E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://www.archive.org/details/educationinengla00parriala
EDUCATION IN ENGLAND IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Thesis Approved for the Degree of Doctor of
Science in the University of London
by
A. W. PARRY, M.A., D.Sc.
Principal of the Training College, Carmarthen
London: W. B. Clive
University Tutorial Press Ld.
High St., New Oxford St., W.C.
1920
PREFACE.
The purpose of this book is to give an account of the provision which was
made in this country for Education during the period from the Introduction
of Christianity to the Eve of the Reformation. Preparatory to writing it,
I tried to examine all the relevant, available evidence with the object of
discovering the factors which contributed to the educational development
of the nation during the period under consideration.
Whilst this work was in progress, the late A. F. Leach published his
_Schools of Mediaeval England_. His book, however, differs essentially
from mine, his aim is different, the conclusions he arrives at are
different; further, as he does not quote the authorities for the
statements he makes, I did not find his work of direct assistance. This
criticism does not apply to his _Educational Charters_, a collection of
documents of inestimable value to all students of English Educational
History.
I have tried to acknowledge in every case my obligations to other writers.
In addition, I give in an appendix a list of the authorities I have
consulted, and of the other books I have studied for the purpose of this
investigation. Still, as a great part of this book was written whilst I
was on military service (1914-9) and I was consequently dependent on notes
which I had compiled at various times and places, it is probable there may
be some omissions and inaccuracies. My defence must be the special
circumstances of recent years.
May I take this opportunity of expressing my indebtedness to Professor
Foster Watson, D.Litt. As one of his former students I owe to the stimulus
and encouragement I received from him, my interest in matters relating to
the History of Education. I wish also to refer in appreciative terms to
Mr. J. E. G. de Montmorency's _State Intervention in English Education_.
Mr. de Montmorency was the first writer to give a connected account of the
development of English Education, and it is only fitting that those who
essay a similar task should realise their obligations to the one who first
"blazed the trail."
I must also thank Mr. G. St. Quintin and Mr. S. E. Goggin for relieving me
of the distasteful task of correcting the proofs, and the Rev. Dr. Hughes
for kindly preparing the Index.
A. W. P.
CARMARTHEN,
_January 1920._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
BOOK I.--THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD.
I. THE WORK OF THE MONASTERIES 3
II. EDUCATION UNDER THE SECULAR CLERGY 17
III. THE EDUCATIONAL REVIVAL 31
BOOK II.--THE CHURCH IN CONTROL OF EDUCATION.
INTRODUCTORY 44
I. EDUCATIONAL LABOURS OF THE MONASTERIES 55
II. SOME TERMS IN DISPUTE 63
III. ORGANIZATION OF EDUCATION BY THE SECULAR CLERGY 76
IV. THE MONOPOLY OF SCHOOL KEEPING 92
V. THE APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF MASTERS 104
VI. THE EDUCATION OF THE SONS OF THE NOBILITY 117
BOOK III.--EDUCATION PASSING OUT OF CHURCH CONTROL.
I. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES 124
II. THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES 132
III. GILDS AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS 144
IV. CHANTRIES 157
V. MONASTICISM AND EDUCATION IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES 170
VI. THE ORIGIN OF THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 188
VII. UNIVERSITY COLLEGES, COLLEGES AND COLLEGIATE CHURCHES
IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES 202
VIII. CURRICULUM AND METHOD 216
IX. THE PROGRESS OF EDUCATION 232
APPENDIX 245
INDEX 256
INTRODUCTION.
The history of education during the Middle Ages is closely interwoven with
the history of the Church. Professor Foster Watson quotes with approval
Cardinal Newman's dictum, "Not a man in Europe who talks bravely against
the Church but owes it to the Church that he can talk at all."[1]
It is possible to trace three stages in the development of the English
educational system during the period with which we are concerned.
The first stage covers a period from the Introduction of Christianity to
the Norman Conquest. The Introduction of Christianity was the means by
which education became possible for this country, and so it naturally came
about that the provision of facilities for education was generally
conceived of as a part of the function of the Church. In this connection
it is important to realise the relationship of the State to the Church in
Anglo-Saxon times. As Professor Medley points out,[2] the Church and the
State during this period were largely identical. The bishops were
_ex-officio_ the advisers of the kings, and they sat in the local courts
not only exercising jurisdiction in those cases in which the clergy were
affected, but also concerning themselves with questions involving the
morals of the laity. In a more real sense than at any subsequent time, the
Church of England, during the Anglo-Saxon period, was the Church of the
English nation. During this time the activities of the Church were
essentially the activities of the State, and the work which was done for
education might be conceived of, indifferently, as either the work of the
Church or of the State.
The second stage dates from the Norman Conquest, which brought to a close
this identity of Church and State. William I., impelled by a desire to
effect certain reforms in the Church on the model of those he had
witnessed abroad, separated the ecclesiastical from the civil courts, and,
by the ordinance he issued, authorised the ecclesiastical authorities to
utilise the secular power for the enforcement of their sentences. From
this time and right up to the Reformation, Church and State were distinct
in this country.
This separation of Church and State resulted in a number of duties, other
than those which were strictly spiritual, being tacitly regarded as a part
of the function of the Church. The provision of Educational facilities is
included among these duties, and it was left to the Church to make such
arrangements for the organisation, maintenance, and control of education
as she deemed fit.
A third stage evolved when the social consciousness of the community (or
rather of a part of the community) first realised that education was not a
matter for the ecclesiastical authorities alone. The first manifestation
of this in England occurred when teachers began to recognise that they
exercised a function distinct from the special functions of the priesthood
and consequently proceeded to associate themselves in an organisation for
the protection of their common interests and thus initiated a movement
which ultimately resulted in the establishment of universities. At a later
date, various economic developments produced certain social changes which
not only made education an object of greater desire but also brought it
about that wealthy merchants, gilds, and civic communities, as well as
churchmen, took part in the work of providing additional facilities for
the education of the people.
For the sake of convenience we may distinguish these three stages as:--
I. The Anglo-Saxon Period.
II. Education under Church Control.
III. Education passing out of Church Control.
BOOK I.
THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD.
CHAPTER I.
THE WORK OF THE MONASTERIES.
The introduction of Christianity to this country subsequent to the Saxon
invasion was effected by means of two independent agencies--the Roman
mission under the leadership of Augustine which arrived in Thanet in 597,
and the Scottish missionaries who, in response to the invitation of
Oswald, king of Northumbria, took up their residence in the island of
Lindisfarne in 635.
The primary task of these missionaries was obviously that of converting a
people who professed a heathen religion to an adherence to the Christian
faith. The accomplishment of this main task, however, involved two
additional tasks, the one moral, the other social. A dismal picture of the
moral condition of the settlers in this country in the fifth century has
been painted by Montalembert. Basing his account on Ozanam's "Germains
avant la Christianisme" he asks, "What could be expected in point of
morality from persons accustomed to invoke and to worship Woden, the god
of massacres, Freya, the Venus of the North, the goddess of sensuality,
and all those bloody and obscene gods of whom the one had for his emblem
a naked sword and another the hammer with which he broke the heads of his
enemies?" He continues, "The immortality which was promised to them in
their Valhalla but reserved for them new days of slaughter and nights of
debauch spent in drinking deep from the skulls of their victims. And in
this world, their life was but too often a prolonged orgy of carnage,
rapine and lechery."[3] Herein lay the moral task which awaited the
Christian missionaries. They had to replace the existing national ideals
with the ideals of Christianity--ideals of the highest standard of
personal morality. The social task undertaken by the missionaries was that
of elevating this country from a condition of barbarism into a state of
civilisation. Referring to the results of the introduction of
Christianity, Green writes, "The new England was admitted into the older
commonwealth of nations. The civilisation, art, letters, which had fled
before the sword of the English conquest returned with the Christian
faith."[4]
What means could be adopted by the missionaries to accomplish the ends
they had in view? It is obvious that continual teaching and instruction
would be imperative to meet the needs of the converts to the new faith,
and it is equally clear that it would be necessary to provide for the
creation of a native ministry in order that the labours of the early
missionaries might be continued. Teaching, consequently, occupies a
position of the greatest importance, and it is to the educational aspect
of the labours of these missionaries rather than to the religious or the
ecclesiastical aspect that our attention is now directed. It may be
advisable for us to remind ourselves that these missionaries came to this
country speaking the Latin tongue, that the services of the Church were
carried on in that language, and that such books as existed were also
written in Latin. It is necessary to make this point clear in order to
show that schools for instruction in this language would be imperative
from the very first.
It is also important to remember, as Montalembert points out, that the
conversion of England was effected by means of monks, first of the
Benedictine monks sent from Rome, and afterwards of Celtic monks.[5] We
may here lay down a general hypothesis, which the course of this thesis
will tend to demonstrate: the educational institutions established in this
country were due to an imitation of those which had been in operation
elsewhere. The Christian missionaries to England, for example, did not
originate a system of education. They adopted what they had seen in
operation in the parent monasteries from which they came, and, in so
doing, they would naturally adapt the system to the special needs of the
country. Some exceptions to this general principle may be found; they will
be noted in their proper place.
Accepting this hypothesis, before we can proceed to consider the special
work for education of the monasteries in this country, it is necessary
briefly to review the meaning of monachism and to consider the extent to
which monasteries had previously associated themselves with educational
work.
The origin of Christian monasticism is due partly to the moral conditions
prevalent in the early centuries of the Christian era and partly to the
mystical and ascetic tendencies which manifest themselves in some
individuals. Though the generally accepted view of the moral condition of
Roman society in the days of the Early Church[6] may be exaggerated and
the description given by Dill[7] represent more fairly the condition of
things that actually prevailed, yet even this modified account portrays a
social condition in which moral ideals--except in rare cases--barely
existed. To yield to the lusts of the body seemed to be almost inseparable
from life in the world. Repeatedly did the Apostles and the Church Fathers
find it necessary to warn the members of the Church against the grosser
sins. The multiplicity of temptations, the low moral standard, the absence
of any social condemnation of infractions of the moral code tended to the
growth of a belief that bodily mortification and a vigorous asceticism
should be practised by those who desired to be real and not merely nominal
Christians. Effectively to achieve such an ideal tended to a withdrawal
from a participation in social life, from a life of fellowship with
others, to a life of isolation, in order that by a severe discipline of
the body and a life given up completely to prayer, contemplation, and
meditation, the soul might enter into a closer communion with God.
This ideal of isolation was not altogether new. In the deserts of Egypt,
during the early centuries, devout Jews had given themselves up to a
solitary and austere life of chastity and prayer, combining a system of
religious contemplation with a stern regime of physical discipline. Here
then was an example ready to be imitated by the enthusiastic Christian.
Abandoning life in the world, which in so many cases meant profligacy and
vice, the convert, to whom the Christian religion had become a reality,
endeavoured to find in the isolated life of a hermit the opportunity for
contemplation which he considered imperative for the salvation of his
soul.
The reputation for sanctity and austerity gained by certain hermits caused
others desirous of a similar life to build their cells in close proximity.
Gradually the custom arose of building an enclosure round a small group of
cells and of recognising one man as the spiritual head of the group.
Certain rules were agreed to, and a common oratory was shared. The first
rules for a community of this type were drawn up by Pachomius who founded
a coenobitic community at Tabenna in 320 A.D.
For our purpose, it is important to note that Pachomius considered that
attention should be paid to the education of the inmates of the community.
Classes were to be held for those whose early instruction had been
neglected, whilst no one was to be allowed to remain who did not learn to
read and was not familiar, at the very least, with the Book of Psalms and
the New Testament.[8]
A third stage in the evolution of monasticism is associated with the name
of St. Basil of Caesarea. Instead of founding his monastery in some remote
district, he built it near a town and received into it not only solitaries
who had become convinced of the dangers of living alone, but also the
poor, the oppressed, the homeless, and those who, for various reasons, had
become weary of life in the outer world and sought an asylum for their
remaining days. Not only men but also women and children were received by
Basil: so great was his success that he ultimately established in
different centres several industrial coenobitic communities.
The reception of children by Basil naturally brought forward the question
of their education. These children fell into one or other of two classes;
in the one class were those who, like the infant Samuel, were offered by
their parents for the cloistral life from a tender age; in the other class
were those who were subsequently to return to the world. St. Basil
organised schools for the former of these classes; children were to be
admitted to them when they were five or six years of age; details with
regard to the mode of their instruction were prescribed; general rules of
discipline were laid down.[9] Under certain circumstances, children who
were not destined for the monastic life could also be received in these
schools.[10] In addition to teaching the elements of grammar and rhetoric
and the facts of scripture history, Basil provided for a number of trades
to be learned and practised as soon as the children were able to profit by
the course. Among the trades recommended were weaving, tailoring,
architecture, woodwork, brass work, and agriculture.[11]
Cassian was the first to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks into
Europe. He founded two monasteries in the neighbourhood of Marseilles for
men and women respectively. In 420 he wrote _De Institutis Renuntiatium_,
in which he records the rules to be observed in the institutions he had
founded. The code of rules here enunciated constituted the law of
monasticism in Gaul till it gave place to the regulations of Benedict.
Cassian in his youth had studied the works of Greek learning, but in his
later years he showed a great distrust of pagan literature and strongly
opposed its study. He considered that the fascination of such literature
distracted the soul, and desired that even the memory of the classical
writings should be eradicated from his mind. The underlying conception of
the rule of Cassian was that the monastery was a school in which a future
stage of existence was the dominating and controlling thought.
Reference must next be made to Cassiodorus (479?-575)--the great Italian
statesman turned monk--who did much to develop study among ecclesiastics
and to make the cloister the centre of literary activity. He founded a
monastery at Vivarium in Bruttium, which he endowed with his Roman library
containing a magnificent collection of manuscripts, and to which he
himself retired at the age of sixty. During the remaining years of his
life he devoted himself to literary work; of his numerous writings the
most important is his _Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Lectionum_.
A more important work accomplished by Cassiodorus than the writings he
produced was his organisation of the monastery scriptorium. This served as
a model for the series of Benedictine monasteries which subsequently came
into existence. Hence to Cassiodorus must be assigned the honour of
realising that the multiplication of manuscripts was a recognised
employment of monastic life. Consequently, he conferred a boon of the
greatest value upon the human race. As Hodgkin expresses it, there was in
existence an accumulated store of two thousand years of literature, sacred
and profane, the writings of Hebrew prophets, of Greek philosophers, of
Latin rhetoricians, perishing for want of men with leisure and ability to
transcribe them. Were it not for the labours of the monks it is highly
conceivable that these treasures would have been irretrievably lost to the
world.[12]
The number of the monastic institutions rapidly increased. Gradually the
evils arising from a lack of definite control and from the want of a code
of rules to check individualising tendencies, began to manifest
themselves. To St. Benedict of Nursia is due the more adequate
organisation of monastic life. In addition to the laws of chastity,
poverty, and obedience required from the professed monk, he recognised the
importance of labour not only for self-support but also as a duty towards
God. The code of rules, drawn up by him for the use of the monasteries
under his care, was found to meet a great need of the religious
communities of the time, with the result that the Benedictine rules became
almost universally accepted by all monastic establishments.
Of these rules, the one that exercised a profound influence upon
educational development is headed _Concerning Daily Manual Labour_.[13] It
runs:--
"Idleness is the enemy of the soul: hence brethren ought at certain
seasons to occupy themselves with manual labour and again at certain
hours with holy reading. Between Easter and the calends of October
let them apply themselves to reading from the fourth hour until the
sixth hour.... From the calends of October to the beginning of Lent
let them apply themselves to reading until the second hour. During
Lent let them apply themselves to reading from morning until the end
of the third hour, and in these days of Lent let them receive a book
apiece from the library and read it straight through. These books are
to be given out at the beginning of Lent."
The great importance of this rule arises from the fact that whilst monks
were becoming very numerous, books were very few. Hence in order that the
requisite number of copies might be available, writing had to be taught;
in order that the monks might be able to read the books, it is conceivable
that in some cases reading also would have to be taught. Moreover, the
copying of manuscripts was considered to comply with the regulation as to
manual labour prescribed by the Benedictine rules. Consequently wherever a
Benedictine monastery came into existence, there books were multiplied,
and a library gradually developed. As the years went on, the Benedictine
labours in the intellectual world increased. Mabillon remarks, "Almost
alone, the order of St. Benedict for several years, maintained and
preserved letters in Europe. There were frequently no other masters in our
monasteries, and frequently the cathedral schools drew theirs from the
same source."[14]
The purpose of this digression has been to show that by the time that the
monks entered upon their mission in this country, the idea of monasticism
was firmly established on the continent. The monastic houses consisted of
communities of men or of women who, leaving the outer world behind them,
dedicated their lives to the worship and the praise of God. They
concentrated their attention upon the world to come, and, as far as
possible, they endeavoured to anticipate it in the present stage of
existence. Labour, either physical or mental, was one of their special
obligations. Limiting ourselves to intellectual labour, we note that to
some was entrusted the instruction of the children who were brought to
them and of those members of the community who still needed education; to
others was assigned work in the scriptorium; to others was allotted the
task of giving instruction in singing and of making due preparation for
the musical part of the monastic services; others, according to their
capacity, continued their studies, and, by the chronicles which they
wrote, enable posterity to reconstruct the history of their days.
Our problem is now a narrower one: does any evidence exist to show that
the educational organisation of the monasteries in this country
corresponded with the educational work of the continental monasteries?
Fortunately, for our purpose, a complete answer in the affirmative can be
obtained from the works of the Venerable Bede.
That it was customary for schools to be established in monasteries is a
fact that can be readily demonstrated. Bede writes that he "was given at
seven years of age to be educated by the most reverend Abbot Benedict and
afterwards by Ceolfrid; and spending all the remaining time of my life in
that monastery, I applied myself wholly to the study of scripture, and
amidst the observance of regular discipline and the daily care of singing
in the Church, I always took delight in learning, teaching, and
writing."[15] This passage, alone, practically establishes the fact that
the educational activities described as existing in continental
monasteries were also to be found as a normal part of the monasteries
which were established in this country. Lest it might be maintained that
the monastery at Wearmouth was exceptional the decree of the Council of
Cloveshoo may be quoted. At that council it was decreed that "abbots and
abbesses should take care that scripture reading was everywhere studied."
Again it must be borne in mind that copies of the scriptures existed only
in the Latin language and that for the reading of scripture it was an
essential condition that ability to read Latin had been previously
acquired. Further, at the same council, it was enacted that boys
"everywhere in the schools were to be compelled to address themselves to
the love of sacred learning."[16]
The work of the monasteries in connection with higher education is also
attested by Bede. The Irish monasteries, in particular, acquired a
reputation in this respect. Many English youths of every social grade
crossed over to Ireland, attracted thither by the greater fame of the
monasteries, for the purpose of extending their studies.[17] Bede records
that scholars went about from cell to cell, gathering learning from
monastic teachers.[18] It is noteworthy that at these monasteries food,
books, and teaching were supplied freely and willingly. Aidan instructed,
among others, twelve boys of the English nation at his monastery at
Lindisfarne: some of these acquired fame in later years, _e.g._ Basil, who
became Bishop of Lindisfarne, and Eata, who became Prior of Melrose.
Briefly, we may say that nearly all the learned men of this period were
either monks or were closely connected with monasteries. Among them we may
mention Aidan, Bede, Wilfrid, Theodore, Hadrian, Benedict Biscop,
Aldhelm, and Augustine.
The formation of libraries and the work of the scriptorium occupied as
high a place in the newly-established English monasteries as they did in
those monasteries which served as models for them. Benedict Biscop--the
father of English culture[19]--who was the founder of the twin monasteries
of Wearmouth and Jarrow, is particularly famous for his labours in
connection with the establishment of libraries. He visited Rome six times
in all, and each time he returned he brought back books with him to this
country. Of his fourth journey Bede remarks that he "brought back with him
a very large number of books of all kinds."[20] Biscop's sixth journey to
Rome was almost entirely devoted to the purpose of acquiring additions to
his collection of books, a collection which included classical as well as
ecclesiastical literature.[21] In some cases monasteries arranged for the
mutual exchange of books.[22] As an instance of the activity of the
scriptorium may be quoted the famous library of York, which was composed
of transcripts of the parchments collected by Biscop. Ceolfrid, who became
Abbot of Jarrow, and who subsequently was also placed in charge of the
monastery of Wearmouth, took considerable interest in the scriptorium.
Montalembert quotes the statement that Ceolfrid had had made two complete
copies of the Bible according to the version of St. Jerome, as a
refutation of the "stupid calumny" which represents the Church as having
interdicted the reading and study of the scriptures.[23] The preservation
of such Anglo-Saxon literature as remains, is undoubtedly due to the
action of some of the monastic scribes. The poems of Caedmon were written
first of all in the monastery of Whitby; so, too, the Northumbrian poet,
Cynewulf, owes the preservation of his works to the scriptorium of the
monastery he ultimately entered.
The teaching of singing naturally occupied an important place among the
educational activities of the monasteries. Bede describes himself as being
in charge of "the daily care of singing in the Church."[24] John, Abbot of
the monastery of St. Martin's and precentor of St. Peter's, Rome, one of
the most famous of the teachers of music of the day, came to this country
for a time on the invitation of Biscop and at the request of Pope Agatha.
Abbot John taught the monks not only how to sing but also how to read
aloud. His efforts were not limited to Wearmouth alone; those who were
experts in music, from "almost all" the religious houses, came to him for
further instruction, and in this way the influence of his teaching was
widely spread.[25]
When we pass to the question of what was taught in the monasteries, we
find that the scholars were trained to read the scriptures in Latin and to
be familiar with the services of the monastery, and that writing and
singing were also subjects of instruction. Two of Bede's works are
probably school-books: his "Librum de orthographia, alfabeti ordine
distinctum" and his "Librum de metrica arte, et huic adjectum alium de
schematibus sine tropis libellum, hoc est de figuris modisque locutionum,
quibus scriptura sancta contexta est."
