THE EARLY COLLEGES.
[Sidenote: Rise of Colleges]
By far the most important event in the academical history of the
thirteenth century was the foundation of University, Balliol, and
Merton Colleges. The idea of secular colleges, it is true, was not
wholly new. Harold’s foundation at Waltham, afterwards converted into
an abbey, was originally non-monastic, and designed to be a home
for secular priests, but it was not an educational institution.
There were colleges for the maintenance of poor scholars at Bologna;
rather, however, in the nature of the Oxford halls. If the founders
of the earliest Oxford college were indebted for their inspiration to
any foreign source, they must have derived it from the great French
University in Paris, of which the collegiate system already formed
a distinctive feature. Not to speak of still more ancient colleges
at Paris, either attached to monasteries or serving the purpose of
mere lodging-houses, the Sorbonne, founded about 1250, furnishes
a striking precedent for its Oxford successors, as an academical
cloister specially planned for the education of the secular clergy.
Nevertheless, there is no proof that its constitution was actually
imitated or studied by the founder of any Oxford college, and there
is one important difference between the Paris and Oxford colleges,
that whereas the former were appropriated to special faculties, the
latter welcomed students in all faculties. It is, therefore, by no
means improbable that in the development of the college system, as in
the original incorporation of schools into an academical body, like
causes produced like results by independent processes at the French and
English Universities.
[Sidenote: Foundation of University and Balliol]
The claim of University College to priority among Oxford colleges
cannot be disputed, if the foundation of a college is to be dated from
the earliest of the endowments afterwards appropriated to its support.
It was in 1249 that William of Durham left by will a sum of 310 marks
to the University of Oxford for the maintenance of ten or more Masters,
being natives of the county of Durham, in lodgings to be provided at
Oxford out of this fund. Two houses in School Street, Oxford, and one
in High Street, were purchased by the University before 1263, and were
probably occupied by students. There was, however, no royal charter
of incorporation, no provision for corporate self-government, or for
the succession of fellows, no organised society, no distribution of
powers or definition of duties. In a word, the institution founded
by William of Durham was not a college, but an exhibition-fund to
be administered by the University. It was not until 1292 that this
scattered body of exhibitioners was consolidated into ‘the Great Hall
of the University,’ as it was then called, under statutes which are a
very meagre copy of those issued nearly thirty years earlier by Walter
de Merton, and which, unlike his, were imposed, not by the founder,
but by the University itself. Meanwhile, at some time between 1263 and
1268, John Balliol, of Barnard Castle, father of John Balliol, king of
Scotland, provided similar exhibitions for poor scholars at Oxford. His
intention was completed by his wife, Dervorguilla, who collected the
recipients of his bounty into a single building on the present site of
the college, increased the endowments so that it might support a body
of sixteen exhibitioners with a yearly stipend of twenty-seven marks
apiece, and in 1282 issued statutes regulating the new foundation, but
fully conceding the principle of self-government.
[Sidenote: Foundation of Merton College]
In the meantime Merton College had been founded on a far larger scale,
and had received statutes which, viewed across the interval of six
centuries, astonish us by their comprehensive wisdom and foresight.
As an institution for the promotion of academical education under
collegiate discipline but secular guidance, it was the expression
of a conception entirely new in England, which deserves special
consideration, inasmuch as it became the model of all other collegiate
foundations, and determined the future constitution of both the English
Universities. In this sense, Merton College is entitled to something
more than precedence, for its founder was the real founder of the
English college-system.
[Sidenote: Merton College, Statutes of, 1274]
The oldest foundation charter of Merton College, issued in 1264,
was itself the development of still earlier schemes for the support
of poor scholars, _in scholis degentes_. It established an endowed
‘House of the scholars of Merton’ at Malden, in Surrey, under a warden
or bailiffs, with two or three ‘ministers of the altar.’ Out of the
estates assigned to this collegiate house were to be maintained a body
of twenty students in a hall or lodging at Oxford, or elsewhere, if a
more flourishing _studium generale_ should elsewhere be instituted.
