
While the Fellowships and scholarships were confined to certain
dioceses and counties, and the only regular access to a Fellowship was
through a Scholarship, the Readers might be natives of any part of
England, or of Greece or Italy beyond the Po. It would seem, however,
as if even this specification of countries was rather by way of
exemplification than restriction, as the two first appointments, made
by the founder himself, were of a Spaniard and a Bavarian.