Though it may not be just to regard Bede as the typical product of the
English monasteries of the time, yet it may fairly be pointed out that the
whole of Bede's education was received in these monasteries. Even if we
regard him as the best-educated of the English monks, his example will
still serve to show the extent of learning which could be acquired in the
monasteries of this period. Sandys writes, "His skill in Latin verse is
shown in his elegiacs on Queen Ethelfrida and in his hexameters on the
shrine of St. Cuthbert.... His Greek learning is indicated in his
treatises and in the references to a Greek MS. of the Acts which are to be
found in his _Liber Retractionum_. The Latin authors most frequently
quoted by him are Cicero, Virgil and Horace and (doubtless at second hand)
Lucilius and Varro."[26]
Apart from the education, in the technical sense of the word, given by the
monks, they were also responsible for reforms which, in the wider sense of
the term, were also educational. Thus, the higher ideals of life prevalent
in the monastery were introduced into the country as a whole. The age was
a turbulent and disordered one, in which neither moral nor ethical
obligations prevailed and in which might alone was right.[27] The monks
established, in the country of their adoption, a number of communities, in
which the ruling principles were those of Charity, Chastity, and
Obedience. The ideals prevailing in these monasteries reacted upon the
social customs of their neighbourhood. The strong individualism of the
Teutons was modified by the attitude of obedience to recognised authority
characteristic of the monk; the qualities of savagery tended to yield to
the examples of self-denial, self-control, and care for others.
The monasteries also played an important part in the economic development
of the country. At times, and in certain localities, the economic
condition of the people seems to have sunk to a low ebb. Bede tells us
that "very often forty or fifty men being spent with want, would go
together to some precipice or to the seashore and there, hand in hand,
perish by the fall or be swallowed up by the waves."[28] From the earliest
times industrial activity had been a feature of monastic life. Speaking of
St. Basil, his biographer tells us that "by the labour of his monks over
wide desert places, hopeless sterility gave place to golden harvests and
abundant vintages."[29] Manual labour was a common employment in the
English monasteries.[30] The builders of the monasteries also necessarily
introduced new arts into the country. Thus Benedict Biscop brought over
masons and glaziers from France.[31] Lamps and vessels for the use of the
Church were made, and the craft taught to the Northumbrians.[32] All the
furniture and vestments "which Benedict could not procure at home he took
care to purchase abroad."[33] The knowledge of the art of fishing by means
of nets, which apparently was not known in some parts, was introduced by
the monks.[34] Though slavery was not condemned by the Church at this
time,[35] yet the Church fostered the feeling that slavery was not
consonant with the dignity of the human soul, and the monasteries used
their influence in opposing this custom. Aidan employed some of the gifts
of money he received for the monasteries, for the redemption of
slaves.[36] Wilfrid granted liberty to the slaves on the land that had
been bestowed to the monastery founded by him.[37]
It must be borne in mind that in this country the monasteries originally
were not merely communities of men or women who were dedicated to a life
of contemplation, but were essentially centres of missionary enterprise.
Bede tells us of monks who went into the surrounding country and villages
to preach, baptize, and visit the sick.[38] Of Aidan and his company of
"shorn monks" and laymen, we learn that they traversed the country trying
to convert those who were not yet converts to Christianity, and stirring
up those who had previously accepted the faith to alms and good works.[39]
Similarly Chad, one of the disciples of Aidan, proceeded to preach the
gospel "in towns, in the open country, cottages, villages, and
castles."[40] In brief, at the period with which we are now concerned,
these monasteries served the purpose of spiritual outposts, from whence
messengers went out to extend the message of the Christian faith.
It is interesting to note that the monasteries were thoroughly democratic
in their selection of members. The monks preached that "Christian men are
brothers, whether high or low, noble or ignoble, lord or slave. The
wealthy is not better on that account than the needy. As boldly may the
slave call God his Father as the king. We are all alike before God,
unless anyone exceeds another in good works."[41] So, whilst on the one
hand kings like Ceolwulf and Ini became monks, on the other hand redeemed
slaves were admitted as inmates of the monasteries, and, if they proved
themselves capable of profiting by instruction, were advanced to the
priesthood.[42] Certain undesigned effects followed. With the progress of
civilisation, the warlike qualities which originally had gained territory
for the Teutonic invaders needed to be supplemented by the intellectual
gifts necessary for legislation and administration. These abilities could
only be found in the ranks of the clergy. As a result, priests became in
practice the ministers of the Crown; the names of Dunstan and Lanfranc
readily occur as illustrative instances. A general study of Bede, apart
from specific instances, tends to support the suggestion that Cuthbert,
Theodore, Wilfrid, and Aidan, among others, also exercised a considerable
influence over kings. As a second undesigned effect may be mentioned the
fact that, as the monasteries admitted boys who showed vocation and
promise, regardless of their social position, and gave them the best
education of which the monasteries were capable, so it happened that the
monastery was practically the only avenue through which promotion became
possible to the able and competent who were handicapped by circumstances
of their birth. Passing outside our period, we may refer to the case of
Nicholas Breakspear, who from being a servant lad at St. Albans rose to
the position of Pope.
CHAPTER II.
EDUCATION UNDER THE SECULAR CLERGY.
In the preceding chapter we stated that the evangelisation of England was
mainly the work of monks. Though this statement is true, yet we must not
lose sight of the fact that the work of the secular clergy was slowly
developing side by side with that of the regular clergy, and ultimately
superseded it. It is consequently necessary that we should next
investigate into the work for education which was effected by them.
By way of introduction, we may point out that the method of work of the
secular clergy and their mode of organisation closely resembled that of
the regular clergy, and at times was scarcely distinguishable. Just as
Augustine and his band of monks settled in the capital of the kingdom of
Kent and built there a monastery, in which the bishop shared a community
life with his monks, and which served as the centre from which their
labours were directed, so a secular bishop with his companions settled in
the chief town of another kingdom, where a church was ultimately built and
a community life established. Thus in 604, Mellitus was consecrated bishop
and sent to preach to the East Saxons. The new faith was accepted both by
the king of the East Saxons and his people. A church dedicated to St. Paul
was subsequently built at London--the capital of the kingdom. This church,
instead of being a monastic church, as was Christ Church, Canterbury,
belongs to that category of churches known as collegiate churches.
For the sake of convenience, we may here point out the main differences
between monasteries and collegiate churches. A monastery consisted of a
community of men or women under the rule of an abbot or abbess. The
members of a monastery had taken certain vows and were bound to live in
accordance with the rules of that Order to which the monastery belonged. A
collegiate church consisted of a number of clergy forming a corporate body
and living under the supervision of a Dean or Provost and responsible to
the bishop. The origin of such churches has been traced to St. Augustine
of Hippo, who arranged for his clergy to live together under his direction
in a kind of community, though without the imposition of monastic vows. A
further development took place about 750 when Chrodegang, bishop of Metz,
drew up certain rules for the use of the clergy who were living with him.
The clergy who lived according to these rules were called "canons." The
rule of Chrodegang was introduced into England, but it was not generally
accepted;[43] and consequently the term "canon," in this country,
originally meant little more than a man who was a member of a college of
clergy, who served a church in common and had a common claim on its
revenue.
We may also note here that when a bishop's official seat or throne
(cathedra) was placed in a church, it thereby became a cathedral church.
Sometimes the cathedral church was a monastic church, sometimes a
collegiate church; in each case the church was known as a cathedral. From
the standpoint of the development of education, as will be subsequently
shown, the distinction between a collegiate cathedral church and a
monastic cathedral church is an important one, but this distinction cannot
always be clearly made, because during the early centuries of Christianity
in England, a cathedral church was at times in the possession of the
regular clergy, and at other times in the hands of the secular clergy.
Thus Christ Church, Canterbury, was originally monastic but is said to
have fallen into the hands of the seculars during the archiepiscopate of
Ceolnoth (837-870), after which it again returned to the monks and
remained monastic till the Reformation. So too, Gloucester Cathedral was
originally monastic, then Offa transferred it to the secular clergy, later
it again became monastic.
Whether or not the cathedral church of a diocese was monastic, the bishop
of a diocese was the head of the secular clergy and obedience was due to
him from them; on the other hand, the monks owed their obedience directly
to their abbot, from him to the head of their order, and ultimately to the
pope.[44]
In this chapter we propose to limit ourselves to the labours for education
of the bishop and the secular clergy, though, as we have previously
indicated, the line of demarcation between the work that was definitely
monastic and that which may definitely be assigned to the secular clergy
cannot always be clearly drawn.
The educational problems which had to be faced by a bishop and his band of
secular priests were similar to those which had to be dealt with by the
missionary monks. Latin, the language of the Church, had to be taught to
those who were ignorant of it and who wished to be attached to the Church
in an official capacity. A knowledge of music was necessary for those who
desired to take a personal part in the worship offered by the Church. In
addition, the principles of Christianity had to be taught more fully to
converts; the children of the faith required instruction; arrangements had
to be made for more advanced instruction for those who were desirous of
receiving it. Schools had to be founded for these purposes, and these
schools were the original schools of England.
We have already adopted as our hypothesis that the schools of this country
were not a new discovery but were modelled on those which existed
elsewhere. Our first problem consequently, is to discover where these
models were found.
Mr. Leach, in his _Schools of Medieval England_, maintains that "the true
models and source of the schools of England are not the schools of the
Church but the schools of heathendom, the schools of Athens and
Alexandria, of Rome, of Lyons, of Vienne. They were in fact the very same
"heathen" or "pagan" or, in other words, Graeco-Roman institutions, in
which Horace and Juvenal, Jerome and St. Augustine had learned the
scansion of hexameters and the accredited methods of speech-making and
arguments."[45]
This statement calls for examination. The schools to which Mr. Leach
refers came into existence about 50 B.C. and owed their distinctive
characteristics to the influence of Greek thought upon Roman activities.
Three grades of these schools are usually recognised:--
(1) The Schools of the Litteratores. In these schools only reading,
writing, and calculation were taught; they were never very highly
esteemed, and their teachers, who were generally slaves, were frequently
ill-remunerated.
(2) The Schools of the Grammatici. Originally these schools dealt simply
with grammar, _i.e._ with words and their relations; but the conception of
grammar developed so that it came to include both a study of Latin and
Greek Literature and also a range of subjects embracing mathematics,
music, and elementary dialectic. Ultimately these schools were to be found
in almost every city of the empire and, generally speaking, were supported
either by public funds or by endowments.
(3) The Schools of the Rhetores. These were the most important schools;
admission to them was not possible until the "toga virilis" had been
assumed. Here the pupils studied carefully and minutely all matters
relating to success in the art of oratory--an art which at that time had
to be mastered by all who purposed to devote themselves to public life.
But oratory, as the term was then understood, denoted much more than the
art of declamation. It included a mastery of the existing literature, an
acquaintance with the knowledge of things so far as that knowledge was
then available, and a good vocabulary. To this must be added the power of
playing upon human emotions, combined with grace of manner and effective
delivery.
The following reasons may be advanced in support of our contention that
Mr. Leach is in error in considering these Graeco-Roman Schools as the
models of our English Schools, which, as Mr. Leach himself admits, owed
their existence in the first place to the labours of Christian
missionaries.
(1) In the pagan schools, there was no thought of the moral aspect of
instruction. The literature on which the schoolboy was nourished was
created in the atmosphere of paganism and teemed with mythological
allusions.[46] The scholar was taught that the ideal age lay in the past
rather than, as Christianity taught, in the future. The great deeds held
up for his admiration were those associated with the Roman heroes who had
read the fate of their campaigns in the flight of birds or the entrails of
the victims at the altar.
(2) As Professor Woodward points out, "it is an invariable law that the
accepted ideals of the adult generation shape its educational aims."[47]
At the period in which the schools referred to by Mr. Leach were
flourishing, scepticism in religious matters was prevalent. Terentius
Varro had urged that the anthropomorphic gods were mere emblems of the
forces of nature. Lucretius had argued against the immortality of the
soul. Cicero, the greatest thinker of the time, barely veiled his
scepticism. Moreover, it was generally recognised that religion had lost
its control over the moral life of man. It is thus evident that the ideals
of Christianity and the ideals of the Graeco-Roman schools were
fundamentally opposed. In no essential respect could the schools of
paganism furnish a model for the schools of Christianity.
(3) The attitude of the Christians of the early centuries towards
classical literature serves to illustrate still further the attitude of
the Christians towards the pagan schools. Classical literature was
obnoxious to the early Christians because the general interpretation of
life revealed by these books was hostile to the Christian view. The beauty
and charm of the mode of expression made little or no appeal to men who
were confronted by the hideous reality of current licentiousness, even
though the prevailing manner of life might be cloaked by the elegance and
grace of its presentation.
As an alternative hypothesis we suggest that the schools founded by the
bishops in England were modelled on the schools of Christendom rather than
on the schools of paganism. To substantiate this hypothesis, it is
necessary that we should briefly consider the origin and character of
these early Christian schools.
The germ of the essentially Christian Schools may be traced from the
custom of the great apostles of gathering round them their disciples and
the aspirants for the priesthood, for purposes of instruction and
discipline.[48] Gradually three types of schools were evolved:--
(1) Schools for Catechumens. It is assumed that some form of instruction
would be given to Christian catechumens prior to their admission to the
Church. These classes were held either in the porch of the church or in
some other part of the building, and were controlled by a master appointed
for that purpose. The first of these schools of whose existence we have
any evidence was established by St. Mark in Alexandria.[49]
(2) Catechetical Schools. This type of school also originated at
Alexandria, and arose out of the intellectual activities which made that
city so important a centre during the first and second centuries of the
Christian era. Pantaenus, a converted Stoic philosopher who took charge of
the school at Alexandria in 170 A.D., introduced a wide range of studies
into the curriculum and made use of his old learning to illustrate and
defend his new faith.[50] Pantaenus was succeeded by two of the most noted
of the Fathers of the Early Church, Clement, who was formerly his
assistant, and Origen, who assumed the direction of the Catechetical
School at the age of eighteen years.[51]
(3) Bishop's Schools. The origin of these schools may be traced to the
fact that circumstances compelled Origen to leave Alexandria in 231.
Subsequently, at the invitation of two bishops, he opened a school at
Caesarea. It proved so successful that similar schools were opened at a
number of centres. Teaching was carried out either by the bishops in
person, or by a deputy appointed by them. To these schools came candidates
for ordination, the younger clergy whose instruction needed to be
continued, as well as those who, for some reason or other, wished to avail
themselves of the educational facilities thus provided.
One other type of educational institution must also be referred to. We
have already indicated the service rendered to the Church by St. Augustine
of Hippo in connection with the establishment of collegiate churches, and
it is equally important to note his contribution to the educational
organisation of the Church. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, St.
Augustine had been a teacher of rhetoric, and was the author of certain
treatises dealing with the seven liberal arts. Subsequent to his
consecration to the episcopate, he established a seminary for those who
were in course of preparation for ordination. This seminary, though
planned on community lines, was essentially an educational establishment
with the avowed object of making its members as efficient as possible in
the ministry which awaited them.[52] The institution proved a great
success. Many priests, who were trained there, subsequently became
well-known; the seminary itself furnished a model to be imitated by
various bishops.[53] Ultimately, this idea of St. Augustine's was adopted
by Pope Leo I.;[54] and the example thus set by Rome was followed by
several bishops in Gaul, notably by Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of
Clermont, St. Hilary, Bishop of Arles, and Gregory, Bishop of Tours.
The schools established by the bishops in Gaul are of special interest to
us, because the first available reference to education in this country is
the statement by Bede that Sigebert "wishing to imitate what he had seen
well ordered among the Gauls" "instituit scolam in qua pueri litteris
erudirentur."[55] It is consequently necessary that we should next turn to
the educational system of Gaul at this time.
There had existed in Gaul from Roman times (as in other parts of the
Empire) schools of the Graeco-Roman type to which we have previously
referred. The barbarian invasions, however, brought these schools to an
end. When social conditions reasserted themselves, the old condition of
things had passed away and Christianity had become a power in the land. In
the educational reconstruction which followed, the bishops played an
important part and two types of schools were ultimately to be found in
Gaul, the monastic schools and the episcopal schools.
The monastic schools taught theology mainly, but instruction was also
given in speaking, reading and writing Latin, in copying manuscripts, in
painting and architecture, and in elementary notions of astronomy and
mathematics.[56] The most famous of these schools were those of Luxeuil,
Soissons, Lerins and Saint-Vandrille. At the last-named school there were
about three hundred scholars.
The Episcopal Schools were closely modelled on the type originated by St.
Augustine. They were mainly intended for those who proposed to offer
themselves for ordination. The curriculum of these schools was narrower
and more definitely theological than that of the monastic schools. The
best known were those of Paris, Poitiers, Le Mans, Clermont, Vienne,
Chalons-sur-Saone and Gaps. These schools, however, differed from the
seminary of St. Augustine on which they were modelled because the special
circumstances of the time rendered it necessary that classes were also
held in connection with them for the boys, who were attached in some
capacity or other to the cathedral church. Thus the choir boys and others
who were desirous of preparing themselves for subsequent employment in any
capacity in which the education available would afterwards be of service
to them, found in these classes the opportunities they sought.
Our analysis of the educational institutions existing in Gaul in the sixth
century has brought out that there existed, as models for imitation, the
monastic schools and the episcopal schools. In addition, schools had also
developed in connection with the parish churches, but we propose to deal
with that development later. We have already considered the monastic
schools of this country; our present problem is then to consider whether
there is any evidence that schools, conducted by the bishop himself or by
his deputy, similar to those we have shown to have existed in France, were
to be found in this country.
Our reply is emphatically in the affirmative. Thus there was a school at
Hexham. Bede tells us of Herebald, who was a member of the school kept by
St. John of Beverley, whilst Bishop of Hexham. "When in the prime of my
youth," Herebald is reported to have said, "I lived among his clergy[57]
applying myself to reading and singing."[58] Another school existed at
Canterbury, and during the time it was conducted by Archbishop Theodore
and the Abbot Hadrian it ranked as the most famous of the episcopal
schools of this country. With regard to these two famous teachers, Bede
writes: "They gathered a crowd of disciples, and there daily flowed from
them rivers of knowledge to water the hearts of their hearers; and,
together with the books of Holy Writ, they also taught them the arts of
ecclesiastical poetry, astronomy, and arithmetic. A testimony of which is,
that there are living at this day some of their scholars who are as well
versed in the Greek and Latin tongues as in their own in which they were
born."[59] It is owing to the labours of these two men that England, for a
time, occupied the leading place in the schools of the west.[60] One of
the most celebrated scholars of the school of Canterbury was Aldhelm, who
can claim the distinction of being the first Englishman who cultivated
classical learning with any success, and the first of whom any literary
remains are preserved.[61] Bede describes Aldhelm as "a wonder of
erudition in the liberal as well as ecclesiastical learning."[62] It is
from a letter written by Aldhelm that we gain an insight into the
curriculum followed at Canterbury, and learn that the course of study
pursued there included grammar, geometry, arithmetic, metre, astronomy,
and Roman Law.[63]
A third famous episcopal school was that of York, of which we possess a
full account in Alcuin's poem "De Pontificibus Sanctae Ecclesiae
Eboracensis." Alcuin writes in most eulogistic terms of the work of this
school, and, more particularly, of the educational labours of Archbishop
Albert, to whom Alcuin was personally indebted for the instruction he
received.
"He gave drink to thirsty minds at the fountain of the sciences. To
some he communicated the art and the rules of grammar; for others he
caused floods of rhetoric to flow; he knew how to exercise these in
the battles of jurisprudence, and those in the songs of Adonis; some
learned from him to pipe Castalian airs and with lyric foot to strike
the summit of Parnassus; to others he made known the harmony of the
heavens, the courses of the sun and the moon, the five zones of the
pole, the seven planets, the laws of the courses of the stars, the
motions of the sea, earthquakes, the nature of men, and of beasts and
of birds, and of all that inhabit the forest. He unfolded the
different qualities and combinations of numbers; he taught how to
calculate with certainty the solemn return of Eastertide and, above
all, he explained the mysteries of the Holy Scriptures."[64]
The library of the school at York was particularly famous, and included
the works of Jerome, Hilarius, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Orosius,
Gregory, Leo, Basil, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Aldhelm, Bede,
Victorinus, Boethius, Pliny, Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, etc. Mullinger
remarks of this library: "The imposing enumeration at once calls our
attention to the fact that the library at York at this period far
surpassed any possessed by either England or France in the twelfth
century, whether at Christ Church, Canterbury, St. Victor at Paris, or at
Bec."[65]
The school at York is also important because it is the first known
instance in English educational history of the bishop's school being
conducted by a member of the staff of clergy associated with the bishop,
instead of by the bishop himself. On the death of Archbishop Albert, his
successor, instead of taking personal charge of the school, entrusted that
duty to Alcuin. This was a special case of the principle of the division
of labour, and the example thus set at York was of considerable importance
in the subsequent development of education in this country.
As Alcuin is commonly regarded as the most important educator of the first
half of the Middle Ages, and as it was through Alcuin that England
influenced continental education, a slight digression from the main
purpose of this chapter, for the sake of indicating the importance of
Alcuin, may be allowed. The only education which Alcuin received was
obtained at the bishop's school at York, and a consideration of this fact
should assist us in realising that these schools were in practice the
universities of the period. The reputation which Alcuin gained must have
spread beyond the borders of this country, because Charles the Great, who
had determined upon a scheme of educational reform in the dominions ruled
by him, invited Alcuin to come to his court to occupy a position analogous
to that of a Minister of Education of modern days. This position Alcuin
occupied for fourteen years, and during that period the famous
capitularies of 787, 789, and 802 were issued.[66] The effect of the
reforms carried out by Alcuin was, that scholars were attracted from all
parts of Europe to the court of Charles the Great, the Palace Schools were
developed and invigorated, learning was promoted among the clergy, and the
activities of the monastic and episcopal schools were stimulated. It has
been suggested that the reforms attributed to Alcuin owed little to his
individual genius, but were based entirely upon the practice he found in
operation in York.[67] If this is so, then the educational facilities
provided in this country in the eighth century must have been of much
greater importance than is commonly conceived. The available evidence is,
however, too scanty for any definite statements to be made on the subject.
Alcuin was a voluminous writer, and his works bear further witness to the
intellectual activity of his day. They include epistles, poems, exegetical
works, dogmatic writings, liturgical writings, biographical writings,
studies, and dialogues.[68] His educational writings include works _On
Grammar_, _On Orthography_, _On Rhetoric_, _On Dialectic_, etc. They are
written in the characteristic Anglo-Saxon dialogue form. In his _On
Grammar_, Alcuin shows that true happiness is to be found in the things
peculiar to the soul itself rather than in those things which are alien to
it; of these things, "wisdom is the chief adornment." Progress in wisdom
was to be obtained, so far as secular knowledge was concerned, by the
"seven ascents of theoretical discipline," _i.e._ the trivium and the
quadrivium.
We have thus brought forward evidence to show that episcopal schools
existed at Canterbury, York, and Hexham, and that advanced instruction was
available at these centres. The general hypothesis we submit is that the
cathedral city of each diocese became gradually recognised as a place of
higher education, and that it was commonly regarded as the duty of the
bishop to provide, either personally or by deputy, such higher education
as the circumstances of the time rendered possible.