In 1274, Walter de Merton, having greatly expanded his first design,
put forth his final statutes, transferring the warden, bailiffs, and
ministers of the altar, from Malden to Oxford, and designating Oxford
as the exclusive and permanent home of the scholars. These statutes,
which continued in force until the year 1856, are a marvellous
repertory of minute and elaborate provisions governing every detail
of college life. The number and allowances of the scholars; their
studies, diet, costume, and discipline; the qualifications, election,
and functions of the warden; the distribution of powers among various
college officers; the management of the college estates, and the
conduct of college business, are here regulated with truly remarkable
sagacity. The policy which dictated and underlies them is easy to
discern. Fully appreciating the intellectual movement of his age,
and unwilling to see the paramount control of it in the hands of the
religious orders—the zealous apostles of Papal supremacy—Walter de
Merton resolved to establish within the precincts of the University a
great seminary of secular clergy, which should educate a succession
of men capable of doing good service in Church and State. He was not
content with a copy or even a mere adaptation of the monastic idea; on
the contrary, it may be surmised that he was influenced, consciously or
unconsciously, by the spirit of those non-monastic institutions, now
almost forgotten, in which the parochial clergy of an earlier age had
sometimes lived together under a common rule. The employment of his
scholars was to be study—not the _claustralis religio_ of the older
religious orders, nor the more practical and popular self-devotion of
the Dominicans and Franciscans. He forbade them ever to take vows; he
enjoined them to maintain their corporate independence against all
foreign encroachments; he ordained that all should apply themselves
to studying the liberal arts and philosophy before entering upon a
course of theology; and he provided special chaplains to relieve them
of ritual and ceremonial duties. He contemplated and even encouraged
their going forth into the great world, only reminding those who
might win an ample fortune (_uberior fortuna_) to show their gratitude
by advancing the interests of the college. No ascetic obligations
were laid upon them, but residence and continuous study were strictly
prescribed, and if any scholars retired from the college with the
intention of giving up learning, or even ceased to study diligently,
their salaries were no longer to be paid. If the scale of these
salaries and statutable allowances was humble, it was chiefly because
the founder intended the number of his scholars to be constantly
increased, as the revenues of the house might be enlarged. He even
recognised the duty of meeting the needs of future ages, and empowered
his scholars not only to make new statutes, but even to migrate
elsewhere from Oxford in case of necessity.
[Sidenote: Social position, manners, and academical life of early
students]
If we seek to measure the effect produced by the rise of colleges on
the character of the University, we must endeavour to realise the
aspect of University life and manners before colleges were planted in
Oxford. The students, as we have seen, were lodged in religious houses,
licensed halls, or private chambers. The former were mostly destined to
swell the ranks of the regular clergy, and, it may be presumed, were
subjected to some wholesome rules of discipline, independent of any
authority exercised by the University. As they also received the whole
or the greater part of their instruction within the walls of their
convents, they probably were rarely seen in the streets, cultivated
a certain degree of refinement, and took comparatively little part
in the riots which constantly disturbed the peace of Oxford in the
Middle Ages. With the other two classes it was far otherwise. Even the
inmates of halls lived in a style and under conditions which, in our
own age, would be regarded as barbarism. Like other scholars, they were
chiefly drawn from a social grade below that of esquires or wealthy
merchants. Many of them were the less vigorous members of yeomen’s or
tradesmen’s families; not a few sprang from the very lowest ranks,
and actually begged their way to Oxford. The majority had probably
come as mere schoolboys, at the age of eleven or twelve, to one of the
numerous grammar-schools which prepared their pupils for the higher
studies taught in the ‘Schools of Oxford’ properly so called. It was
for these younger scholars, we may suppose, that regular ‘fetchers’
and ‘bringers’ were licensed by the University, as we learn from a
document of 1459, though some were attended by private servants. The
older scholars, however, doubtless travelled in parties, for the sake
of protection and economy, with their scanty baggage slung over the
backs of pack-horses. Having safely arrived in Oxford, they would
disperse to their several halls; and it does not appear that, at this
period, a freshman underwent any process of matriculation or took any
oath before acquiring the privileges of the University. He would, of
course, share his bedroom, if not his bed, with others, and be content
with the roughest fare, but he must also have dispensed with nearly all
the manifold aids to study now enjoyed by the humblest students. Books
existed only in the form of costly manuscripts treasured up in the
chilly reading-rooms of monasteries; privacy was as impossible by day
as by night; and the only chance of acquiring knowledge was by hanging
upon the lips of a teacher lecturing to a mixed class of all ages and
infinitely various attainments, in an ill-lighted room, unprovided with
desks or fireplace, which in these days would be condemned as utterly
unfit for an elementary school-room. The principal of his hall, it is
true, was supposed to be his tutor, but we have positive evidence, in a
statute of 1432, that principals themselves were sometimes illiterate
persons, and of doubtful character; nor was it until that year that it
was necessary for them to be graduates. What kind of language he would
hear, and what kind of habits he would learn, from his chamber-mates
and class-mates in the century preceding the age of Chaucer, we can
be at no loss to imagine. And yet the inmate of a hall, being under
some kind of domestic superintendence, was a model of academical
propriety compared with the unattached students, or ‘chamber-dekyns,’
whose enormities fill so large a space in the mediæval annals of the
University.
[Sidenote: ‘Chamber-dekyns’]
It is possible that a certain jealousy on the part of principals and
others personally interested in the prosperity of halls may have
exaggerated the vices of these extra-aularian students. At the same
time it is self-evident that raw youths congregated together, under
no authority, in the houses of townspeople, or ‘laymen,’ would be far
more likely to be riotous and disorderly than members of halls, or,
still more, of colleges. Accordingly, the ‘chamber-dekyns’ were always
credited with the chief share in the street brawls and other excesses
which so often disgraced the University in the Middle Ages. The leading
statute on the subject, it is true, was passed in the year 1432, when
colleges and halls had already established a decisive ascendency, and
when the ‘chamber-dekyns’ may have sunk into greater contempt than in
earlier times. But that statute, abolishing the system of lodging in
private houses, treats its abuses as of long standing, and probably
describes a state of things which had existed for two centuries. It is
here recited that the peace of the University is constantly disturbed
by persons who, having the appearance of scholars, dwell in no hall
and are subject to no principal, but lurk about the town in taverns
and brothels, committing murders and thefts; wherefore it is ordained
that all scholars must reside in some college or hall, under pain of
imprisonment, and that no townsman shall harbour scholars without
special leave from the chancellor.