Facilities would also be required at these centres for elementary
instruction, and also for instruction in the "specialist" art of writing.
As the demand for such instruction arose, so the Church endeavoured to
meet it, and classes were established for this purpose. Thus, in a letter
written c. 796 by Alcuin to Eanbald II. Archbishop of York, he recommends
that separate masters should be appointed to teach those "qui libros
legant, qui cantilenae inserviant, qui scribendi studio deputentur."[69]
With the spread of Christianity in this country, the parochial system
originated. For this purpose, the Saxon "tun" was taken as the unit of
ecclesiastical organisation and it became known as the "parish," the
specific area placed under the spiritual over-sight of the parish priest.
We must again remind ourselves that Latin was the language of the Church,
and that to participate in the worship offered by the Church, to join in
its psalms, to understand its doctrines properly, or in fact to become in
any sense of the word a "churchman," a knowledge of Latin was imperative.
A custom naturally arose that the parish priest should keep a "school of
grammar," or, as we should term it to-day, should hold a Latin class for
those who were desirous of learning that language. In course of time this
custom became obligatory and a part of the law of the Church. Thus, at the
Council of Vaison held in 529, it was decreed that each priest, who was in
charge of a parish, should also have at his house a class of young men for
the purpose of preparing them for the sacred ministry. These young men
were also to be engaged in teaching the small children. The bishop in his
visitation of the parish made enquiries as to whether this law was carried
into effect.[70]
The enactment of Vaison was repeated by subsequent decrees of the Church,
notably by that of Tours, and the establishment of schools of grammar to
be taught by the parish priest was a definite part of the system of the
Church.[71] This requirement was reiterated from time to time. Thus
Theodulf of Orleans, the coadjutor of Alcuin in carrying out the
educational reforms of the kingdom of Charles the Great, issued a letter
to his clergy in 797 in which he reminded them that "Presbyteri per villas
et vicos scolas habeant, et si quilibet fidelium suos parvulos ad
discendas litteras eis commendare vult, eos suscipere et docere non
renuant."[72]
Were these parochial grammar schools to be found in England? The direct
evidence is very slight. In a letter which Alcuin wrote to Offa, King of
Mercia, about 792, he recommends to him a schoolmaster;[73] this
schoolmaster, however, does not appear to possess a strong moral
character, as Alcuin warns Offa not "to let him wander about with nothing
to do nor to become a slave to drink, but to provide him with scholars and
require him to teach these diligently." Then in another letter written by
Alcuin and attributed to 797, the Bishop of Hexham is advised to pay
attention to the education of boys and youths. It is stated in this letter
that "it is a great work of charity to feed the poor with food for the
body but a greater to fill the soul with spiritual learning."
Apart from this evidence, there are a few references in Domesday Book
which tend to support the idea of parochial schools and which we will
subsequently consider. All that we can do here is to assume that, just as
the Church in this country followed the general practice of the Church in
the establishment of schools in connection with monasteries and cathedral
churches, so she also followed the custom and precept of the Church in
establishing schools in connection with the parish churches.
CHAPTER III.
THE EDUCATIONAL REVIVAL.
The Danish invasions checked temporarily the remarkable educational
progress this country was making. Beginning early in the ninth century,
the era of Danish reconnoitring excursions closes with the year 855; the
era of methodical plundering with the year 876. As a consequence of their
various immigrations, the greater part of the English coasts were ruined
and devastated. Towns and ecclesiastical buildings were plundered and
burnt. "The Church with its civilising and cosmopolitan influences was for
a time swept out of great districts which fell momentarily into heathen
hands."[74]
After a long and fierce struggle with the invaders, Alfred, the West Saxon
king, held them in check, and compelled them to make peace with him.
Subsequently, in the tenth century, through the successive efforts of
Alfred's son, daughter, and grandson, the territory formerly yielded was
regained.
From the ruin and desolation that the Danes had occasioned, it was the aim
of King Alfred to raise his country. No sovereign could recognise more
fully the value of Education than Alfred did. His general attitude is
evidenced by the preface he wrote to his translation of Gregory the
Great's _Pastoral Care_. In it he refers to the reputation that this
country at one time enjoyed on account of the wisdom and learning of its
clergy. Then he proceeds to show that the decay that had set in had been
so great that learning had practically disappeared from the country. He
aimed at making his people familiar with the contents of some of the chief
religious books, and, as the knowledge of Latin had by this time
practically died out in the country, he sought to get them translated
"into their own land-speech." Not content with simply expressing a wish
that this might be done, he endeavoured to stimulate the efforts of others
by the example he set. In order that education might make greater progress
in the future, he suggested that every English child born of free
condition and who had the means or faculty, should during his youth "be
given over to teachers ... till such time as they may know well to read
English writing." Those who evinced an interest in letters should then
proceed to a study of Latin.
It is an interesting question to consider how and where these educational
advantages were to be secured. Alfred himself had written: "So clean was
learning fallen off from among English folk that few there were on this
side Humber that could understand the service in English or even turn an
errand writing from Latin into English. And not many were there, I ween,
beyond Humber. So few they were that I cannot bethink me of so much as one
south of the Thames when first I took the kingdom." The suggestion of
Alfred is that "now we must get these from without if we would have them."
Unfortunately no reliable evidence is available to assist us in suggesting
an answer to the problem.
The educational activities of Alfred are described at length in Asser's
_Life of Alfred_.[75] The authenticity of this life, however, has been
called in question, and though Stevenson argues strongly in its favour yet
the evidence against is so strong that it is difficult to admit its claim
to be considered what it professes to be. Still, even if the work is not a
ninth century production, there is indisputable evidence of its existence
in the tenth century. We can, therefore, regard the work as setting out
the educational ideas which tradition, at any rate, considered to be in
harmony with the character of King Alfred. From this pseudo-Asser, we
learn that Alfred first acquired the power of reading Anglo-Saxon by the
aid of a master, who was most probably one of the priests associated with
the court. Alfred's ambition to learn Latin was difficult of
accomplishment because of the scarcity of teachers of that subject. For
the education of his children, Alfred arranged that they, together with
the young nobles and some promising youths of lower origin, should be
instructed by masters who should teach their pupils to read both Latin and
Saxon. Thus the king established at his court a Palace School similar to
that founded by Charles the Great.
Though all the details given in Asser cannot be accepted as true, yet the
general statement that Alfred played an important part in stimulating the
educational activity of his country is unquestioned. His efforts must be
regarded as the beginning of a national concern for education, as Alfred,
though a pious and religious king, was actuated not by a desire to recruit
the ranks of the priesthood but by a wish to make his subjects capable of
discharging more effectively the duty they owed to the state. This, he
considered, could be secured through education. If this contention is
sound, then Alfred was the first Englishman to recognise the sociological
significance of education.
There is, unfortunately, no evidence that the efforts of Alfred, in the
direction of improving the education of his country, met with any success.
There would be practical difficulties in securing a sufficient number of
keen and capable priests from abroad; the secular clergy of this country
had scarcely proved equal to the trust reposed in them. To the thoughtful
observer of the day the end in view could be obtained only through the
restoration of monasticism. We learn that Edgar, as a youth, had made a
vow to restore as many monasteries as possible,[76] but "until Dunstan and
Athelwold revived learning in the monastic life, no English priest could
either write a letter in Latin or understand one."[77] We must therefore
turn to those "three torches" of the Church--Dunstan, Oswald, and
Athelwold--in order to learn how a revival of interest in education was
effected.
We are fortunate in possessing two biographies of Dunstan which were
practically contemporary writings, as one was written within sixteen, and
the other within twenty-three years of his death. "Both of these are
dedicated to his successors, who knew him well, as being his fellow
scholars and his own disciples." Dunstan was born at Glastonbury in 925,
and the old monastic buildings in a semi-ruinous condition still existed
there at that time. They were then tenanted by some Irish scholars who had
come to Glastonbury to visit the tomb of Patrick the Younger.[78] To these
clerks Dunstan was sent at an early age for instruction. He made rapid
progress and not only acquired a mastery of grammar, but also showed
excellence in other branches of study.[79] Consequently, he exposed
himself to the charge of "studying the vain poems and trifling histories
of ancient paganism, to be a worker of magic."[80]
Dunstan, whilst still a young man, was introduced to the court of King
Athelstan by Aldhelm, Archbishop of Canterbury, stated by Adelard, one of
the biographers of Dunstan, to have been his uncle. A serious illness and
the jealousy of some of the nobles led to Dunstan's retirement from court.
On the advice of Alfeah the Bald, bishop of Winchester, he took the
monastic vows,[81] and in 946 was made Abbot of Glastonbury. He did all in
his power to develop the growth and importance of the monastery, and it is
interesting to find that under his rule, the establishment of Glastonbury
was more of a school than a monastery; "the words 'scholasticus' and
'discipulus' come more naturally than 'monachus.'"[82] After holding
various bishoprics, Dunstan became Archbishop of Canterbury in 959, and
was then in a position to undertake the task of restoring the monastic
conditions of the country and consequently of stimulating its educational
activities.
Turning to the coadjutors of Dunstan in his work of reform, we note that
Athelwold (who became Abbot of Abingdon in 953, and Bishop of Winchester
in 965) was one of his pupils. He attained "a most generous skill in the
art of grammar and the honeyed sweetness of verse; he was not only
familiar with the Bible, but also with the catholic and most famous
authors."[83] Oswald, the other colleague of Dunstan, had been for some
time an inmate of the monastery at Fleury.
The point which we wish here to emphasise is that the men of the time who
were in a position to judge were of the opinion that the only effective
method of producing a reform in the educational condition of the country
was primarily through the erection of monasteries, destined to be centres
of intellectual activity. With this object in view, they used every
possible means to build or restore monasteries in different parts and to
place over them men who were not only spiritually minded but who were also
men of learning and ability. We learn that in pursuance of this policy,
forty monasteries for men and eight for women were erected during the
reigns of Edgar and his sons.[84] The men at the head of these
institutions taught personally in the schools. Thus we learn of Dunstan
being in charge of the school at Glastonbury,[85] and of Aethelwold who
"did not scorn ever to explain the difficulties of Donatus and Priscian to
little boys."[86]
Efforts were also made to keep in touch with foreign monasteries,
especially those of Ghent, Corbeil, and Fleury. These monasteries were
appealed to, to send men of learning to the English monasteries, and also
for advice in the conduct of the monasteries.[87] In 968 the Abbot of
Ramsey sent to Fleury for a master to rule the schools, because "the study
of letters and the use of schools had almost died out in England."[88]
The master sent in response to this appeal was Abbo, who is described as
being well versed in the trivium and the quadrivium.[89] Abbo spent two
years at Ramsey and wrote a book _Quaestiones Grammaticales_ for the
purpose of testing the knowledge acquired by the monks of his
monastery.[90] Among the pupils of Abbo was the anonymous author of the
_Vita S. Oswaldi_ (a work which shows that the writer was a man of culture
and learning), and Byrhtferth, who wrote commentaries on Bede's
mathematical treatises and shows a knowledge of Latin authors.[91]
In 817, by the council of Aachen, it had been decreed that no one was to
be admitted to the monastery schools unless he was destined for the
monastic life. It does not appear that this distinction was observed in
England during the Saxon period, and it seems probable that the English
monasteries continued to receive pupils irrespective of whether or not
they intended ultimately to enter the monastery. Thus we learn that the
scholars of Dunstan at Glastonbury were of all ages, from the little
boy[92] to the man who had already taken priest's orders.[93] Then, of the
pupils of Wulfstan, we learn that they included both young and old, and
that many of them subsequently became secular priests.[94] Again, in the
picture drawn by Aelfric of a monastery school of the period,[95] it will
be noted that the pupils included not only a professed monk but also
others who were engaged in secular pursuits. We also read that the boys
who attended the school at Ramsey Abbey were allowed to go outside the
cloisters for play and recreation.[96]
We may summarise the educational work of Dunstan and his comrades by
pointing out that a new race of scholars sprang up in the restored
cloisters, some of whom were not unworthy to be ranked with the disciples
of Alcuin and Bede. One of these pupils was Aelfric,[97] at one time
Abbot of Eynsham, who is of special interest as the writer of certain
educational and other works: an Anglo-Latin Grammar, a Glossary, and a
translation of various extracts from Latin writers into Anglo-Saxon under
the title of _Homilies_. Aelfric's _Grammar_ is of special interest from
the point of view of the study of the principles of teaching, as it
indicates the writer was desirous of presenting his subject to his pupils
in such a manner as to facilitate their progress. "I am well aware," he
writes, "that many will blame me for being willing to devote my time to
such a pursuit as to turn the _Art of Grammar_ into English. But I destine
this lesson book for little boys who know nothing, not for their elders. I
know that words can be construed in many different ways, but to avoid
raising difficulties I follow the simplest meaning."[98]
From Aelfric's _Colloquy_ we are able to learn something of a monastic
school at work. The _Colloquy_ consists of a dialogue between the master
and various boys, and was intended as a First Latin Exercise book. Aelfric
accompanies the Latin prose with an Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation.
The dialogue opens with the request from the boys that the master would
teach them to speak correctly. This, of course, relates to the ability to
converse freely in the Latin tongue. Incidentally, the next question
throws some light on the mode by which it was then customary to stimulate
the boys to apply themselves to their school tasks.
_Master_: "Will you be flogged while learning?"
_Boy_: "We would rather be flogged while learning than remain
ignorant; but we know that you will be kind to us and not flog us
unless you are obliged."
Then, towards the end of the _Colloquy_, there is a conversation between
the Master and a professed monk.
_M._--"Were you flogged to-day?"
_B._--"I was not because I was very careful."
_M._--"And how about the others?"
_B._--"Why do you ask me that? I daren't tell you our secrets. Each
one knows whether he was flogged or not."
Of the boys in the supposed school, one was a professed monk, others were
ploughmen, shepherds, hunters, fishermen, hawkers, merchants, shoemakers,
salters, and bakers. The daily routine of each of them is gone through,
and in this way an extensive vocabulary is introduced. One of the passages
implies that the school was not restricted to the "free" classes. Thus,
after the ploughman has given an account of his day's work, the dialogue
continues:--
_M._--"O magnus labor est."
_A._--"Etiam, magnus labor est, quia non sum liber."
Then the boys in turn argue which occupation is the most useful, and a
counsellor is called in to decide the question. The _Colloquy_ closes with
some good advice: "All you good children and clever scholars, your teacher
exhorts you to keep the commandments of God and behave properly
everywhere. Walk quietly when you hear the Church bells and go into Church
and bow to the Holy Altar, and stand quietly and sing in unison, and ask
pardon for your sins, and go out again without playing to the cloister or
to school."[99]
So far we have described the monastic revival that took place under
Dunstan. Dunstan, however, quite clearly realised that the monasteries
alone would not provide sufficient opportunities for the revival of
education in England. Though nearly fifty monasteries had been erected,
yet that number would meet the need of only a comparatively small section
of the community. Further, no monastic institution north of the Humber
(with the doubtful exception of Ripon) had escaped the destruction wrought
by the Danes. Under these circumstances, Dunstan determined to stimulate
the parish priests to a sense of their duty in the matter of education. In
the preceding chapter[100] we noted that about 797, Theodulf of Orleans
had promulgated certain canons at a diocesan synod; these canons Dunstan
adopted, and secured their enactment for this country. They run:--[101]
10. And we enjoin that no priest receive another's scholar without
the leave of him whom he formerly employed.
11. And we enjoin that every priest in addition to lore do diligently
learn a handicraft.
12. And we enjoin that no learned priest put to shame the
half-learned, but amend him if he know better.
13. And that every Christian man zealously accustom his children to
Christianity and teach them the Pater Noster and Creed.
22. And we enjoin that every man learn so that he know the Pater
Noster and Creed, if he wish to lie in a hallowed grave, or to be
worthy of housel; because he is not truly a Christian who will not
learn them, nor may he who knows them not receive another man at
baptism, not at the bishop's hands ere he learn them.
21. And we enjoin that priests diligently teach youth, and educate
them in crafts that they may have ecclesiastical support.
It is impossible to estimate the extent to which these canons were
complied with. It is, however, noteworthy that evidence exists that in the
first half of the tenth century it was customary for boys of good family
to receive education from a priest. Thus Odo, who was Archbishop of
Canterbury from 942-959, was taught "by a certain religious man while a
boy in the household of the thane Athelhelm."[102] Again, Odo's nephew,
Oswald, was taught by a priest named Frithegode, who is said "to have been
skilled in all the learning of that age in England, both secular and
divine."[103]
In dealing with education in Anglo-Saxon times, it is necessary to use
even the slightest evidence of the existence of educational activity.
Domesday Book is, of course, the great authority for the social condition
of England at this period, and it is essential we should turn to that work
for the purpose of investigating whether or not it contains any references
which in any way relate to education.
As Professor Vinogradoff tells us, we get a good deal of information in
the "Survey" about the tenure of churches.[104] "They are a necessary
element of every township organisation. The parish church is the "tun
kirke" of Old English times, and a tenement of a hide or two virgates is
of right reserved to it." The parish priest was remunerated in various
ways, partly by tithes, partly by glebe, partly by "church scot." It is in
connection with this latter payment that we can trace a connection between
the churches and education. In 376 A.D., Gratian issued an edict, which
was applied in Britain, that teachers were to be paid in "annones," that
is, a measure of corn. Now "church scot" was a species of tax imposed on
houses or buildings for the payment of the priest.[105] There are two
passages quoted by Vinogradoff which seem to connect this payment of
"church scot" with the "annones," which were perhaps originally intended
as payments for the work of the priests as teachers of schools. On page
441 he writes:--
"Every socman possessed of a hide has to pay one carriage load of corn,
called annona, to his parish church, and there is a provision for the case
of non-performance of this duty as in Worcestershire." And on page 418 we
read that "the shire gave evidence that the church of Pershore ought to
have church rent from 300 hides, that is, one load of corn from every hide
in which a franklin is settled."
It is not suggested that any stress should be laid on these extracts. They
are interesting as indicating the possibility that a part of the
remuneration of the parish priest was a payment for his services as a
teacher.
In Domesday Book itself, three references to education have been traced:--
1. Wilton Church in Wiltshire was endowed for teaching.[106]
2. Lands in Oxfordshire were given by King Edward the Confessor to the
Abbey of Westminster for the education and support of a novice.[107]
3. Aluuid, a young woman, held half a hide of the demesne lands at Oakley
(Bucks) for teaching the daughter of Earl Godric.[108]
Taken alone, these instances do not amount to much, but when they are
considered in relation to the decrees and custom of the Church and the
canons promulgated in the reign of King Edgar, they tend to support the
contention that provision for education was actually made in the various
parishes of this country.
Turning next to the Collegiate Churches, whether of a cathedral dignity or
not, we note that no evidence of their scholastic activities is available
until after the Danish conquest. Then we learn that when Canute visited a
famous monastery or borough, he sent there "at his own expense boys to be
taught for the clerical or monastic order."[109] This statement is made by
a contemporary of the king and is consequently worthy of credence. It was
repeated by Abbot Samson who wrote about a century later. Samson, however,
exaggerates matters and states that Canute was "so great a lover of
religion" that he established public schools[110] in the cities and
boroughs "charging the expense on the public purse."[111]
It is difficult to say what these statements mean. They may mean that
Canute gave further endowments to particular churches on the understanding
that an additional priest, who would be responsible for the teaching of
the boys, would be maintained, or that endowments were given to
monasteries with the implied understanding that they were given to meet
the expenses incurred in the support of the boys intended for a monastic
profession. Again, it is probable that by now the custom had grown up of
requiring payments from the boys who attended the classes of the priests;
in that case the statements would simply mean that Canute made certain
grants to the particular church to free those whom he nominated from any
further charges.
The account available of the foundation of Holy Cross Collegiate Church,
Waltham, and its re-foundation by Earl Harold,[112] enables us to
understand the organisation of the Collegiate Churches of the period and
the nature of the provision made for education. Originally, there were
only two clerks on this foundation; Earl Harold by additional endowments
made it possible for eleven further clerks to be added. Just as the
monasteries sent to Fleury and other monasteries of note for guidance in
the conduct of their monasteries, so it appears that some of the
Collegiate Churches sent abroad for guidance in the direction of their
institutions. Thus we learn that, at Waltham a certain "Master Athelard"
came from Utrecht that he might "establish at Waltham Church the laws,
statutes, and customs both in ecclesiastical and in secular matters of the
churches in which he had been educated."[113] The church seems to have
been organised on the model of a monastic community; a number of clerks
lived together under specified rules; discipline was strictly enforced. A
dean, described as "a religious man, illustrious for his character, well
known for his literary learning," was placed over the clerks. The
schoolmaster was apparently a most important official; his authority seems
to have equalled that of the dean; he taught reading, the composition of
prose and verse, and singing.[114] A stringent discipline prevailed. We
learn that the boys of the choir "walked, stood, read and chanted, like
brethren in religion, and whatever had to be sung at the steps of the
choir or in the choir itself they sang and chanted by heart, one or two or
more together, without the help of a book. One boy never looked at another
when they were in their places in choir, except sideways and that very
seldom, and they never spoke a word to one another; they never walked
about the choir.... And in walking in procession from school they go to
choir, and on leaving the choir go to school."[115]
Between thirty and forty churches of secular canons are registered in
Domesday Book, the majority of which were founded during the reign of
Edward the Confessor. Among these pre-Conquest Collegiate Churches were
All Saints' Church, Warwick, Beverley Minster, and St. Martins-le-Grand,
London. At each of these churches one of the priests acted as
schoolmaster, and so we assume that wherever a Collegiate Church was
founded, there it was customary to delegate the task of giving instruction
in Latin and Music respectively to definite persons. We know that at
Warwick and Beverley there was a separate master for Song, and hence we
may infer that, wherever possible, separate instructors were provided for
these subjects.
It must, however, be admitted that the direct evidence of general
education during the Anglo-Saxon period is slight and that we are
consequently largely driven to conjecture. We are justified in definitely
asserting that some of the monasteries were centres of intellectual
activity, and that systematic education was given in connection with some
of the collegiate churches. It is also extremely probable that it was a
general custom for the parish priest to give instruction in Latin to those
who wished for such instruction, but it is impossible, so far as our
knowledge goes now, to assert anything more than probability in this
connection.
BOOK II.
THE CHURCH IN CONTROL OF EDUCATION.
INTRODUCTORY.
The second stage which we propose to trace in connection with the
evolution of education, is that in which the responsibility for the
provision of educational facilities, the organisation of education, the
control and the recognition of teachers, were tacitly regarded by the
State as among the functions which ought to be undertaken by the Church.
A consideration of this question will involve, as a necessary preliminary,
some reference to the political ideas of the Church in the Middle Ages. It
would be difficult to discover any ideas which could be considered as
political in their character in connection with the labours of those
mission priests who were responsible for the introduction of Christianity
into England. Separation from the body politic, rather than a desire to
participate in its activities, was a distinguishing characteristic of
those monks who formed the nucleus of the Catholic Church of this country.
With the progress of time, however, a change in this respect became
evident. The Church tended to develop into a great social and
quasi-political institution, and the question of the relation of the
ecclesiastical to the secular power became of increasing importance.
Various factors contributed to produce this result. Not the least
significant of them was the development of the Feudal System, to which is
due, to a great extent, the development of the temporal power and rank of
the Church, because the great ecclesiastics were not only the leading men
of the Church but also great feudal lords.
By the Feudal System is meant the system of government prevailing in
Western Europe in medieval times. Though the problems connected with its
origin and development cannot yet be regarded as definitely settled, yet
opinion is practically united upon the main points; such differences as
continue to exist relating mainly to minor points of detail. We may
summarise the essential features of Feudalism in its more complete forms
by saying that "the State no longer depends upon its citizens, as
citizens, for the fulfilment of public duties, but it depends upon a
certain few to perform specified duties, which they owe as vassals of the
king, and these in turn depend upon their vassals for services which will
enable them to meet their own obligations towards the king."[116] In other
words, the individual citizen had little or no consciousness of any duty
he might owe to the State; his horizon was limited by his responsibilities
to his over-lord.
It is possible to trace the origin of the Feudal System to two practices
known to Roman Law. One of these was the "precarium." Under this form the
small landowner, induced by a fear of the effects of the disordered
condition of the times, gave up his land to some powerful landowner whose
position was strong enough to command respect. This land he received back
again no longer as owner but as tenant. The other practice--the
"patrocinium"--was of a similar character. The poor freeman, desirous of
the protection he could not otherwise secure, attached himself to the
household of a great lord, and in return for the protection thus gained he
gave to the rich man such services as a freeman might perform.
At the time of the Frankish invasion of Gaul, these practices were found
in operation, and as they corresponded in their main features to customs
current among the Franks, the German customs and the Roman customs merged
the one in the other and in their new form were adopted by the invaders.
The coupling of the special obligation of military service as a condition
of land tenure was strengthened by the efforts of Charles the Great. The
growth in size of the Frankish empire, resulting in campaigns being
necessary at great distances, produced a modification of the existing
practice. Of special significance was his ordinance that the vassals
should come into the field under the command of their lords; as a result,
each lord endeavoured to secure as fine a body of vassals as possible.
Gradually it thus came about that the inherent duty of the citizen to
defend his country "was transferred from a public obligation into a
private contract." The Feudal System developed further when other
functions of the State passed into the hands of individuals. Of great
importance in this connection was the acquisition of the power of
"jurisdiction," by which the administration of justice passed out of the
power of the State so far as persons residing within the limits of the
fief were concerned. Thus it gradually came to pass that all real power
passed from the State and centred in individual lords with the result that
patriotism and a common national feeling were almost entirely wanting.
Yet, from the very time of its origin, the Feudal System contained within
itself factors which influenced its decline and fall. The only force that
held together a fief was the personal ability of the successive
generations of lords, coupled with the nature of their success in
maintaining order and security and in compelling outlying landlords to
recognise their supremacy. But vassals were ever ready to throw off their
allegiance and to assert sovereign rights, if the opportunity occurred,
and neighbouring great barons would not scruple to entice the vassals of a
rival to change their over-lord. When the Feudal System became fixed, such
things might become less frequent, but, generally speaking, the law of the
survival of the strongest prevailed.
Sooner or later, the Feudal System was certain to result in a period of
anarchy. In this country, that period occurred on the death of Henry I.,
when the feudal party refused to abide by the oaths which the late king
had made them swear to his daughter Mathilda. The Peterborough
continuation of the English Chronicle describes this period of anarchy "in
words with which in their pregnant simplicity no modern description can
possibly vie."[117] "They filled the land full of castles, and filled the
castles with devils. They took all those that they deemed had any goods,
men and women, and tortured them with tortures unspeakable: many thousand
they slew with hunger ... and they robbed and burned all the villages so
that thou mightest for a day's journey nor ever find a man dwelling in a
village nor land tilled. Corn, flesh, and cheese, there was none in the
land. The bishops were for ever cursing them but they cared nought
therefor.... Men said openly that Christ and His saints slept. Such and
more than we can safely say we suffered nineteen years for our sins."
Apart from the practical and tangible effects of the Feudal System,
medieval theorising on politics brought forward arguments to support the
contention that the Church was not only distinct from, but was in certain
essential respects superior to, the State. The starting point in such
theorising was the dogma of the two powers, the Spiritual and the
Temporal, the power of the priesthood derived from the King of Kings, the
power of the State derived from the ability to exercise force.
Ecclesiastics maintained that of these two powers the greater dignity
pertained to the spiritual. This arose directly from the views of the
early Church as to the relative importance of the earthly life and of the
life to come. To save souls was more important than to regulate physical
life; hence, those whose function it was to save souls were not only more
worthy of honour than those who simply sought to control temporal
activities, but they possessed an authority of a higher and more
responsible character. The claim of the Church to a power of inspection
and correction in reference to the behaviour and motives of secular
rulers enhanced its authority still further. To the sacerdotal mind not
only were princes laymen, but of all laymen they were the class most prone
to sin and consequently were most in need of clerical censure. Among the
duties of the kings which were imperatively insisted upon were "respect
for and protection of the Church and her ministers." Hincmar, Gregory
VII., and Innocent III. are prominent among those who may be quoted as the
protagonists of the claim to ecclesiastical pre-eminence.
A weapon of great value in the enforcement of ecclesiastical demands was
that of excommunication and anathema. This was considered to correspond to
the death penalty of the Mosaic law, the employment of the sword of the
Spirit. If, however, the fear of excommunication was insufficient to gain
from a reluctant monarch respect for the wishes of the Church, then the
power of deposition was resorted to. The authority to do this was based on
the power claimed by the Church of absolving their members from the oaths
of allegiance they had taken. This power was of special significance in a
feudal state of society, at a time when the tendency to renounce
allegiance was continually present and opportunity and pretext alone
lacking.
The Norman Conquest not only intensified the development of the Feudal
System in this country, but it also contributed largely to the recognition
of the separate power of the Church. The Conquest had resulted in the
administration of the country passing under the control of men who were
"better managers, keener, more unscrupulous, less drunken and quarrelsome,
better trained, hardier, thriftier, more in sympathy with the general
European movements, more adventurous, more temperate.... The result was
inevitably better organisation, quicker progress, great exactions and
oppressions in Church and State."[118] Moreover, the invasion had claimed
to possess a religious character and to have for its object the regaining
of an heritage which had been "filched by a perjured usurper." The
existing archbishops, bishops, and abbots fled or were deprived of their
positions, and their places were filled, generally but not always, by men
of foreign race. These men were not merely ecclesiastics, but were feudal
lords in addition, and the temporal possessions they held in virtue of
their dignities were not only considerable in themselves but, owing to
various causes, were continually increasing. The clergy were thus in
possession of increasing powers and additional interests, separate from
and independent of the rest of their countrymen. The tendency was more and
more marked for the Church to become conscious of her temporal powers, to
feel jealous of her privileges, and insistent upon her rights.
This analysis of the relationship of Church and State, as it developed
subsequent to the Norman Conquest, is necessary to enable us to realise
the part taken by the Church in regard to education. The Church was not
conceived of as a spiritual organisation existing simply for the purpose
of promoting a closer fellowship between God and man, but rather as the
partner of the State, and as having under her control all those national
activities which might be described as "spiritual" in the special sense in
which the term was employed at that time. Hence the central authority of
the State was merely the organisation which controlled the activities
which were definitely temporal. Regarded from the point of view which was
common from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, education was
essentially "spiritual," and consequently was classed under the activities
for which the Church alone was responsible.
We pass next to consider the social and economic condition of the country
during that period in which the Feudal System was the prevailing system of
government. This is necessary because experience has shown that a close
connection exists between the social and economic condition of a country
and its system of education, in fact, it is impossible properly to
understand the educational organisation of a country apart from its social
development.
The Manorial System may be regarded as the social counterpart of the
feudal mode of government. When the Manorial System first emerges upon the
stage of history it is recognised that two elements enter into its
constitution, the seignorial and the communal; a lord and a group of
dependents having rights in common. The origin of the manor is a problem
which is still obscure. The question at issue is whether a servile
population, working for a superior who was absolute owner of the land,
existed "from time immemorial," or whether, at a particular stage of the
development of a free community, an overlord succeeded in gaining the
ascendancy and in imposing his will upon it. Two theories have been
advanced. The Mark theory[119] maintains that a certain district, marked
off from districts of a similar character, was held in common ownership,
and that the Manorial System arose when through some particular cause the
authority of a lord became recognised. The other theory is that set out by
Seebohm in his _English Village Community_, where a connection is traced
between the early English village and the Roman vill, and the conclusion
arrived at that the English villages were servile and manorial from the
earliest days of the Anglo-Saxon period.
Without attempting to express an opinion as to these two hypotheses, we
may take "Domesday Book" as our starting point. From that book, we learn
that over the greater part of England, villeins, cottars or bordars, and
slaves made up the whole of the population of the country apart from the
governing classes. Subsequent to the Norman Conquest, we can trace a rapid
increase in the number of free tenants, due to a variety of circumstances,
of which the chief were (1) the commutation by villeins of their services
for money payments, (2) the enclosure and letting out of portions of the
waste land, (3) the renting of portions of the lord's own demesne. The
term "free tenants," as Professor Ashley has shown, is elastic enough to
cover men in very different positions, "from the military tenant who had
obtained a considerable holding in return for service in the field, down
to the tenant who had received at a money rent one or two acres of the
demesne, or of new cleared ground."[120] The larger number of those who
were known as free tenants were clearly virgate-holding villeins or their
descendants, who had commuted their more onerous labour services of two or
three days a week for a fixed sum of money, and who had been freed from
what were regarded as the more servile "incidents" of their position.
In practice the manorial system implied that freedom of movement and
choice of occupation scarcely existed. Even before serfs could send their
children to school, it was necessary that the consent of the lord should
be obtained, and in many cases fines were exacted before this permission
was granted. Thus, in the single manor of Woolrichston, in Warwickshire,
we learn that in 1361, Walter Martin paid 5s. for the privilege of putting
his son "ad scholas"; in 1371, William Potter paid 13s. 4d. that his
eldest son might go "ad scholas," and Stephen Prout paid 3s. 4d.; in 1335,
William at Water paid for a licence for his younger son William "ad sacrum
ordinem promovendum."[121]
The point which we wish to emphasise here, is that the only real social
distinction on a manor was that between a lord and his tenants. Between
these two grades there was a great gulf fixed. Socially, they were as far
asunder as the poles. Between the tenants themselves the social separation
was slight. "The yardling and the cotter worked in the same way; their
manner of life was the same."[122] Even the priest in charge of the
majority of the village churches belonged to the same social grade as his
parishioners, and, in many cases, he was as poor as any of them, and glad
enough to get a few acres and to add to his income by joining in the
common agriculture.[123]
Passing from the villages to the towns, we may note that at the time of
the Norman Conquest there were only about eighty towns in England, and
that most of these towns were distinguishable from the villages only by
the earthen mounds which surrounded them. Even a town of the first rank
cannot have had more than 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants. Until the second
half of the twelfth century, the majority of the burgesses still occupied
themselves principally in the cultivation of the common fields, and only a
minority specialised in trade or handicraft.[124]
Meredith distinguishes four stages in the evolution of a town, but he also
makes the important proviso that though the majority of the towns passed
through these various stages, yet it cannot be said that any one type of
organisation prevailed in any given half-century. Certain factors might
combine to make a particular town of great importance and to facilitate
its rapid progress; hence the stage of development reached by one town
early in the twelfth century might not be attained by another town until a
century or more later. The stages are:--
(1) The embryo municipality is but slightly differentiated from a manorial
village.
(2) The inhabitants increase in number and in wealth and are able to
purchase self-government. At this stage a gild merchant is formed.
(3) The gild merchant loses its importance; its legislative and judicial
work is undertaken by the municipality, whilst the separate craft gilds
look after the interests of the various trades.
(4) The clear demarcation between town and country breaks down. The
capitalist and wage-earning classes emerge and the central government
makes inroads into the legislative powers of the municipality and
gradually dispenses with the executive work of the crafts.
Is it possible to trace a connection between a social and economic
condition such as we have described as existing in the manors and towns,
and education? It is obvious that there could be little or no demand for
education, because, before education is demanded, its value must be
perceived. During this period there could not exist any idea of the
culture value of education, the value of education for its own sake. Those
who held official positions as bailiffs or stewards in connection with
manorial estates might find a certain amount of education of value, but
neither the demands of commerce nor the amenities of social life were
sufficiently insistent to create a wish for education.
The main demand for education at this time came from those who desired
some position or other in connection with the Church. As will be shown in
a subsequent chapter, the Church provided facilities for education for
three reasons: as a partner of the State she was responsible for providing
it; as holding the view that intellectual training was necessary for moral
perfection it was, of necessity, her mission to supply it; and in order
that a sufficient number of adequately equipped clerks should be
forthcoming, it would be imperative that she should take the necessary
action.
An important question now arises. To whom did the Church offer facilities
for education? To the gentry and nobility? To the middle classes? Or to
the labouring classes? This question must be considered, partly because it
arises out of our analysis of the social structure, and partly because of
the views expressed by various writers on English education.[125]
The nature of the education received by the children of the "nobility and
gentry" will be considered in Chapter VI.; here it will be sufficient to
state that the intellectual part of their education was given by a priest,
but it was provided at the expense of the relatives of those who received
it; hence, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, the Church did not
"provide" facilities for the education of the children who were of
"gentle" lineage.
Two social classes remain: the middle classes and the "gutter poor," as
Mr. Leach elegantly terms them.[126] Which of these two classes did the
Church endeavour to educate?
The answer is obvious when we consider the social structure of the period.
For practical purposes,[127] the middle class in England did not exist
until about the close of the fourteenth century. The social distinctions
between the various classes of tenants on a manor were so slight as to be
negligible; one class tended to merge into the other, so that it was
impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation between them. Consequently
when the question is asked as to the social grade for whom the Church
provided educational facilities, the answer is that such facilities were
offered regardless of social standing, and were available for the poorest,
even the "gutter poor" if the term is desired.
Indisputable evidence of the social grade of those who attended the
schools of the Church in the tenth century is available. Not only were the
various classes of persons who were employed on agricultural labour, such
as shepherds, cowherds, swineherds, represented, but even members of the
"unfree" class are described as being present in the school of which Abbot
Aelfric gives us a picture.[128]
As we shall be obliged to return to this subject again, on account of the
common misconception, we may now defer further consideration.
CHAPTER I.
EDUCATIONAL LABOURS OF THE MONASTERIES.
The place of the monasteries in connection with the educational life of
the country will become evident from a consideration of the special
circumstances of the time. Monasticism, as we have shown, originated
mainly from a sense of inability to lead a Christian life in an atmosphere
largely tinged with paganism, and in which the prevailing ideal of life
had sunk to a very low standard. The remarkable success of monasticism led
to a great increase in the number of those who desired to enrol themselves
as members of an organised religious community. In course of time, not
only had Christianity become the generally accepted religion of the
western world, but the monks had come to be regarded as the elite among
the clergy. As a class, the secular clergy of this country of the ninth
and tenth centuries had not shown themselves inspired with the same zeal,
self-sacrifice, and fervour, which had marked the early missionaries;
apparently they had been attracted to the clerical profession by a variety
of motives, and not invariably from a sense of vocation. Learning does not
appear to have been highly esteemed among them, and it would be a
difficult matter to name, in this country at this period, many secular
priests of outstanding ability. Generally speaking, the term "secular
clergy" had come to denote men of lower ideals, of less learning, of less
spirituality, and of less efficiency, than the regular clergy.
The monastic mission of the eleventh and twelfth centuries consequently
differed appreciably from that undertaken by the Benedictine and Celtic
monks in the seventh century. Originally the aim of the monks was the
introduction of Christianity; now the task of the monks is to make the
Church more efficient and powerful. Efficiency and power can be acquired
by the Church in various ways--by its temporal wealth, by its political
power, by its spiritual zeal, by its intellectual activities. It is only
with the last named aspect of the work of the Church that we are here
concerned. Education and religion were generally regarded as identical at
the period with which we are dealing; the progress of religion was held to
involve the spread of education. "Zeal for letters and religion," remarks
William of Malmesbury, "had grown cold many years before the coming of the
Normans."[129]
Here, then, is indicated the task which awaited the leaders of the Church,
the revival of zeal for religion and letters. How were they to approach
and solve the problem? We may legitimately assume that those who lived at
the time, and who were in a position to know the special circumstances of
the period, would also be in a position to consider the best policy to
adopt. The method actually adopted by them for promoting the cause of
"religion and letters" was, in the first place, by the establishment of
monasteries. We learn that between 1066 and 1135, three monastic
cathedrals, thirteen important monasteries for women, eleven important
monasteries for men, seventeen Cluniac priories and sixty cells for
foreign houses were founded in this country.[130]
One of the main effects of the Norman Conquest upon England, from an
ecclesiastical point of view, was the substitution of Norman for the
existing English bishops and abbots. Of the twenty-one abbots who attended
the Council of London in 1075, thirteen were English; of these, only three
held office at the accession of William Rufus.[131] From among the Normans
of learning who came to occupy positions of importance in England may be
mentioned Lanfranc and Anselm, successively Archbishops of Canterbury,
Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, Paul, Abbot of St. Albans, Water, Abbot of
Evesham, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster, Ernulf, Prior of
Christchurch, Canterbury, and Thurstan, Abbot of Glastonbury, all of whom
had been connected with the school attached to the monastery of Bec.
Instances might also be given of ecclesiastics who came to this country
from the schools of Rouen, of Cluny, of Mont St. Michel, of Bayeux, and of
Laon.[132]
These appointments are all the more significant because the Church in
Normandy at this time was in a very flourishing condition, and was
conspicuous for its learning;[133] hence the Norman Conquest, among other
things, meant that men of learning and ability were appointed to the chief
ecclesiastical positions in England.
Reference should be made here to the reforms effected at Cluny--a
Benedictine monastery--in the second half of the eleventh century.
Confining ourselves to the reforms that were connected with the
intellectual activities of the monastery, we note that manual labour, in
its literal sense, became practically non-existent. In its stead
additional time was given to study and to the copying of manuscripts.[134]
The importance of Cluny for the educational progress of England arises
from the fact that Lanfranc, who was appointed by the Conqueror to the
position of Archbishop of Canterbury, had apparently studied the customs
prevailing in that monastery,[135] and had based upon them the reforms
which he sought to effect in his own Cathedral monastery at
Canterbury,[136] and also endeavoured to introduce into other monasteries
in this country.[137]
The two men who successively occupied the position of Archbishop of
Canterbury after the Conquest are of special importance both from an
ecclesiastical and from an educational point of view. Lanfranc had
acquired a reputation as a schoolmaster before he took up residence in
this country. His first school was conducted at Avranches, where he
attracted many scholars; subsequently he entered the monastery of Bec,
where he opened a school in connection with the monastery, the fame of
which spread widely. Scholars educated at this school subsequently
occupied most important ecclesiastical positions both here and on the
continent. Among them were Pope Alexander II., and Ivo who afterwards
became famous in connection with the school at Chartres.
After Lanfranc became Archbishop of Canterbury he issued his
"Constitutiones," a series of regulations for the control of the monastery
of Christ Church, Canterbury. For the most part, these regulations relate
to the stringent discipline which Lanfranc wished to enforce;
educationally, they show that he followed the course of study in the
monastery which had been customary since the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in
817. The curriculum of the school included the psalms, writing, and
reading and speaking Latin.
After the death of Lanfranc, the see of Canterbury was vacant till a
dangerous illness frightened William Rufus into the necessity for taking
action in the matter. He compelled Anselm, who had succeeded Lanfranc as
Prior of Bec, to accept the position. Under Anselm the reputation of the
school at Bec had been enhanced, so that it had become generally regarded
as the principal centre of learning in Western Europe. Little direct
evidence of the connection of Anselm with education in England is
available, but it may fairly be assumed that a man, whose learning was so
generally recognised and whose influence on European thought was so great,
would of necessity react upon the condition of learning in this country
and tend to bring education into greater repute.
The work of the monasteries for education during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries may be considered under three heads: (1) the part they played
in connection with a revival of learning, (2) their connection with
schools, and (3) their contribution to the production of books.
I.--THE REVIVAL OF LEARNING.
To bring about an increased interest in learning was generally regarded as
the first of monastic reforms.[138] This opinion was so common that it
almost became proverbial: Claustrum sine armario castrum sine
armamentario.[139] How was this interest in letters to be secured?
Obviously by requiring the monks to spend a greater amount of time in
study, and by causing them to copy a greater number of books, which would
afterwards be available for the use of the monastery. The first of these
was, as we have seen, an essential reform at Cluny, the model for the
English monastic reformers. A considerable amount of evidence is available
to show that the new abbots of the monasteries regarded it as important
that their libraries should be well stocked with books. At St. Albans the
Abbot Paul built a scriptorium in which hired writers copied the MSS. lent
him by Lanfranc, and he provided an endowment to secure the continuance of
the work.[140] A subsequent abbot, Simon de Gorham, initiated the custom
that the abbot should always maintain one writer in the scriptorium at his
own expense.[141] At Malmesbury the Abbot Godfrey paid special attention
to the formation of a library and to the education of the monks. Under his
rule the monks, who had previously been considered as ignorant, equalled,
even if they did not surpass, those of any other monastery in the
country.[142] Other instances which may be quoted are those of Bath,[143]
Thorney,[144] and Abingdon.[145]
II.--THE PROVISION OF SCHOOLS.