[Sidenote: Street brawls and disorders]
The reality of the evils against which this statute was aimed is
attested by the frequent recurrence of other statutes against crimes
of violence committed by scholars, as well as by college rules against
frequenting the streets except under proper control. We may take as an
example an University statute passed in 1432 against ‘the unbridled
prevalence of execrable disturbances’ in Oxford, which specifically
imposes fines, on a graduated scale, for threats of personal violence,
carrying weapons, pushing with the shoulder or striking with the fist,
striking with a stone or club, striking with a knife, dagger, sword,
axe, or other warlike weapon, carrying bows and arrows, gathering armed
men, and resisting the execution of justice, especially by night.
The main cause of these brawls is clearly indicated by the further
injunction that no scholar or Master shall take part with another
because he is of the same country, or against him because he is of a
different country. The statutable fines range from one shilling to no
less than forty—a highly deterrent penalty in the reign of Henry VI. It
is to be observed that while the parade of arms within the chancellor’s
jurisdiction is prohibited, the possession of them is rather taken for
granted, since they were usually carried for purposes of defence on
long journeys. Bows and arrows, as essentially offensive weapons, are
naturally placed under a stricter ban, and the heaviest punishment is
properly reserved for riotous assemblages, which had so often led to
bloodshed in the streets of mediæval Oxford.
[Sidenote: Superiority of colleges in discipline and tuition]
In such a state of society colleges offered not only a tranquil retreat
to adult scholars, but also a safe and well-regulated home to younger
students attending courses of lectures in the schools. The early
founders, it is true, did not design them to be mainly educational
seminaries for the general youth of the country, and probably expected
their inmates to obtain much of their instruction outside the walls
of the college. But the statutes of Merton prove conclusively that
‘Scholars’[3] on admission were supposed to be of about the same age
as modern freshmen, and to need rudimentary teaching, while express
provision was made for the reception of mere schoolboys. Doubtless, for
at least two centuries after the institution of colleges, their members
were greatly outnumbered by those of halls, and the system which in
the fifteenth century triumphed over the rivalry of private hostels
may be more properly called aularian than collegiate. Nevertheless,
the superiority of colleges as boarding-houses for students inevitably
made itself felt from the very first. Humble as their buildings and
domestic arrangements may originally have been, they were imposing and
luxurious by contrast with those of lodging-houses or halls. Their
endowments enabled them to maintain a standard of decency and comfort
in itself conducive to study; their statutes ensured regularity of
discipline; their corporate privileges and rights of self-government
imparted a dignity and security to all connected with them; the example
and authority of their elder fellows, mostly engaged in scholastic
or scientific research, if not in vigorous lecturing, cannot have
been wholly lost upon the juniors. In Merton, and probably in other
colleges, disputations were carried on as in the University schools;
attendance at Divine service was a statutable obligation; students
were not allowed to go about the streets unless accompanied by a
Master of Arts; in the dormitories the seniors were invested with
a kind of monitorial authority over the rest; and misconduct was
punishable with expulsion. By degrees, some of the halls came into the
possession and under the control of colleges, which might naturally
elect the most promising of their inmates to scholarships. No wonder
that, however weak numerically, the seven colleges founded before the
end of the fourteenth century produced an immense proportion of the
men who adorned that age by their learning and virtues.[4] Thus, out
of eighteen vice-chancellors who can be identified as having filled
that office in the fourteenth century, five at least were members
of Merton College, two of Oriel, and one of Queen’s. Of sixty-four
proctors known to have been elected during the same century, twenty-two
at least were members of Merton, eight of Oriel, four of Balliol, and
one of University, Exeter, Queen’s, and New College respectively,
while it is probable that others, of whom nothing definite is known,
really belonged to one of the seven ancient colleges. Considering how
largely the non-collegiate population of the University outnumbered
these small collegiate bodies, it is a very significant fact that so
many vice-chancellors and proctors should have been chosen from them
in days when election to both these offices was entirely free. Such a
fact goes far to prove that the ‘college monopoly,’ of which so much
has been heard in later times, owed its origin, in a great degree, to
natural selection in a genuine struggle for existence between endowed
and unendowed societies.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] In the Merton Statutes the words ‘Scholar’ and ‘Fellow’ are
convertible, the Scholar being a Junior Fellow upon his first admission.
[4] Though Canterbury College was founded in this century, it does
not seem to have ranked with other colleges in the University, and no
vice-chancellor or proctor is recorded to have been elected from it.