The question of the provision of schools by monasteries is a matter of
considerable controversy. Turning first to the continental custom, we
note, on the one hand, that the decree of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle
of 817 provided that "schola in monasterio non habeatur nisi eorum qui
oblati sunt"[146]; and, on the other hand, that there is the
incontrovertible case of the school in connection with the monastery of
Bec, conducted first by Lanfranc and later by Anselm.[147] In addition,
reference might also be made to the hostel maintained at Cluny, at the
expense of the monastery, for clerks of noble birth who attended the
schools in the town.[148] It is not suggested that any general conclusion
as to the existence of external monastic schools can be drawn from these
instances, but it does establish the point that the decree of the Council
of Aix-la-Chapelle alone cannot be considered as sufficient evidence that,
after the ninth century, the monasteries ceased to interest themselves in
the provision and maintenance of schools.
Turning next to this country, we find that schools for the inmates of the
monasteries and for their prospective members were instituted as a matter
of course. This point is so generally admitted as not to call for specific
evidence in its support.[149] The question at issue is: did the
monasteries in England make any provision for the education of external
pupils? We are not concerned here with the further question why they
should interest themselves in the subject; our only task is to enquire
whether or not they actually did so. To summarise the main evidence to
support the statement that some of the monasteries took an interest in the
provision of schools, we may note that there existed a secular school in
connection with the Abbey at St. Albans, and that among the famous
headmasters of this school were Geoffrey of Maine[150] and Neckham[151]; a
cell in connection with the monastery of St. Albans was in charge of a
monk who kept school[152]; the Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds gave an
endowment towards the payment of a master of a secular school at
Bury,[153] and provided a hostel in connection with the school[154];
schools existed on two of the manors belonging to St. Edmund's Abbey to
which the Abbots appointed the masters.[155] Schools were also supported
by monasteries at Evesham, Bruton, and other places.[156] In those cases
in which monastic orders took the place of secular canons, they continued
the work of their predecessors, _e.g._ at Waltham,[157] at
Huntingdon,[158] at Canterbury,[159] and at Christ Church, Twinham.[160]
The conclusion seems to be that monasteries directly provided schools for
their own members only within the walls of the monasteries, and that, when
opportunity occurred and necessity demanded, they also undertook the
responsibility of providing schools in their neighbourhood for all who
might care to attend. As is shown by the appointments at Bury St. Edmunds,
in those cases in which the monasteries were in charge of schools, the
masters appointed to these schools were men of high intellectual
attainments. This is what would naturally be expected when the mental
calibre of some of these Norman abbots is considered; thus, Warin[161] was
a master of the University of Salerno,[162] John de Cella, his
successor,[163] was a master of Paris, and is described as "in Greek,
esteemed a Priscian, in verse an Ovid, in Physic, a Galen"[164]; and the
Abbot Samson, the hero of Carlyle's _Past and Present_, was at one time
the "magister scolarum" at Bury St. Edmunds.[165]
III.--THE WRITING OF BOOKS.
Though a full consideration of this topic would serve to illustrate the
intellectual activities of the monasteries, yet such a discussion lies
outside the scope of our investigation. For our purpose a brief reference
only is necessary, merely to illustrate the point that interest in
educational matters was continued in the monasteries, and to mention that
we owe to the monkish scribes most of the material that is available at
the present time for the reconstruction of the historical development of
this country. As representative writers of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries may be mentioned William of Malmesbury, Orderic Vitalis, Henry
of Huntingdon, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Florence of Worcester, Simeon of
Durham, Roger Wendover, Matthew of Westminster, and Eadmer of Canterbury.
CHAPTER II.
SOME TERMS IN DISPUTE.
It is inevitable that confusion of thought occurs in dealing with any
department of knowledge, unless there is a general agreement as to the
meaning to be assigned to the terms which are employed. With the possible
exception of Economics, Education suffers more than any other science from
the ambiguous use of terms. Consequently it is advisable, at this
juncture, to indicate the sense in which some of the terms frequently used
in this thesis are understood. This is particularly necessary because the
terms we propose to consider are often used in a sense different from that
in which, in our opinion, they were employed in medieval times. We have
selected the following for consideration--School, Free, Grammar, Song,
Writing, and Reading.
SCHOOL.
When the term "school" is employed to-day, it is usually taken to mean the
"school-house," _i.e._ the building in which the work of the school is
carried on. It must, however, be emphasised that in medieval times a
school-house was an "accident." Specific buildings for teaching purposes
were a comparatively late development in the history of schools. The term
"school" considered etymologically means "leisure," and probably the
modern idea of school developed from the fact that the leisure time to
which [Greek: schole] specially related was that which was given up to
discussion. A second stage of development is reached when the term is
restricted to organised school. The essential idea of a school at this
stage is that of a master and his scholars. The master might be a man of
over seventy years of age and his pupils men of middle age (as was
probably the case in the school conducted by Archbishop Theodore), or the
master might simply be a youth, and his pupils a few village children
learning their letters, as would be the case in the schools taught by the
youths preparing for the priesthood in the house of the parish priest; in
each case the term "school" was equally applied and considered equally
appropriate. The place where the school was held was a matter of
indifference. It might be held in the open air, in the cloisters of a
monastery, in some part of a collegiate church, or possibly in some more
suitable place. Then, too, the school might be held at regular intervals
or it might simply meet occasionally. Briefly we may say that the
conception of "school" was in a state of flux, and merely implied that a
master and pupils met together for purposes of instruction.
We may point out here that it would assist in clear thought if the use of
the term "school" could be restricted to those cases in which the erection
of a school-house constituted a definite and objective sign of the
existence of a school, and to employ the term "class" for such gatherings
of teacher and pupils as were held otherwise. If this suggestion could be
adopted investigations into the origin of schools would become much more
definite and valuable. To illustrate this statement, we may consider the
statement in Bede, that Sigebert in 631 "instituit scolam, in qua pueri
litteris erudirentur."[166] What does this phrase precisely mean? If the
statement had been that Sigebert founded a monastery or a church, then we
should not be in any doubt on the matter. We have not been able to trace
in any edition of the writings of Bede any interpretation of "scola," as
the various editors take it for granted that its meaning is not in
dispute. Thus Bright in dealing with the passage in Bede we have quoted,
assumes that a school existed at Canterbury in connection with the
monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, and that the school which Bishop Felix
established at the wish of King Sigebert was probably attached to the
primitive East Anglian Cathedral which had been erected at Dunwich, then a
town on the Suffolk coast, but now annihilated by the sea.[167] But
neither at Canterbury nor at Dunwich would a specific building for the
school be provided. Consequently the phrase from Bede, which is an
important passage in the history of English educational history, simply
means that certain priests, who had obtained some experience in the art of
teaching, were specifically assigned the duty of teaching the Latin
language in classes held in the church buildings, to those who might care
to attend.
We have not found it possible in this thesis to distinguish carefully
between a "class" and a "school." We are obliged to content ourselves with
indicating the danger that exists of reading into the medieval use of the
term school the meaning commonly applied to the term at the present time.
GRAMMAR.
The term "grammar" gradually superseded that of "letters" as the specified
purpose for which schools were founded. So far as England is concerned,
the first occasion on which the actual words "scola grammatice" occur, is
in a document of the latter half of the eleventh century.[168] The term
became more common in the thirteenth century owing to the necessity of
distinguishing grammar schools from the "schools" of the higher faculties
in the universities. "The first actual use of the term 'grammar school' in
English appears to be in 1387 A.D. when John of Trevisa, translating from
the Latin of Ralph Higden's 'Polychronicon,' mentions a 'gramer scole'
held at Alexandria."[169] By the fourteenth century therefore the phrase
"grammar school" had entered into ordinary colloquial speech.
But what does this term "grammar" exactly denote? On the plinths of the
right bay of the great west doors of Chartres Cathedral are to be found
statues of the Seven Liberal Arts. With reference to these statues, Dr.
Clerval in his work on "Chartres, sa Cathedrale et ses Monuments,"
writes:--
"Les autres cordons representent les sept Arts liberaux qui ornaient
l'esprit de la Vierge symbolises chacun par une femme portant les
attributs de chaque science, et par un homme, le corypliee de cette
science, assis devant un pupitre, avec plume, canif, encre, eponges,
regles. Ainsi au bas du premier cordon de droite, c'est la Musique
frappant trois cloches avec un marteau, et dessous Pythagore. Au
second cordon a gauche en bas, c'est la Dialectique, portant un
lizard subtil et un sceptre, et dessous Aristotle; puis la
Rhetorique, discourant, et dessous Ciceron; la Geometrie avec un
compas, et dessous Euclide; l'Arithmetique (en redescendant) avec un
livre, et dessous Boece ou Pythagore; l'Astronomie regardant le Ciel
et portant un boisseau, et dessous Plotonee, portant une lunette;
enfin la Grammaire, assise, menacant de verges deux jeunes ecoliers
lisant a ses pieds, et au-dessous Priscien ou Donat. Ces
representations des Arts tres curieuses sont les plus anciennes avec
celles de Laon. Elles s'expliquent a Chartres par les ecolatres de
cette Eglise, specialement Thiery, auteur de l'Heptabuclion, vers
1140."[170]
This passage may assist us in determining the meaning assigned to Grammar
as one of the Seven Liberal Arts. It suggests that everything which was
not music, eloquence, logic, mathematics, astronomy, geometry, was
grammar, _i.e._ nearly the whole of the humanities; or, in other words,
the study of grammar was synonymous with the study of "letters" so far as
the term was then understood.
In actual practice, however, grammar did not possess this connotation.
This was due to the fact that a study of letters was not possible until a
mastery of Latin had been acquired, and consequently it resulted that the
term "grammar school" was applied to denote a place in which instruction
was given in "Donat" or "Priscian." Donat was a Roman rhetorician who
wrote _Ars Grammatica_ about the middle of the fourth century. His grammar
was the most generally used elementary text-book on the subject. In its
abbreviated form, which was the one in common use, it only consisted of
eight or nine pages. Priscian was a grammarian who flourished in the
early part of the sixth century, and who published, about 526, his
_Institutiones Grammaticae_, a most elaborate and systematic treatise on
Latin grammar. For over a thousand years Priscian's work was regarded as
the leading and authoritative text-book on the subject.
We may also note here that classical Latin literature was rarely used for
school purposes. This was the result of the attitude of the early
Christian Fathers towards these writings. We have previously pointed out
that this classical literature was closely associated with pagan beliefs
and practices, and consequently was not regarded as suitable for
introduction into classes taught by Christian priests. Even as late as
1518, the statutes of Dean Colet prescribed that the books to be studied
in his school were to be the works of such "auctours Christian as
lactantius prudentius and proba and sedulius and Juvencus and Baptisa
Mantuanus."
This analysis will help us to realise that when the term "grammar school"
is used with reference to the schools of Medieval England, what is
generally meant is a class in which elementary instruction was given in
"Donat," and in the power of speaking Latin. If advanced work was
attempted, then Priscian would be studied and the works of "Christian
authors" read.
FREE.
We next pass to consider the term "free"--an epithet which usually
accompanies the expression "grammar school" and which has given rise to a
certain amount of controversy. A special meaning was given to this term in
1862 by Dr. Kennedy, headmaster of Shrewsbury School, in a paper which he
submitted to the Public Schools' Commission and which was published by
them. This special meaning was that the term "free" denoted a "school free
from the control of a superior body, _e.g._ a chapter, a college, a
monastery." He advances the following arguments in support of his
contention.
(1) "Most of the schools being then gratuitous, such a fact would hardly
have been chosen to give the distinctive title of these schools."
(2) "That free school is in Latin 'schola libera' and that 'liber' appears
never at any period to be used by itself to mean gratuitous."[171]
(3) "That whatever franchise or immunity was denoted by the word, it
would, according to ordinary usage, be an immunity for the school or its
governors, not for the scholars."
(4) "That the nearest analogies are 'free town,' 'free chapel,' and that
these mean free from the jurisdiction of the sheriff and of the bishop
respectively."
(5) "That the imposition of some charge (_e.g._ admission and quarterages)
was not at all compatible with the title of free school."[172]
On the other hand, Mr. Leach maintains that the average school of the
period did charge fees and that the schools which were described as "free"
grammar schools were those in which no tuition charges were made.[173] He
quotes the case of the Newland Grammar School which was founded under
licence in mortmain of 1445-6 for "an honeste and discrete preste beinge
sufficiently lerned in the arte of gramer to kepe and teche a grammer
scole ther half-free for ever; that is to saie to take of scolers lernynge
grammer 8d. the quarter and of other lernynge lettres and to rede, 4d. the
quarter, within a house there called the chauntrie house or scoole house."
In replying to the suggestions of Dr. Kennedy we would point out that the
nature of the control exercised by bishops, monasteries or colleges over
schools is so slight as to be practically non-existent. Consequently, to
make the fact of such freedom the distinctive epithet of such schools
seems scarcely to be warranted. Moreover, these "free" schools were
founded as a general rule either by bishops personally or by
ecclesiastical persons or by persons in the closest sympathy with the
existing ecclesiastical system. It is highly improbable that they would
deliberately found an institution which was to be "free" from association
with the Church.
A similar criticism applies to the contention advanced by Mr. Leach. As
Dr. Kennedy points out, the official schools of the Church were gratuitous
from the time of their origin. Then, as we shall show in a subsequent
chapter, the schools in which fees were charged were as a general rule
those which may be classed as "private adventure" schools. Payment of fees
in Church schools is probably due to the custom which would naturally
arise that boys would make offerings to their teachers at certain
times,[174] and that in course of time this custom would become an
unwritten law. The point we wish to emphasise here is that the official
schools of the Church were always "free schools" in the sense of being
free from payment. This was such a generally well-known and recognised
fact that no need existed to apply the term "free" as the distinctive
epithet for the purpose of distinguishing between one grammar school and
another. In other words, our contention is that all the Church schools
were "gratuitous" whether or not they were described as free schools.
It is therefore necessary for us to advance another hypothesis to account
for the use of the term, and we suggest that the term "free" means "open
to all comers," _i.e._ that admission to the school was not restricted to
any particular social grade or to those who were preparing for any
particular profession or to those who were living in any particular
locality. A free school, in fact, denotes a public school. The following
reasons in support of this suggestion may be advanced.
(1) Certain schools of the period were necessarily restricted. Thus, only
those who were destined for the monastic life were allowed to attend the
monastery schools; the almonry schools were confined to those who gained
admission to them, and were not open to all who wished to attend; some of
the cathedral schools also were open only to specified classes of
persons.[175]
(2) As the general idea of the period was that each parish was
self-sufficing and concerned with its own parishioners only a _free_
school would mean one available for the public generally. Each town
regarded every non-burgess of that town as a "foreigner," and freedom of
trade was only allowed to townsmen. Each parish had a responsibility for
its own poor; the claim to burial in the churchyard was limited to actual
parishioners. This same idea passed on to educational matters. Thus, an
entry in the York Episcopal Registers of June 1289 states that the schools
of Kinoulton were to be open to parishioners only, "all other clerks and
strangers whatsoever being kept out and by no means admitted to the
school."[176]
(3) The term "public" school gradually becomes a substitute for "free"
school. Thus, in the "Acte for the due Execution of the Statutes against
Jesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Recusants, etc.," there is a specific
reference to "publike or free Grammer Schools."[177]
(4) The warrant granted in 1446 to Eton College not only provided that it
should have a monopoly of teaching grammar within a radius of ten miles,
but specifically stated that the school should be open "to all others
whatsoever, whencesoever and from whatever parts coming to the said
college to learn the same science, in the rudiments of grammar,
freely."[178] This extract clearly shows a different attitude from that
specified in (2) above. We may consequently regard the institution of
"free" grammar schools as marking a stage in the policy of breaking down
the barriers which separated parish from parish and township from
township.
We now proceed to consider a special case to test these various
suggestions. A school founded by the citizens at Exeter in the sixteenth
century was expressly described in the statutes of the school as a "Free
Grammar School." But the same statutes proceed to decree that
"one month after Michaelmas yerely ... everyone that is admitted ...
shall pay unto the schoolemaister of the said schoole for the tyme
beinge as followeth, viz every childe of any ffreeman of the said
city sixe pence, every childe of any inhabitant of the said city that
is not ffree of the said City Twelve pence, and every Childe of any
strangers Two shillinges respectively."[179]
We consequently plainly see that a school might be a "free" school and yet
charge fees. On the other hand, our contention that "free" denotes
"public," _i.e._ open to all comers is supported by this extract which
also shows incidentally that the idea that the school was one for citizens
only was but slowly disappearing.
SONG.
A discussion of the term "song" has become necessary, because of a
tendency to regard a song school as the elementary school of the Middle
Ages. This position has been strongly taken up by Mr. Leach and has been
adopted by all writers who rely upon him. Apparently the only evidence for
this opinion is an incident arising out of a misunderstanding between the
master of grammar and the master of song with which Mr. Leach has dealt
fully in his _History of Warwick School_.[180] As a result of this
dispute, the dean and chapter of the Collegiate Church decided upon a
specific enumeration of the duties of the two masters. The master of
grammar was to have the "Donatists" and "scholars in grammar or the art of
dialectic, if he shall be expert in that art," whilst the master of song
was to be allowed to "keep and teach those learning their first letters
and the psalter."[181]
The "Donatists," as we have shown, were those who were receiving the most
elementary lessons in Latin. To "learn a Donat" had passed into colloquial
speech as the equivalent of acquiring the elements of knowledge of any
subject. If the decision at Warwick had been that the master of grammar
was to have taught the scholars "Priscian," and the master of song to have
taught them "Donat," then the inference might legitimately have been
drawn that the master of song was the elementary schoolmaster. Since,
however, Latin was the only subject of instruction at a Grammar School,
and as the elements of Latin Grammar were to be taught by the master of
grammar, it would seem as if Mr. Leach was in error in regarding the song
school as the elementary school of the period.
The two subjects, which were taught in the various schools held at this
time, were Latin and Music, and, wherever possible, separate masters for
these subjects were appointed. To attempt to estimate the relative
importance of these subjects from a social point of view, is to expose
one's self to the charge of snobbishness. Latin and Music alike were
taught because of the fact that they were of outstanding importance in
connection with the worship of the Church. Thus one of the events recorded
by Bede, as obviously an event of great importance, was the visit paid by
the Abbot of St. Martin's, Rome, for the purpose of teaching song to the
monks at the Northumbrian monasteries[182] and to all others who cared to
resort there for instruction. Bede also tells us that when Bishop Putta
was temporarily without an episcopal charge he devoted his time to the
teaching of music.[183]
We wish, therefore, to emphasise that the song schoolmaster was not the
elementary schoolmaster of the middle ages. The duty of the master of
song, as set out in the Statutes of Rotherham College, was to teach the
art of music and "presertim in plano et fractu cantu secundum omnes modos
et formas ejusdem artis."[184] Song occupied a prominent place in the
curriculum of the schools of the middle ages and it probably exercised a
greater refining influence upon the nation than is commonly realised. The
abolition of the schools of song was not the least disastrous of the
effects of the Reformation in this country, and it is of considerable
significance that the recent Royal Commission into University Education in
Wales recommends that steps should be taken for the greater encouragement
of the study of music, not only within the university itself but also in
the schools of the Principality.
One other point may also be mentioned here. It was a very frequent
occurrence for the same master to be responsible for the instruction both
in grammar and in song. Thus, in 1385, the same master was appointed "ad
informandos pueros tam in cantu quam in gramatica,"[185] in 1440, a master
was appointed "ad informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica,"[186]
and in 1426, there is a record of an appointment of a master for "scola
lectuali et cantuli."[187]
READING.
It is not easy to arrive at a decision as to the meaning of the term
"reading school." The books which were read were probably the service
books of the Church, and these, of course, were written in Latin. Is it
possible that a reading school would be a class in which boys were taught
to read Latin only, whilst in a grammar school they would not only be
taught to read Latin but also to speak it? Sometimes the references to be
found to schools seem to lead to the conclusion that "reading schools" and
"grammar schools" were but different terms for one and the same school.
Thus, the entries in various Chapter Act Books contain references to
appointments to schools of grammar, side by side with references to
schools of reading as if the meaning in each case was the same, _e.g._ at
Howden in 1394, a master was appointed "ad informandum pueros in lectu et
cantu," and again in 1401, "in lectura et cantu."[188] Sometimes the
nature of the reference leads to the conclusion that the term "reading"
denoted a lower grade of instruction in Latin than did the term "grammar,"
_e.g._ at Northallerton a master was appointed, in 1456, for the purpose
"ad informandos pueros in lectura et gramatica."[189] The record of a
previous appointment in 1440 was, that the master was responsible "ad
informandos pueros in lectura, cantu et gramatica." As the evidence is so
scanty, it scarcely seems possible to arrive at a definite conclusion,
though the probability appears to be that the use of the term "reading"
implies that the work of the school was not carried on to so advanced an
extent as it was when "grammar" was used as the descriptive term.
Since the topic of elementary education has been mentioned and as it is
obvious that elementary instruction must of necessity have been arranged
for, we may here consider briefly how this would be effected. We suggest
that, as a general rule, there would be found some clerk or other in minor
orders attached to every church who would be prepared to give this
instruction. In course of time express provision for elementary
instruction seems to have been made. Thus at Brecon, the A B C was taught
to young children by the chaplain of the college[190]; at the collegiate
church of Glasney the founder, Bishop Goode of Exeter, provided that the
bellringer was to receive "40s. yerely as well for teachynge of pore mens
children there A B C as for ryngynge the belles"[191]; at Launceston, a
benefaction existed for the purpose of paying "an aged man chosen by the
mayor to teche chylderne the A B C."[192]
WRITING.
Three distinct stages in the meaning to be attached to this term can be
traced. Originally it was a specialist craft, as only the skilled man
would be able to write out the charters which were required and to copy
the manuscripts which were so highly esteemed. In Saxon days there were
two distinct styles of writing in this country, the Canterbury style and
the Lindisfarne style. The Roman mission introduced the Canterbury style
of writing. The characteristics of this style were that the Roman uncials
were adopted but with the addition of some local peculiarities. The
Canterbury psalter,[193] which is now in the British Museum, is an example
of the work of this mode. The Lindisfarne style had a greater influence
upon our national handwriting, as, with certain modifications of its
half-uncial characteristics, it was the recognised English style until a
new fashion of writing was introduced from Gaul about the end of the tenth
century.[194] The next stage in the evolution of writing is connected with
its practical value as a means of communication and for business purposes.
Now it is known as the "scrivener's art." We can trace the appointment of
masters to teach writing for this purpose in this country from the
fifteenth century. Thus, of the three masters appointed to the college of
Acaster in 1483, one was to teach grammar, the second, song, "and the
third to teche to Write and all suche thing as belonged to Scrivener
craft."[195] The third stage in the evolution of writing is reached when
ability to write is considered to be one of the earliest of the school
tasks to be undertaken, and when writing is considered indispensable for
all intellectual progress. This stage was reached about the time of the
Renaissance. We stop at this point because a further consideration would
carry us outside the limit of our task.[196] Our only purpose has been to
show that the establishment of a writing school in any place in the Middle
Ages did not mean the establishment of an elementary school as the term is
understood to-day. As a matter of fact, the first elementary schools, in
the modern sense, cannot be traced further back in England than to the
establishment of the charity schools of the seventeenth century.
Preparatory schools, of course, are much older, but not elementary
schools.
CHAPTER III.
ORGANISATION OF EDUCATION BY THE SECULAR CLERGY.
In a previous chapter we have pointed out the nature of the work of the
monasteries in connection with the educational development of this
country. Important as this work was, yet it did not influence the country
as a whole to any appreciable extent, as each monastery concerned itself
only with those matters which affected its own interests or the interests
of the order to which it belonged. The secular clergy were more in touch
with the ordinary life of the people, and it is through their work that we
trace the beginnings of an organised system of education.
Though the Norman Conquest effected a distinction between Church and
State, yet it did not involve any change in the existing ecclesiastical
system, and as education at this period was inseparable from religion,
neither was any radical change effected in educational development. The
Norman contribution to religion was threefold: it brought the Church in
this country into closer connection with the Church in the continental
countries; it stimulated the activities of the Church; and it appointed to
the chief administrative posts men who were foreigners but who were also,
in many cases, men of ability and energy. The effect of this upon the
educational development was, that there gradually emerged a definite and
systematic educational organisation, and it is in this fact that we find
the distinctive Norman contribution to educational progress.
This organisation consisted of:--
(_a_) The establishment of Schools of Theology in connection with
Cathedral Churches.
(_b_) The recognition of the Chancellor of the Cathedral as the head of
the "Education Department" of the diocese.
(_c_) The establishment of Grammar Schools and Song Schools in connection
with Collegiate and Parochial Churches.
Except for the recognition of the Chancellor as the responsible head of
the educational aspect of the work of the Church, the post-Conquest
educational arrangements did not essentially differ from the pre-Conquest
arrangements. There was a real continuity of educational effort from the
days of the introduction of Christianity. The main difference is that,
after the Conquest, the educational arrangements seem to be more definite
and more effectively organised.
We now proceed to consider, in turn, the various parts of the educational
organisation which we have enumerated.
(_a_) SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY.
As we have already shown, it had been the custom of the Church from the
earliest date to establish schools of theology in connection with the more
important centres in which the work of the Church was carried on. With the
progress of time this custom crystallised into law. We must emphasise that
these schools of theology existed before canon law definitely refers to
them. Canon law enactments on education simply mark the transition from a
voluntary to a compulsory condition. The first definite ecclesiastical
enactment relating to schools of theology dates from 1179.[197] This was
repeated in 1216 when Innocent III., in general council, decreed that in
every metropolitical church a theologian should be appointed "to teach the
priests and others in the sacred page and to inform them especially which
are recognised as pertaining to the cure of souls."[198]
The custom of establishing schools of theology in connection with
cathedral churches was common to all those countries in which the Church
had made progress. The Church of France had gained special fame in this
respect, and the reputation of its schools had extended throughout the
civilised world. Among the celebrated continental schools of this period
may be mentioned Tourney, under Odo, Chartres, under Fulbert and Bernard
Sylvester, Paris, under William of Champeaux, and Bec, which became famous
under the mastership of Lanfranc and enhanced its reputation under Anselm.
The fame of these schools became so great that they attracted scholars to
them both from this country and from other parts of the continent of
Europe. John of Salisbury, who was one of the scholars who went from
England to France for the purpose of obtaining the best education
available at the time, has left us in his writings a valuable account of
the mode by which such an education was gained. He tells us that he went
over to France whilst he was still a youth,[199] and studied first at
Paris, under Adelard and Alberic, then at Chartres, under Richard the
Bishop and William of Conches. Subsequently he returned to Paris to
continue his studies under Robert Pullus and Simon of Poissy successively.
Among other Englishmen, of whom records remain that they went to France
for their education, may be mentioned Adam du Petit Pont, who afterwards
became Bishop of St. Asaph, Alexander Neckham, the famous Latinist, and
Samson, the celebrated Abbot of St. Albans.
It may also be interesting to note here, as indicative of the social grade
from which the majority of the students of the time came, that they found
it necessary whilst they were in France to find some means of
self-support. Thus, both John of Salisbury and Adam du Petit Pont
maintained themselves by teaching private pupils, whilst Samson was
supported by the sale of holy water, a method which seems to have been at
the time a favourite one for providing an exhibition fund for poor
scholars.[200]
So far we have shown that the immemorial custom of the Church as well as
the express decree of Canon Law required that the various metropolitical
churches at least should provide schools of theology. We have also seen
that this custom was widely prevalent in France. We still have to consider
whether the practice prevailed in this country. It is necessary for us to
point out here, that the evidence must necessarily be indirect and that
the fact that evidence is lacking must not be regarded as establishing
that schools of theology did not exist in cathedral cities. It is only
when some dispute arises or some special incident occurs that we find
references, _e.g._ that a well-known churchman was educated at a
particular school, or that a particular official was in charge of the
school at a specified time, which assist us in drawing the conclusion that
theological schools existed. If these incidents had not occurred then we
should not possess any knowledge of the existence of the school. Again, we
know that large numbers of clergy were ordained at the appointed seasons,
by the bishops of the Church. Thus in the first year of the episcopate of
Bishop Stapledon of Exeter,[201] 539 were ordained to the first tonsure,
438 acolytes, 104 sub-deacons, 177 deacons, 169 priests; in the diocese of
York in 1344/5, there were ordained 1,222 persons, of whom 421 were
acolytes, 204 sub-deacons, 326 deacons, and 271 priests.[202] Now these
clergy must have received systematic education, and it is a legitimate
inference that most of them received their education in this country.
We may next proceed to consider the evidence which is available of the
existence of the schools of theology. We know there was a school of
theology at York because Thomas, who became Archbishop of York in 1108,
and who had previously held the position of Provost of the Collegiate
Church, in Beverley, was educated there.[203] We also know, incidentally,
that there existed a school of theology in connection with St. Paul's
Cathedral because it is referred to in a deed which is dated about
1125.[204] Similarly, we know that a school of theology existed in Lincoln
because the vicar of a Lincolnshire parish was directed to attend the
school there to learn theology for a period of two years.[205]
This evidence, which is all incidental and merely the outcome of special
circumstances considered in conjunction with the general custom of the
Church and the requirement of Canon Law leads us to maintain that schools
of theology existed at most, even if not all, of the Cathedral Churches of
the period.
(_b_) THE EDUCATIONAL FUNCTION OF THE CHANCELLOR.
We have previously shown that the bishop of a diocese was originally
personally responsible for the preparation of those candidates whom he
subsequently ordained. With the progress of time and the increase in the
duties of the episcopate, it was impossible for the bishop to undertake
the personal responsibility for this work, and consequently a tendency
arose for it to be entrusted to a member of the collegiate body associated
with him. In the case of a secular bishop, a member of the Cathedral body
was appointed. This officer was definitely known as the "Scholasticus,"
and it was his recognised duty to read theology with approved students.
We are able to trace the existence of a "scholasticus" in connection with
the English cathedrals from an early date. Thus we learn that when
Thurstan, Archbishop of York, visited the Pope at Blois in 1120, he was
accompanied by "duo archidiaconi ecclesiae nostrae et scholasticus."[206]
We also know that a "scholasticus" existed in connection with St. Paul's,
London, because the expression "magister scolarum" occurs in a deed whose
date is assigned to c. 1110.[207]
In course of time the term "chancellor" was substituted for that of
"scholasticus," probably because the schoolmaster was the most highly
educated member of the cathedral staff and was therefore the most suitable
person to entrust with the care of the cathedral seal and with the
dispatch of the official letters of the cathedral body. This statement is
definitely established by the statutes of the Church of York, which date
from 1307 but which are regarded by their editor as existing from 1090 at
least. On page 6 of these statutes it is stated that "Cancellarius, qui
antiquitus magister scolarum dicebatur, magister in theologia esse debet,
et juxta ecclesiam actualiter legere." The same change of term can be
traced at St. Paul's, London. One of the witnesses to a deed dated about
1205 who describes himself as Chancellor is the same person who, when
acting in a similar capacity at an earlier date, described himself as
"magister scolarum."[208]
We must remember that this change of designation did not involve any
essential change in his duties or in the functions he discharged. The
qualification required of the Chancellor as previously of the Schoolmaster
was, that he was to be a "master in theology."[209] His duty was that he
was to teach theology either by himself or by a suitable substitute[210]
to all students who cared to present themselves. If the Chancellor became
lazy (as there is a general tendency to become when men lose their ideals
and no pecuniary inducement to energy exists) then, apparently, in some
places, a custom arose for other persons to keep schools of theology for
prospective priests in return for payment, whereas the Chancellor was
expected to admit students to his classes without the imposition of any
fee. The Church resolutely set itself against this custom of charging fees
for instruction, and by a synod held at Westminster in 1138 decreed that
"si magistri scholarum aliis scholas pro pretio regendas locaverint,
ecclesiasticae vindictae subjaceant."[211]
In order to benefit by the school of theology conducted by the Chancellor,
it would be necessary that the pupil should have received a sufficient
knowledge of Latin. It is highly probable that many of the clerks who were
attracted to a school of theology for the purpose of continuing their
studies would not have studied Latin to the extent necessary to profit by
the course given. In consequence, a demand would arise for teachers of
Latin. Now it is an accepted rule of Economics that whenever a demand for
a particular commodity exists, then an attempt to meet the demand is
forthcoming. Since scholars were to be found in a cathedral city who
wished for instruction in Latin, and since other clerks were to be found
there who considered themselves capable of giving such instruction and who
were desirous of taking private pupils, it is only natural to conclude
that the holding of Latin schools in order to meet the demand became
common.
But the danger of such a practice soon became evident. It is highly
probable that many who would attempt to earn an income by professing to
teach pupils Latin, were incapable of doing so. To meet this contingency,
the custom arose that the Chancellor should grant a licence to those whom
he considered capable of acting as teachers.
This is an event of the very first importance in the history of Education,
because it is the first separate recognition of the teaching profession in
England. In addition, the custom led indirectly to the rise of the
university system. The custom continues, even to the present day, because
the degrees in Arts and Theology in our oldest universities are in reality
merely licences issued by the Chancellor of the University to teach those
subjects.
We may also note that the necessity for the recognition of qualified
teachers was imperative not only in the interests of the scholars, but
also in the interests of the Church itself, as it had become customary to
require that priests who were in charge of parishes, and who were
discovered at episcopal or archidiaconal visitations not to be
sufficiently learned, should return to their cathedral city in order to
pursue a further course of study.[212] Such priests would certainly
require more individual attention than they would secure at the ordinary
school of theology.
In course of time, apparently, some chancellors saw in this granting of
licences to teach to approved teachers an opportunity of exacting fees.
The Church opposed this practice. In 1160 Canon Law prescribed that "For
licence to teach nothing shall be exacted or promised; and anything
exacted shall be restored and the promise released."[213] Pope Alexander
III.[214] wrote to the Bishop of Winchester requiring him "strictly to
prohibit for the future any exaction or promise of anything from anyone in
your diocese."[215] This was again repeated in 1170 by the Canon Law of
that year.
The duty of the Chancellor in the granting of licences was defined more
rigidly by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1179. At that Council it was
enacted that the Chancellor should grant, without fee of any kind, a
licence to teach to every and any person who was qualified to act as a
teacher. The decree laid down that "the seller of a licence to teach or
preventer of a fit person from teaching is to be deprived of his
benefice."[216]
The Chancellor is consequently the head of the educational work of the
diocese. He is required to prepare all clerks who desire to offer
themselves for ordination, to supervise the studies of all incumbents
whose education has been found to be defective, and he has also the
responsibility of passing judgment upon the abilities of these who are
desirous of acting as teachers and of granting certificates to teach to
those of whom he approves.
(_c_) THE GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.
We have seen in a previous chapter that it had been the custom of the
Church from the earliest times to establish schools in connection with the
various churches. Just as in course of time schools of theology which had
previously been customary, were made the subject of express ecclesiastical
enactment, so, too, the holding of Grammar Schools was also definitely
prescribed. Thus in 1215, Innocent III. decreed that in connection with
"every cathedral or other church of sufficient means" masters were to be
appointed who were to be able to teach theology and Latin
respectively.[217] These masters were to be remunerated out of the common
fund of the cathedral church. If, however, the revenues of the Church did
not permit of this, then provision was to be made for the remuneration of
the grammarian out of the funds of some other church of the city or
diocese.[218] At the risk of exposing ourselves to the charge of
repetition, we must reiterate that this enactment did not indicate a new
departure on the part of the Church or constitute a decree for the
establishment of schools. The provision of facilities for education in any
locality practically dates from the foundation of a church in that
locality. The value of this enactment is twofold: it indicates the
considered mind of the Church towards education, illustrating still
further, that the Church realised the importance of education and
recognised it as her duty to make provision for it; and in the second
place it would act as a stimulant to those dioceses or centres in which
the ecclesiastical authorities had not been sufficiently alert to their
responsibilities and duties. The Lateran Council of 1179 had not only
decreed that "in every cathedral church a competent benefice shall be
bestowed upon a master who shall teach the clerks of the same church and
poor scholars freely," but it had also enacted that it was the duty of the
Church to provide free education "in order that the poor, who cannot be
assisted by their parents' means, may not be deprived of the opportunity
of reading and proficiency."[219]
Since then the immemorial custom of the Church and Canon Law alike
required that schools should be established in connection with the various
churches, we have next to consider a narrower problem, to what extent was
this requisite complied with in this country.
In this connection we must first of all note the difficulty of finding the
necessary evidence. The schools were not a separate foundation but an
integral part of the work of the Church. All that can possibly be done is
to collect references which will justify us in the inference that schools
were carried on in connection with the different churches. Complete
evidence for the whole of the educational work of the Church will never be
forthcoming. We can only hope to obtain representative evidence and then
to submit that this was typical of the general work of the Church, and
consequently to maintain that wherever a church, or at any rate a
collegiate church, was found, there a master of grammar would also be
found.
There is abundant evidence that schools existed in the cathedral cities of
England practically from the date of the foundation of these
cathedrals.[220] Turning next to collegiate and parochial churches we note
that prior to the close of the thirteenth century, schools have also been
traced in connection with the church at Bury St. Edmunds,[221]
Waltham,[222] Warwick,[223] Pontefract,[224] Hastings,[225] Christ Church,
Hants,[226] Beverley,[227] St. Albans,[228] Thetford,[229]
Huntingdon,[230] Dunstable,[231] Reading,[232] Bristol,[233] Derby,[234]
Bedford,[235] Northampton,[236] Marlborough,[237] Newark,[238]
Southwell,[239] Kinoulton.[240] In addition to these instances, we learn
quite by accident, as it were, of six schools in the diocese of Lincoln,
viz. Barton, Partney, Grimsby, Horncastle, Boston, and Grantham.[241]
The cumulative effect of all this evidence, we venture to think, is that
it establishes the suggestion that the Church of England was not negligent
of the custom of the Catholic Church and made the requisite provision for
the establishment of schools in connection with her churches.
It is also important to remember that a school of song was also
established in connection with the various churches, as well as a school
of grammar. There does not appear to be any express decree to this effect,
but there is abundant evidence of the common existence of such schools,
_e.g._ at London,[242] York,[243] Lincoln,[244] Beverley,[245] and
Warwick.[246] The master of song was not licensed by the Chancellor, but
by the Precentor, the official of the Cathedral body who was in charge of
the musical part of the services.[247]
Up to this point we have considered mainly the provision for education
made by the collegiate churches where it would be possible for a definite
person to take charge of the teaching of grammar. But schools were not
limited to these churches. On the contrary, the priest in charge of
practically every parish church would be expected to keep school. This was
a part of the traditional custom of the Church, a custom that was
enforced, as we have seen by the Council of Vaison,[248] the canons of
Theodulf,[249] and the so-called canons of King Edgar.[250]
Passing to the period with which we are more immediately concerned in this
chapter, we find the requirement that parish priests should keep school
reiterated by Canon Law "ut quisque Presbyter, qui plebem regit, clericum
habeat, qui secum cantet, et epistolam et lectionem legat, et qui possit
scholas tenere, et admonere suos parachianos, ut filios suos ad fidem
discendam mittant ad Ecclesiam: quos ipse cum omni castitate
erudiat."[251] The Council of Westminster, held in 1200, also decreed
that:--
"Priests shall keep schools in their towns and teach little boys
freely."
"Priests ought always to have a school of schoolmasters in their
houses and if any devout person wishes to entrust little ones to him
for instruction, they ought to receive them willingly and teach them
kindly."[252]
The teaching of the Church on the matter was consequently clear and
explicit. The question next arises, to what extent did the parish priests
in this country comply with the regulations of the Church. Rashdall is of
the opinion that "it may be stated with some confidence that at least in
the later Middle Ages the smallest towns, and even the larger villages
possessed schools where a boy might learn to read and acquire the first
rudiments of ecclesiastical Latin."[253] The available evidence to support
the contention that it was customary for the parish priests of the Middle
Ages to keep school is admittedly slight, but it establishes clearly that
it was regarded as a common practice for schools to be held in the various
parishes. Thus, we learn in _Philobiblon_ of "rectores scholarum ruralium
puerorumque rudium paedagogos."[254] Roger Bacon[255] tells us that
schools existed everywhere "in every city, castle and burg."[256] Abbot
Samson in speaking of the days of his boyhood at Diss in Norfolk says that
he attended a school which was held there,[257] and John of Salisbury
narrates that when he was a boy he went in company with other boys to a
priest "ut psalmos addiscerem."[258] Then, again, an interesting passage,
which supports our contention, occurs in the correspondence (usually
assigned to a date between 1119 and 1135) which took place between
Theobald of Etampes and an anonymous critic. The writer of this passage is
supposed to be attacking a statement that there was a scarcity of secular
clerks. He urges: "Are there not everywhere on earth masters of the
liberal arts, who also are called clerks? You yourself, a nobody, are you
not said to have taught as a master sixty or one hundred clerks, more or
less? Have you not been a greedy seller of words to them, and perhaps have
wickedly deceived them in their ignorance as you have deceived yourself?
Where then, I pray, is this want of clerks of yours? For not to mention
other parts of the empire, are there not nearly as many skilled
schoolmasters in ... England, not only in boroughs and cities, but even in
country towns, as there are tax collectors and magistrates?"[259]
One other important question still remains to be considered: when were
definite school houses first erected? We have used the term "school" to
describe the classes which were held in connection with the churches, but,
as we have pointed out, these were for the most part merely classes in
which a priest or a youthful clerk taught boys their "Donat." These
schools were usually held in some part of the church building. Shakespeare
refers to this:--
"Like a pedant that
Keeps a school i' the Church."
_Twelfth Night._
Similarly, in the _Memorials of Southwell Minster_ it is recorded on the
occasion of one of the visitations, that one of the clerks complained that
the boys who were being taught made so much noise as to disturb the
services which were in progress.[260] It is not until a school possesses a
definite building of its own that it can be said to possess a real
independent existence. This question is also of interest in connection
with the conflicting claims to the title of being the "oldest public
school in England" which have been set up. If we content ourselves with
the definition of a school as "a class held in a church for the purpose of
teaching Latin," then the question of the relative antiquity of schools is
that of the relative antiquity of churches, a question of comparatively
little interest from the point of view of the history of education. We
contend that we are on much firmer ground when we ask, when was the first
building for specific school purposes erected in England. This is a
question which still awaits investigation and can only be solved by one
school establishing evidence to maintain the date of its first building
and then waiting until its claim is overthrown by a school which can show
a still more ancient origin. So far as we have been able to trace, the
earliest record of a separate school building dates from about 1150 when
Abbot Samson bought a stone house at Bury St. Edmunds and gave it for a
schoolhouse.[261] We note also that about the same date, Wakelin of Derby
and his wife Goda gave certain buildings in Derby "on this trust that the
hall shall be for a school of clerks and the chambers shall be to house
the master and clerks."[262] It is highly improbable that these are really
the first instances.
CHORISTERS' SCHOOLS.
It is necessary that we should add here some reference to schools for
choristers. It is obvious that for the adequate rendering of divine
service, the use of boys' voices would be imperative, and consequently the
need of providing instruction for them and of maintaining them would
arise. The general rule was that the choir boys would be taught Latin by
the master of grammar attached to the cathedral, and similarly music would
be taught by the master of song.
The duty of the cathedral master of grammar in relation to the choristers
is evidenced by various disputes which occurred. Thus at Beverley in 1312,
the master of grammar refused to teach, without the payment of fees, more
than seven choristers. The dean and chapter enquired into the "ancient
customs" and reported that the grammar master was obliged to teach all the
choristers freely.[263]
Again, at St. Paul's, a similar dispute took place in the fourteenth
century. Here, also, the dean and chapter investigated the matter, but
their decision--though supporting the contention that the choristers were
taught by the cathedral master of grammar--was that a certain payment was
to be made to him for these services from the cathedral funds. The entry
in the almoner's register runs:--
"If the almoner does not keep a clerk to teach the choristers grammar, the
schoolmaster of St. Paul's claims 5/- a year for teaching them, though he
ought to demand nothing for them, because he keeps the school for them, as
the treasurer of St. Paul's once alleged before the dean and chapter is to
be found in ancient documents."[264]
In addition to providing instruction, it was also necessary that the
choristers should be lodged, clothed, and fed. Various devices to effect
this seem to have been tried at various times. In some cathedrals, an
arrangement was made with an individual to provide the necessary
accommodation at an arranged charge;[265] in others, the duty of attending
to the welfare of the choristers was assigned to the almoner.[266]
Gradually it came about in some cathedrals, _e.g._ Wells, that the
choristers were housed together. In 1459-60, Bishop Beckington of Wells
drew up an elaborate code of statutes for the control and government of
the Choristers' School.[267] These statutes provided, _inter alia_, that
the master of the choristers, who was to be learned in grammar and song,
was to be appointed by the Chancellor. Latin was to be spoken in the
house. Full details with regard to meals, discipline, and finance were
also given.
At the present day, the headmaster of a school is not only responsible for
teaching certain specified subjects but is also in general charge of the
organisation, discipline and administration of the school. It is
interesting to note that during the Middle Ages, the masters of grammar or
of song taught the subjects entrusted to them and had no further duties.
The idea of the organisation and disciplinary functions of the master
seems to have been evolved from the necessity for exercising control over
the choristers, but this duty was at first assigned to an officer distinct
from the one who was exercising the teaching function. It was the custom
at York, according to the Statutes of the Cathedral, which are dated 1307
but merely codified the customs which had prevailed since the eleventh
century, to entrust the government of the choristers to the
precentor.[268] The office of taking charge of the choristers developed
more completely at other cathedrals. Thus at Lincoln in 1352, Ralph of
Ergham was appointed "custos choristatum." The preface to the record of
the appointment shows that the function was that of a "canonicum
supervisorem et custodem communitatis choristarum."[269]
This custom of appointing a supervisor, as distinct from the schoolmaster,
prevailed at the schools, other than schools for choristers, which were
founded from time to time. Thus at Winchester, Eton, Acaster, and
Rotherham--to name a few instances only--the responsible head of the
institution was the provost, while the master of grammar was merely
required to give instruction in the subjects assigned to him. The
evolution of the schoolmaster as the superintending organiser and
controller of an establishment belongs to a later date in English
educational history. We must defer, for the present, a further
consideration of this topic.
CHAPTER IV.
THE MONOPOLY OF SCHOOL KEEPING.
In studying the original sources from which we derive our knowledge of the
educational development of this country, we find numerous references to
alleged infringements of the monopoly of schoolkeeping claimed by the
official schoolmaster. It is, therefore, necessary for us to consider the
origin and nature of this monopoly.
The idea of monopoly in connection with trade and industry can be traced
back to a very early date in the history of our country. To trace the
origin and development of this idea generally, would not only be a
valuable, but also an interesting contribution to our knowledge of our
economic development. Here, we must content ourselves by limiting our
investigation to the educational aspect. The earliest known instance of
the claim to this monopoly dates from the eleventh century, and will
subsequently be described. It is highly probable that the idea of the
monopoly of keeping school in a prescribed area is of much more ancient
date, as records, of necessity, only exist when some actual or threatened
infringement of the monopoly necessitated recourse to some authority, who
possessed the power of enforcing its observance.
A preliminary question naturally arises: if instruction was given
gratuitously, why was there any need for the desire to possess this
monopoly, why should not all comers teach school, if they so wished? A
solution of this problem may be obtained from a consideration of that
tendency for social exclusiveness which everywhere manifests itself. Even
to-day, in this time of free education, parents, who can barely afford to
do so, prefer to send their children to a fee-paying school for social
reasons, even though the instruction given in the public free school may
be given by better qualified and more efficient teachers than are to be
found in the fee-paying schools. By analogy, we can reconstruct the
situation in the eleventh and succeeding centuries. A knowledge of Latin
was perceived, by this time, to possess value, and the boy who had
received an education was recognised as being in a position to make his
way in the world. We may, therefore, assume that some parents were
prepared to make payments, in order that this education might be obtained.
Where was this education to be gained? There were two possibilities. One
was that the church schoolmaster might give supplementary attention to
fee-paying pupils, or he might teach them separately, and outside the
official time which the conditions of his appointment required. The other
possibility was, that some other priest might come to the neighbourhood to
set up school, and recompense himself by taking fee-paying pupils, leaving
to the official schoolmaster only those pupils who were unable or
unwilling to make payment for the instruction they received.
An elementary knowledge of human nature readily leads to the conclusion
that the second alternative was not one to which the official schoolmaster
would quietly consent. He would look upon the new-comer as an intruder,
and would take such steps as were possible to prevent interference with
what he claimed to be his monopoly of keeping school in his own district.
It is around this question of the monopoly of school keeping that the
educational disputes of the Middle Ages mainly centre. The question is a
difficult one because (1) this monopoly was not a matter of definite
enactment either by Church or State; it simply evolved. (2) The authority
by whose aid the monopoly could be enforced was not specified, and the
absence of any definite regulating authority, and of any official
pronouncements, led to many prospective schoolmasters setting up schools
in promising localities. Sometimes this was accomplished without any
interference, _e.g._ we find that at Rotherham a boy, who subsequently
became Bishop of Lincoln, owed his early education to a schoolmaster who
came to that neighbourhood to establish what would to-day be termed a
"private school."[270] This "private" schoolmaster was at times even
welcomed. Thus at Beverley, which was afterwards notorious as the scene of
some exciting disputes relative to the infringement of the monopoly of
school keeping, we learn that "a certain scholar came there, wishing, as
the place was full of clerks, to keep school there; and was received by
the authorities of the church with unanimous approval."[271] We must
therefore conclude that the monopoly was not always rigorously enforced.
It was only when a schoolmaster felt himself aggrieved and possessed
energy, that action was taken in the matter.
The question of the authority by whom the question of an alleged
infringement could be ultimately settled, was not definitely prescribed.
Was the ultimate appeal to be to the chancellor of the diocese, to the
patron of the school, to the bishop, to the archbishop, or to the pope?
Were such cases to be dealt with, first of all, in an inferior court and
then an appeal to be made to a higher court in the event of an
unsatisfactory verdict being obtained? We shall be assisted in answering
these questions if we consider the origin of the right of keeping school.
Originally, as we have seen, it was an unwritten custom of the Church that
the parish priest should keep school. When there was the possibility that
pecuniary advantage could arise through the keeping of a school, then it
appears that this duty became a privilege and was formally expressed, in
some cases, in a deed. In other words, in founding a church, a patron
bestowed upon it not only certain lands and tithes, but also the right to
keep school. Thus, at a date between 1076 and 1083, Robert Malet, who
founded the conventual church of Eye, gave to the church "scholas ejusdem
villae."[272] Similarly, when Ilbert of Lacey founded the Church of St.
Clement in his castle, C. 1080, he "dedicavit ipsam ecclesiam, cum scolis
de Kirky et Pontefracti."[273]
It is in this connection that we encounter one of the first disputes
relating to the question of monopoly. The question was this, if a new
church was established in a particular area, did the erection of this new
church diminish the educational rights of the parent church as well as its
spiritual rights? We may put the matter in another way by asking whether
the patron of a church possessed the power of alienating the monopoly of
school-keeping possessed by that church.
Roger, who became Earl of Warwick in 1123, apparently thought that the
patron did possess this right. He bestowed the right of holding schools in
Warwick upon the Collegiate Church of St. Mary's, thus alienating the
right from the Church of All Saints', Warwick, which had previously
possessed it. The authorities of All Saints' desired to protest against
this alienation and to preserve their rights. To what authority was this
appeal to go? No information is available of the whole course of the
struggle, but apparently the matter was ultimately referred to the king;
for we find that a deed was issued by Henry I. to the bishops of Worcester
and Gloucester, to Roger, Earl of Warwick, and to all the barons of
Warwickshire, stating the king's command that the Church of All Saints',
Warwick, was to retain the schools of Warwick as it had possessed them in
the reign of Edward the Confessor.[274]
This decision is a most important one. It is a recognition by the state of
the monopoly possessed by a particular church, and, in addition, it
establishes the principle that the enforcement of this monopoly was a
matter of temporal and not of spiritual jurisdiction.
Whether as the result of this decision or not we have now no means of
determining, but the fact remains that many churches seemed to have been
in doubt as to whether they possessed, or did not possess, this right of
monopoly of school keeping. To resolve this doubt, appeal seems to have
been made to the king, and a number of documents still exist which show
the decision that was arrived at. Thus Henry I. confirmed to St. Oswald's,
Gloucester, the monopoly of school-keeping in that city,[275] to the
priory of Huntingdon the monopoly of Huntingdonshire,[276] to the priory
of Dunstable the monopoly of schools in that town.[277] Even as late as
1446, there was a grant of the monopoly of school-keeping to Eton
College.[278]
The principle which seems to be established in these cases is that, when a
dispute arose as to the monopoly right of keeping school in a particular
area (apart from merely keeping an unlicensed school) the Crown alone
possessed the power of deciding the dispute, and that when it was desired
to establish an official school in any area, in addition to the existing
schools, it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Crown.
This practice continued for several centuries. Thus in 1446, on the
petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, Henry
VI. ordained that there should be five schools in London, viz. in
connection with the Churches of St. Paul, St. Martin, St. Mary-le-Bow, St.
Dunstan, and St. Anthony, respectively.[279]
In the following year, another petition was sent to the king asking for
four additional grammar schools in London, which were to be established in
connection with the churches of St. Andrew's, Holborn, St. Peter's,
Cornhill, All Hallows, and with the Hospital of St. Thomas. The reasons
why the establishment of these schools is asked for are interesting,
"forasmuche as to the Citee of London is the commune concours of this
lond, wherein is gret multitude of younge peple, not only borne and
brought forthe in the same Citee, but also of many other parties of this
lond, som for lake of Scole maistres in their oune Contree for to be
enfourmed of gramer there, and som for the grete almesse of Lordes,
Merchaunts and other, the which is in London more plenteously doon, than
in many other places of this Reaume, to such pouere Creatures as never
shuld have be brought to so greet vertu and connyng as thei have, ne hadde
hit ben bi the means of the almes aforesaid."[280] They therefore ask
that, in connection with the churches we have enumerated, they should be
allowed "to create, establishe and sette a persone sufficiently lerned in
gramer to hold and exercise a scole in the same science of gramer, and it
there to teche to all that will lerne."[281] The king assented to this
petition "so that it be doone by thadvyse of the Ordinarie, otherelles of
the Archebishope of Canterbury for the tyme beyng."
The same procedure was even adopted in the seventeenth century. Owing to a
dispute having arisen between the Master of the Grammar School at Exeter
and the City Authorities, the latter appealed to the bishop, that he might
license an additional master of grammar in the city, as had previously
been done. The bishop did not consider that the special circumstances
warranted him in taking the step desired by the civic authorities. As they
failed to obtain their request, they appealed to the Crown in Council for
permission to establish and maintain an additional school in the city, a
request which was finally granted in 1631.[282]
A consideration of these cases enables us to understand why it was not
possible, until comparatively recent times, to establish schools except by
the consent of the Crown. Thus, in the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart
sovereigns, a number of schools were established, but only by royal
authority. When we come to consider the case of the Chantry Schools, we
shall find that a number of schools were founded, but even in these cases
the consent of the civil and of the ecclesiastical authorities was
obtained. A licence to establish the school would be necessary, as well as
a licence in mortmain.
The confirmation of the monopoly right of keeping school to a particular
church practically meant that the patronage of the mastership of the
school was vested in the authorities of that church. This patronage could
be transferred, but the proceedings in such a case were of a civil, and
not of an ecclesiastical character. This is similar to the procedure
involved in the transfer of the right of patronage of an ecclesiastical
benefice to-day. The procedure is purely civil and entirely outside the
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities. If there is any dispute as
to the rightful power of patronage, the dispute must be settled in the
civil courts. One of the earliest recorded cases of the transfer of the
patronage of a school is that of Gloucester School. We have seen that
Henry I. confirmed to St. Oswald's Church, Gloucester, the right of
keeping school in that city[283]; in 1137 Henry II. confirmed the
transference of the patronage of the mastership of the school from St.
Oswald's Church to the Canons of Llanthony Abbey; and this transference
was again confirmed by King John in 1199.[284] The fact that the
settlement of disputed right of patronage of schools was a matter for the
secular courts, is clearly brought out by a prohibition issued by the
Courts in 1343.[285] This document runs: "The King to the Registrar and
commissaries of the Court of Canterbury greeting--whereas the pleas
relating to the patronage of grammar schools on our kingdom of England
belong especially to our Crown and dignity and (whereas) the Abbot and
Convent of Beaulieu are bringing before you in the Court Christian, as we
have been informed by many, William Pipard, Clerk, relative to the
patronage of the grammar schools of Ferendon--we forbid you to entertain
that plea in the ecclesiastical court, such pleas belonging especially to
us and to no other in this kingdom."[286]
We have quoted this document in full, because Mr. de Montmorency instances
it to support his contention that there existed a collision between Church
and State in matters relating to education. He also maintains that this
same document shows that the state "controlled the administration of
educational foundations." Mr. de Montmorency is in error here. When a
vacancy arises in the incumbency of any parish to-day, of which the
patronage is not in the hands of the bishop himself, it is possible that a
dispute might arise as to the right of presentation. In such a case, the
bishop would naturally refer the matter to his legal advisers. It would
always be open for any interested party to stay such proceedings and to
let the matter in dispute be determined by the High Court. It could hardly
be seriously maintained that such action illustrates a collision between
church and state in this country.
After a patron had appointed a master to a particular school, that master
possessed the monopoly of keeping school in the prescribed area as long as
he held the mastership of the school. No other school was allowed to be
kept except with the consent of the master of the school. If any
individual attempted to establish a school without such consent, then it
was open to the schoolmaster to take the necessary steps to end this
infringement of his monopoly.
One of the earliest cases of this character, of which records still exist,
dates from 1138. Apparently some unlicensed schools had been set up in
some parts of London. The schoolmaster of St. Paul's reported the matter
to the Bishop of Winchester (who was acting as Bishop of London during a
vacancy in the see). The Bishop consequently issued a writ, in which
sentence of excommunication was passed against all those who should
continue to keep school in the city of London without the permission of
Henry, the schoolmaster.[287] Other cases are recorded in the Beverley
Chapter Act Book,[288] one of which may be taken for illustrative
purposes. It seems that in 1304 Thomas of Brompton was the recognised
master of the school of grammar in connection with the collegiate church
at Beverley. An attempt was made by an unauthorised person to set up a
school.[289] The schoolmaster reported the offender to the chapter; the
chapter determined that if the offence was continued, then the intruding
schoolmaster would be, _ipso facto_, excommunicate and that the chapter
clerk was to announce, every Sunday, the fact of such excommunication.
There is no real evidence that there was any ground of appeal against such
a sentence of excommunication. Only one instance of an appeal having been
made is on record. It seems that a dispute as to the right of keeping
school arose at Winchester, and that the party dissatisfied with the
verdict carried the case to Rome. It has not been found possible, so far,
to trace the result of the appeal.[290]
One of the most important of the cases in which an alleged infringement of
monopoly took place, is the "Gloucester School Case," which has come to be
regarded as the leading case on the subject. Briefly, the facts are: the
prior of Llanthony, as patron of the schools at Gloucester, had appointed
John Hamlyn to the mastership of the school. A priest named Thomas More,
who had previously been "scolemaster atte Herford," set up an unlicensed
school at Gloucester. Hamlyn therefore took action against More but,
instead of bringing the defendant before a spiritual court, as had
previously been customary, he brought the action in the Court of Common
Pleas, and the case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and two other
judges.
The considered decision of the court was, that it was not an offence
against the Common Law of England to keep a school. If an offence had been
committed, it was an offence against ecclesiastical law, and that
consequently the remedy was to be found in the ecclesiastical courts.[291]
The significance of this case was that the monopoly of school keeping was
partly broken down. Henceforth, anyone who did not fear ecclesiastical
censure and excommunication might keep school, if he so desired. The
practical effect of the decision was slight since, as we have seen,[292]
the monopoly right of keeping school was granted to Eton College thirty
years later.
A problem in connection with this question of monopoly arose in Lincoln in
1407-9. There were two recognised schools in Lincoln; the general grammar
school attended by the children of the citizens, and to which the
choristers formerly went for their instruction in Latin, and the school of
the choristers. In course of time, the choristers' school ceased to
confine itself to the study of music and added Latin to its curriculum.
For some reason or other, this school also attracted outside scholars. The
Mayor and Corporation, as representatives of the citizens of Lincoln,
objected;[293] ultimately the matter was settled by a compromise; the
teachers of the choristers were to be allowed "to teach grammar to the
choristers and to the commoners with them, also to the relations of the
canons and vicars of the church or those living at their expense and
charity or dwelling in their family," provided that a nominal
acknowledgement of the rights of the master of the City Grammar School was
made each term.[294]
Another problem arose out of the competing claims of the master of song
and of the master of grammar. The master of song apparently maintained
that he was as much an official master as the master of grammar, and
probably considered himself quite as competent as his colleague to give
lessons in Latin. This problem seems to have been particularly acute at
Warwick, and so the authorities of the collegiate church made careful
enquiries as to the ancient customs on the matter, and ultimately found
that the Latin master alone possessed the right of taking classes in
Latin. As a concession, they allowed the master of song to take paying
pupils in the "first letters" and the psalter.[295]
The grammar master was not alone in his desire to enforce the monopoly of
school keeping in his subject; the master of music was equally tenacious
of his prerogative. Thus in 1305, the song master of Lincoln Cathedral
complained to the Cathedral Chapter that the Parish Clerks of the city
were teaching music to the boys in their churches without his permission,
and he charged them with holding "adulterine schools to the prejudice of
the liberty of the mother church." The chapter compelled the offenders to
swear, "holding the most Holy Gospels, that they will not henceforward
keep any adulterine schools in the churches, nor teach boys song or music
without license from the schoolmaster."[296]
In bringing this chapter to a close, we might quote from the statutes of
St. Albans Grammar School, which were confirmed by the Abbot of St.
Albans, in 1310, the section which deals with this question of monopoly.
It is there stated that "the master for the time being shall annul,
suppress, destroy, and eradicate all adulterine schools within our
territory or jurisdiction, by inhibiting ... under pain of
excommunication, any persons from resorting to or presuming to keep any
schools without the will and assent of the master of our Grammar School
within our aforesaid jurisdiction."[297]
Though the privilege of school keeping was highly prized and stoutly
defended, yet it has now passed into oblivion. This was effected, not by
express decree either of law court or of state, but simply because the
instruction in Latin, which was offered by these schools, ceased to be in
demand. Two forces contributed to produce this result, the Reformation,
and the increasing use of the vernacular. The Reformation brought to an
end the number of appointments in connection with the Church for which a
knowledge of Latin was a necessary qualification; and consequently the
demand for grammar schools diminished. The increasing employment of the
vernacular caused Latin to drop out of use as the language of commerce and
the medium of written communication.
CHAPTER V.
THE APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF MASTERS.
We now proceed to consider questions connected with (_a_) the appointment,
(_b_) the tenure, (_c_) the remuneration, and (_d_) the judicial functions
of schoolmasters.
(_a_) THE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS.
We may distinguish between schools in connection with (1) monasteries, (2)
collegiate churches, (3) parishes, (4) chantries and gilds.
I. SCHOOLS IN CONNECTION WITH MONASTERIES.
It is significant that in the monasteries, the position of schoolmaster
does not seem to have been definitely recognised. Thus, in the list of the
officers and obedientaries of Evesham in the thirteenth century, for
example, there is included the prior, sub-prior, third prior, and other
"custodes ordinis"; the precentor, sacrist, chamberlain, kitchener,
cellarers, infirmarer, almoner, warden of the vineyard and garden, master
of the fabric, guest master and pittancer; but there is no mention of a
"magister scolarum." We have not been able to discover any instance of a
monk, who was pensioned at the time of the dissolution, and who was
described as acting in the capacity of a teacher at that time.
Occasionally we come across references to the "master of the
novices."[298] An account of the Novices' School at Durham has been
preserved.[299] The school was held in the "weast ally" of the cloisters
both in the morning and in the afternoon. The scholars attended for a
period of seven years, during which time they received food and clothing.
If they were "apte to lernynge ... and had a pregnant wyt withall" they
were then sent to the University to study theology; otherwise they were
kept at their books in the monastery until they were considered ready for
ordination. The Novices' School at Durham was taught by the eldest learned
monk in the monastery. At Canterbury the school was under the charge of
the "Magister ordinis," and at Abingdon under the "Instructor
juvenum."[300] The need for the instruction of the novices was reiterated
by the General Benedictine Statutes of 1334, which provided that a secular
priest was to be appointed to teach grammar when a monk was not available
for the purpose.
The appointment to the scholastic posts within the monastery would
naturally be in the hands of the abbot or prior.[301]
There exists evidence that schools for the education of the laity existed
in the neighbourhood of most, even if not all, of the greater monasteries.
Thus, prior to the thirteenth century, such schools may be traced at
Reading, Dunstable, Huntingdon, Bedford, Christchurch (Hants.), Thetford,
Derby, Gloucester, Waltham, Bury St. Edmunds, Colchester, Leicester,
Cirencester, Lewes, Battle, Arundel, Lancaster, Chesterfield, Bruton,
Winchcombe, Malmesbury, and other places in which a monastery is known to
have existed. In many of these cases we are able to trace that the
appointment of the "magister scolarum" was in the hands of the abbot. Thus
the statutes of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds state that:--
"The collation of the schools of St. Edmunds belongs to the abbot in the
same way as the collation of Churches.... The schools indeed in the manor
of Mildenhall and of Beccles are by law to be conferred by those in whose
custody the manors are. And it is to be noted that when the 'rector
scolarum' is to be removed he ought to be given notice, by the person who
appointed him, before Whitsuntide. If, on the other hand, the master
wishes to retire, he is bound to give like notice to the person who
appointed him."[302]
A third class of school (which will be described in a subsequent chapter)
in connection with the monasteries was the Almonry School. The appointment
of the "grammar master" at these schools was usually in the hands of the
almoner of the monastery, but the appointment had to be approved of by the
Chancellor or Archdeacon who was acting as the head of the educational
administration of the diocese.[303]
II. SCHOOLS IN CONNECTION WITH COLLEGIATE CHURCHES.
More definite information is available when we pass to consider the
appointments of masters of the schools in connection with collegiate
churches. Here, as we have seen, the chancellor (who was previously the
schoolmaster) was the responsible head of the education in the diocese. It
was his duty to appoint a master of grammar in connection with the
cathedral church, and not to allow any other teacher to keep school within
the city without his consent.[304] Sometimes the chancellor seems to have
taken no steps to make the appointment, possibly because the remuneration
of the master came partly out of the benefice of the chancellor. A letter
is still extant which was written to the chancellor of York Cathedral in
1344 informing him that unless he took immediate action in making the
appointment of a master, he would be liable to punishment.[305]
The general procedure in making an appointment to the master-ship in
grammar of a school, in connection with a collegiate church, was that the
chancellor should select the man whom he considered suitable and submit
his name to the dean and chapter. The appointment was completed by the
dean and chapter admitting the nominee of the chancellor to the
position.[306]
We have not been able to trace any appointments of a song
schoolmaster.[307] The procedure would probably be similar except for the
fact that the nomination would be in the hands of the precentor instead of
the chancellor.[308]
In the case of those cathedral churches which were served by monks, there
would not, of course, be a "chancellor." In such cases, the appointment of
the "magister scolarum" was made by the bishop. Thus we read of Archbishop
Peckham, during a vacancy of the see of Norwich, appointing a master to
Norwich School.[309] The first available record of an appointment to the
mastership by a bishop of Norwich dates from 1388; after this date the
Norwich Chapter Act Book records a continuous stream of such appointments.
In Canterbury, which was also a monastic cathedral, the appointment of the
schoolmaster was similarly in the hands of the archbishop.[310]
III. SCHOOLS IN CONNECTION WITH PARISHES.
We have used the term "parish" here to denote those districts which were
served by a vicar or rector, and not by a college of clergy. The
appointments to the parochial church schools, unless arrangements were
made to the contrary, were made by the patrons of the church itself. In
some cases the patrons would be the bishops,[311] in others the dean and
chapter of a collegiate church[312]; in others again, the patronage would
be in private hands, whilst in other cases a monastery might have the
power of nominating.[313] We must remember that when a parish was
subdivided the power of keeping a school did not pass to the new parish,
but continued to be the prerogative of the parent church, and that
consequently the patrons of the new church did not possess the right of
nominating a master of grammar to keep a school in connection with the
newly-founded church.[314]
Disputes occasionally arose in connection with the exercise of this right
of patronage. It would seem as if the chancellor of the diocese,[315] in
the case of a secular cathedral, and the "magister scolarum" in the case
of a monastic cathedral, claimed the right of making _all_ the schools
appointments in their respective dioceses. Records are still available of
the action which was taken in various cases to attempt to enforce this
claim. We will briefly describe two of these cases, one of which was due
to the action taken by the chancellor of a secular collegiate church, the
other to the action taken by a "magister scolarum" in a city served by a
monastic cathedral.
Taking first the case of the chancellor of a secular collegiate church, we
note that the prior and convent of St. Catherine's by Lincoln were the
patrons of Newark Church. In 1238 there occurred a vacancy in the school.
The patrons of the church took the necessary steps to fill the vacancy.
The chancellor of Southwell Minster maintained that the power of
nomination was "ex officio" vested in him. Both parties appealed to the
pope. The result of the action was, that the power of making the
nomination to the school was declared to be the right of the patrons, but
that the admission of the nominated master to the position was to be
effected by the chancellor.[316]
Turning next to the claim of the "magister scolarum" in connection with a
monastic cathedral we note that the Norwich Chapter Act Book records a
similar dispute. The prior and convent of Coxford were the patrons of the
church of Rudham by Coxford. On a vacancy in the mastership of the schools
occurring in 1240, the patrons proceeded to make the necessary
appointment. The "magister scolarum" brought an action in the bishop's
court to prevent this, as he claimed that he possessed an "ex officio"
right to make the nomination. The decision of the court was that the power
of appointing the master of the school belonged to the patrons of the
church.
We may note here that the authority who possessed the power of determining
disputes relating to patronage of schools does not appear to have been
definitely prescribed. In the first of the two cases we have referred to
here, the authority of the pope was invoked, in the second, the authority
of the bishop, whilst records are available of other cases, in which a
writ of prohibition was obtained with the view to the case being heard in
the king's court.[317]
IV. SCHOOLS ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH CHANTRIES, GILDS, ETC.
In the latter part of the Middle Ages a number of schools were established
in this country by means of endowments. These endowments were usually
associated with the foundation of gilds or chantries. The special point we
are interested in here is that in such cases arrangements were made for
the requisite appointments to be effected when the need arose. Thus the
ordinances and statutes in connection with the foundation of the grammar
school at Wotton-under-Edge[318] prescribe that "the master of the school
was to be presented by Lady Berkeley during her life, and afterwards by
Sir Thomas Berkeley and his heirs male, whom failing by Sir John Berkeley
her second son, and his heirs male, whom failing by the lord of the manor
of Wotton."[319] As a result of this more definite determination of the
right of appointment, disputes relating to the exercise of patronage no
longer arose.[320]
(_b_) THE TENURE OF MASTERSHIP.
We find a difficulty in dealing with the question of the tenure of the
masterships of the various schools because of the scarcity of evidence and
of its conflicting character. Thus, in the Lincoln Chapter Act Book, there
is a record that the dean and chapter in 1327 appointed six masters to as
many schools in the diocese.[321] In the following year the same men were
reappointed and this reappointment continues year after year until 1335,
when notices of the appointments of schoolmasters cease. It would
therefore appear as if the custom in the diocese of Lincoln was that the
masters were appointed for one year only but that if their character and
conduct were considered satisfactory they would be reappointed.
In the diocese of York the masters seem to have been appointed for three
years. Thus there is a record that at Beverley Collegiate Church, in 1306,
the master was appointed to the school for that period[322]; in 1320 there
is a record of a similar appointment.[323] It is expressly stated in the
note of an appointment made in 1368, that the customary tenure of schools
in the diocese of York was three years and that under special
circumstances this period might be extended to five years.[324]
In course of time the nature of the tenure changes. The first change
which we have traced occurred in 1368 when the master appointed was stated
to be allowed to retain his appointment until he obtained another
benefice. The reason for this change is stated to be the scarcity of
priests due to the mortality occasioned by the plague. The triennial
tenure was again in vogue in 1426,[325] but in 1486 a departure occurs, as
the schoolmaster appointed in that year was to hold his office "durante
vitae," if he so wished.[326]
A further change of tenure took place in 1575 when the master was
appointed to hold office "durante beneplacito Decani et Capituli."[327]
In the schools which were founded in the sixteenth century and later it
began to be common to draw up statutes and ordinances for the
administration of the schools. It was usual in these school statutes to
refer to the tenure of the mastership. Thus the statutes of Newark
School[328] provide that the master at the time of his admission to his
post, should be thus instructed:--
"Sjr, ye be chosen to be maister and preceptour of this scoole and to
teche chyldern repayring to the same not onely good literature, gramer and
other vertuous doctrine but also good maners accordyng to the ordynance of
Master Thomas Newark. Wherefore we doe ascertayne you that this ys a
perpetual roome of continuance upon your good demeanour and dutie in this
scoole."[329]
In making the appointment for life, the founder of Newark School adopted a
practice which was different from the common one. Thus William of Wykeham,
Waynflete, and Colet, all made the masters of the schools founded by them
removeable at will. In fact, Colet arranged that the mastership of St.
Paul's was merely to be renewed from year to year.
(_c_) REMUNERATION OF MASTERS.
We are faced with another difficult question when we proceed to consider
the question of the remuneration of masters. This problem is one about
which contradictory opinions have been held owing to the fact that it is
disputed whether or not the education given in the schools of the Middle
Ages was free education. It is indisputable that the original schools of
the Church were entirely free and that the schoolmaster was remunerated by
sharing equally with the other priests in the common fund of the Church.
The transition from free education to fee paying education may be said to
date from the time when the schoolmaster became the chancellor. The
chancellor continued to draw his share of the revenue of the Church, but
no express provision was made for the maintenance of the schoolmaster whom
the chancellor appointed.[330]
It was probably due to this neglect that the council of 1179[331] decreed
that a benefice should be bestowed upon a master so as to enable him to
teach the "clericos et scholares pauperes" gratis. This decree was
repeated in 1200[332] and 1215.[333] It has not been found possible to
trace the appointment to sinecure benefices, subject to the condition that
the incumbent of such benefice should hold a school, as the record of the
appointment would not also record the condition. We may safely assume that
this was done in some cases, as the custom even prevails to-day.[334]
In course of time, the master of a school derived a certain amount of his
remuneration from the fees which he received from his pupils. This
originated in a natural custom that pupils should make some voluntary
offering to those who taught them. Thus, the enactment of 1200, which
decreed that "presbyteri per villas scholas habeant, et gratis parvulos
doceant" also practically enacted that voluntary contributions on the part
of the relations of the pupils would be permitted. It is not difficult to
conceive that this custom of voluntary offering would develop into one of
compulsory payment.
The terms used to describe these voluntary offerings are somewhat strange,
_e.g._ "cock penny," "potation penny," "nutt money." "Cock pennies" were
gratuities given to the schoolmasters in connection with the almost
universal custom of cock-fighting which took place in schools on Shrove
Tuesday. William Fitzstephen[335] gives an account of the practice,
stating that "each boy in the school brings a fighting cock to his master,
and the whole of that forenoon is given up to a holiday to watch the
cock-fights in the school." Cock-fighting was prohibited in St. Paul's
School by Colet's statute of 1518, but the custom seems to have continued
at the Manchester Grammar School until 1815.[336] "Potation pennies" were
gratuities made when a feast was provided, whilst "nutt money" was the
term applied to the gifts made to the schoolmasters at Michaelmas.
In some cases, these offerings were regarded as a natural part of the
remuneration of the schoolmaster. Thus the ordinances of Hartlebury
Grammar School prescribe that "the schoolmaster shall and may have, use
and take the profits of all such cock-fights and potations, as are
commonly used in schools and such other gifts as shall freely be given
them."[337] In other cases, an effort was made to put an end to the
custom. Thus the Coventry Grammar School statutes state that "there shall
not be any other or more Potations in any one yeare ... than one
yearely."[338]
In addition to these optional payments, certain other payments gradually
became recognised which in course of time were known as "entrance money"
(because the payment was made when the pupil was admitted to the school),
"quarterages" (payments made at the beginning of each term), "breaking up
money" (similar payments made at the end of term). These payments did not
become common until the sixteenth century--a period which is outside the
time with which we are dealing; consequently, it will not be necessary for
us to deal more fully with the question here. The record of the chantry
founded at Newland by Richard Gryndour, however, may be referred to.[339]
At the school which the chantry priest was required to teach, he was
entitled to charge "scolers lerning gramer, 8d. the quarter, and of others
lerning to rede, 4d. the quarter."[340] As instances of other types of
payments to schoolmasters we may quote the regulations of Ipswich Grammar
School where it was prescribed in 1476-7 that those attending the grammar
class should pay 10d., the psalter class 8d., and the primer class 6d.
each quarter.[341] A reduction in these terms appears to have been made
for the sons of burgesses living in Ipswich who were to pay "8d. a quarter
... and not above."[342] Again, the statutes and ordinances of the Boteler
Grammar Schools,[343] described as a _Free_ Grammar School, prescribe that
"it shall be lawfull to the schoolmaster to take ... four pennys by-year
that is to say in the Quarter next after Christmas A cock penny and in any
of the three other Quarters in the year one Potation Penny."[344] The deed
of 1414 which recorded the wishes of Bishop Langley with regard to his
foundation at Durham, stated that "diligenter instruere et docere pauperes
qui dem gratis pro Deo, si hoc ipsi vel parentes sui pro amore Dei
humiliter petierint, ab illis autem, qui se vel amicos suos scolares
voluerunt recipiendo stipendia moderata in aliis scolis grammatice vel
cantus solvi consueta."[345]
The custom of providing an endowment for the support of the school and its
master, as distinct from the maintenance of scholars, dates from an early
period. The earliest definite instance in this country, which has been so
far traced, occurred C. 1190 when Abbot Samson endowed "the schoolmaster
who for the time being taught in the town of St. Edmunds" with half the
revenues of a rectory.[346] The next available instance is the record at
Wells of a house being given to the schoolmaster there, for the time
being, together with the prebend of Biddenham as an endowment.[347]
Endowments gradually become increasingly numerous as will be exemplified
in detail when we deal with the foundation of chantries and other
charitable institutions.
(_d_) JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF SCHOOLMASTERS.
By the ordinance issued by William the Conqueror, the separation of the
civil and the ecclesiastical courts was effected. As a result, it came
about that those who were entitled to the "benefit of clergy" claimed that
disputes in which they were concerned, should be dealt with in the
ecclesiastical courts. Possibly it is by an extension of this principle
that it was claimed that cases in which the scholars of a particular
school were concerned, should be considered to be under the jurisdiction
of the schoolmaster of that school. The evidence available is not
sufficient to enable us to decide the extent to which this custom
prevailed, but a study of the powers of jurisdiction possessed by the
schoolmasters of Salisbury, Cambridge, St. Albans, and Canterbury will
assist us to determine its general character.
The respective jurisdiction of the Chancellor and the Sub-dean of
Salisbury was decided in 1278 when it was provided that the chancellor "ad
cuius officium pertinet scolas regere" should deal with all disputed
matters (with the exception of questions of immorality) in which his
scholars were implicated, whilst the sub-dean was to exercise jurisdiction
in all matters in which the priests of the city were concerned.[348]
A similar decision was arrived at by the Bishop of Ely in 1276, when he
sought to define the respective jurisdiction of the "Magister Glomerie,"
the Chancellor of Cambridge University, and the Archdeacon of Ely.[349]
The judicial powers of the Master of St. Albans School were set out in
detail in the school statutes of 1309.[350] It is interesting to note that
the master could be assisted "by the secular arm, invoked if need be for
the special purpose."
The Canterbury schoolmaster possessed considerable powers of jurisdiction
in matters in which his scholars were concerned, and there is evidence
that some of these schoolmasters did not hesitate to use their powers when
necessity arose. John Everard, "Rector scolarum civitatis Cantuariensis"
in 1311, in particular, was keen on asserting his authority. The claim,
which he maintained that he possessed, was investigated by a special
commission of clerics and laymen, who reported in his favour. To prevent
him from exercising his authority, an appeal was made to the Court of
King's Bench. The schoolmaster continued vigorously to press the
recognition of his powers of jurisdiction and ultimately the authority he
claimed was upheld.[351]
We cannot generalise from these instances, but it is unquestionable that
some schoolmasters possessed special powers of acting in a judicial
capacity in cases in which their pupils were involved.
CHAPTER VI.
THE EDUCATION OF THE SONS OF THE NOBILITY.
It is necessary to consider now the nature of the Education of those whose
social position prevented them from sharing in the gratuitous Education,
which was offered by the Church and freely accepted by the sons and
daughters of "liberi tenentes," or of villeins, cottars, or serfs. These
educational facilities thus offered by the Church might possibly be
utilised by the children of the manorial officials, the steward, or the
bailiff; but they would never be shared by children of gentle birth.
In the Middle Ages, in England as on the continent, youths of noble
parentage were not sent to schools for their education, but to the
households of great nobles or great ecclesiastics. Thus, as we have seen,
Odo, subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury, was taught as a boy in the
household of the thane Athelhelm[352]; this custom was consequently
already well established in the tenth century. Other instances that may be
given are those of Stephen of Blois, who received his education at the
court of his uncle, Henry I.; of Henry II., who lived at the house of Duke
Robert of Gloucester; and of Henry VI., who was put under the care of
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. To that noble were also entrusted the
heirs of baronies in the Crown's wardship, so that his court practically
became "an academy for the young nobility."
Fitzstephen, the biographer of Thomas a Becket, tells us that "the nobles
of England and of the neighbouring kingdoms used to send their sons to
serve the Chancellor, whom he trained with honourable bringing-up and
learning; and when they had received the knight's belt, sent them back
with honour to their fathers and kindred; some he used to keep. The king
himself, his master, entrusted to him his son, the heir of the realm, to
be brought up; whom he had with him, with many sons of nobles of the same
age, and their proper retinue and masters and proper servants in the
honour due."[353]
The nature of the education which was given at the houses of the great
nobles was determined by an ideal which grew out of the special
circumstances of the time. Prominent among the contributory factors to the
formation of this ideal were (1) the Feudal System, (2) the Crusades, (3)
the Church.
(1) We have already dealt briefly with the origin and development of the
Feudal System; hence it will be sufficient to point out here, that the
Conquest had succeeded in establishing it more firmly in this country.
Each fief now became in practice a separate court under its lord, whose
eldest son could naturally look forward to succeeding to the position
occupied by his father. It is in this connection that we find one need
which the education of the young noble would be expected to meet. It was
necessary that he should receive the training which would be of service to
him in discharging effectively the position which in the ordinary course
of things he would subsequently be called upon to fill.
(2) Without enquiring fully into the causes contributory to the Crusades,
we may mention that they arose out of one of those outbursts of energy
which in subsequent ages found expression in such movements as the Revival
of Learning and the French Revolution. More definitely, the Crusades were
the response made by the nobility to the appeal of the East for help
against the infidel. This response was given the more readily because it
was in harmony with the restless love of adventure and with the desire
for glory and fame, which manifested themselves during this period.
(3) It is also important to notice that there existed at this time a
widespread belief in the efficacy of penitence and ascetism, as a means of
gaining religious virtue. This frequently took the form of a pilgrimage,
and the Crusades furnished a "stupendous pilgrimage under specially
favourable and meritorious conditions." "The first Crusade was the
marriage of War and Religion, the consecration by the Church of the
military spirit, which was the first step in the creation of
Chivalry."[354]
These three factors contributed to the growth of those customs which
prevailed among the noble classes in Western Europe during the greater
part of the Middle Ages, and to which the term chivalry is usually
applied. A certain ideal of the qualities which were essential to a
"perfect knight" gradually evolved. Hence it was the business of the
household to which the sons of the nobility were sent for training to
endeavour, as far as possible, to equip their "pupils" with the knowledge,
skill, habits, and qualities which custom had decreed should be possessed
before admission to the grade of knighthood was obtained.
It is possible to trace four main elements in the chivalric ideal: (1)
military prowess, (2) service and loyalty, (3) the "worship of woman," (4)
religion.
Taking each of these points in turn, we note first that the importance of
military training at this period is a topic which scarcely calls for
elaboration. The age was essentially warlike; the definite objective of
the Crusades was one that could only be achieved through military skill.
Hence, no slight amount of the training of the future knight was devoted
to the acquisition of skill as a horseman and in the use of the weapons of
war.
The second element to which we have referred--"service and loyalty"--may
be described as the underlying principle of chivalry. The service,
however, sprang from pride in the position occupied; no task was
considered menial if it arose out of the service due from the squire to
his liege lord. Loyalty is inherent in the idea of chivalry; it is an
inseparable part of the knightly ideal.
Only a passing reference is necessary to the third element--the "worship
of women"--even though it played a most important part in the development
of the character of the prospective knight by refining his manners,
checking coarseness of expression, and tending generally to the growth of
the idea of courtesy which is now conceived of as the distinctive mark of
a chivalrous man. Here we may simply say that to do the pleasure of ladies
was regarded both as the chief solace of the knight and the mainspring of
his actions.
The remaining element in the chivalric ideal is that of religion. The
Church looms large; the knight was brought up to use her sacraments, to
obey her precepts, and to show reverence to her ministers. "The Crusader,
the Hospitaller, and the Knights of Santiago were champions of the Church
against the infidel. The knight's consecration to chivalry was after the
form of a sacrament, and to defend the Church was a part of his
initiation. The least religious acknowledged the authority of religion and
it was the imputation of impiety rather than of immorality which destroyed
the Templar; for impiety was in those days a worse imputation than
immorality."[355]
To summarise the course of preparation for knighthood, it may be pointed
out that for the first seven years of training, the aspirants were known
as pages, varlets, or damoiseaux. Under their masters and mistresses they
performed most humble domestic duties and practised at doing everything
they saw done by the knights. After attaining the age of fourteen years,
they were promoted to the rank of squire, a promotion that was celebrated
by a religious ceremony. The training now became more severe and included
ability in all matters relating to the art of warfare, together with
duties in connection with the stables and horses, and skill in the art of
heraldry.
The intellectual part of the training of the squire involved instruction
in "sondry languages" and the acquisition of ability "to pipe, sing,
dance" and to play the harp.[356] In the oft-quoted passage from Chaucer
it is stated that the squire:--
"wel cowde ryde,
He cowde songes wel make and endite,
Justne and eek daunce, and wel purtray and write."
The actual school curriculum followed by the squire would therefore
resemble that of children of lower social grades, to the extent that
"song" and "writing" were included in both. Among the "sondry languages,"
it is certain that Latin would be numbered; in addition he would learn
French and (possibly) Italian.
Chivalry began to decline about the middle of the thirteenth century.
"Froissart characterises and describes with picturesque detail this
tendency to decay which, as time advanced, gradually resulted in a
complete transformation, so that the chivalric ideal became lost and the
independence of the soldier, once the slave only of his God and of his
lady, gave way to the obsequiousness of the courtier, and finally became a
selfish and pitiful servility."[357]
What place does chivalric education occupy in the evolution of educational
thought and practice? In the first place, it contributed to the
elaboration of the educational ideal. Though, as we have indicated,
chivalric education was based on utility, just as was the education of the
schools of the cloister or of the church, yet it resulted in a wider
connotation being given to the term "education." Chivalric education aimed
at fitting a man to live a life in society; whereas the education given by
the monk or priest aimed only at fitting a man to lead a religious life. A
change was also made in the estimation of educational values: the
intellectual element of education (though not entirely ignored) was yet
relegated to a subsidiary position, whilst the care of the body,
notoriously absent from the ecclesiastical education, was exalted to an
important position. It is interesting also to note that the custom of
sending boys of good family away from home directly contributed to the
practice of sending boys to a residential school, which is characteristic
of the present day, especially among parents of good financial means. In
addition, we must note that some of the ideals of chivalry have tended to
live on in our great public schools of to-day; further, they have
influenced our secondary schools and, to a lesser extent, our elementary
schools. Admiration for physical prowess, as exemplified on the playing
fields, still occupies the highest place in the mind of the schoolboy; the
ideal of service survives in the custom of "fagging"; loyalty, honour,
courtesy, and deference to external ceremonial continue to be distinctive
marks of the "schools of the nobility" of to-day.
There is a danger in assuming that all the ideals of chivalry were equally
high, and that the contribution of chivalry to education was greater than
it really was. "Chivalry," writes Cornish, "taught the world the duty of
noble service willingly rendered. It upheld courage and enterprise in
obedience to rule, it consecrated military prowess to the service of the
church, glorified the virtues of liberality, good faith, unselfishness,
and courtesy, and, above all, courtesy to women. Against these may be set
the vices of ostentation, love of bloodshed, contempt of inferiors, and
loose manners. Chivalry was an imperfect discipline, but it was a
discipline, and one fit for the times. It may have existed in the world
too long; it did not come into existence too early; and with all its
shortcomings, it exercised a great and wholesome influence in lifting the
medieval world from barbarism to civilisation."[358]
The practice of sending the sons of the nobility and gentry to the houses
of other nobles continued even after "chivalry" itself as a mode of life
had died out. Thus, Sir Thomas More was brought up at the house of
Cardinal Morton;[359] Cardinal Wolsey had a number of young lords
residing with him;[360] in the household of the Earl of Northumberland in
1571 were a number of young gentlemen.[361]
For the purpose of teaching these young nobles, it was customary that
there should be a "Maistyr of Gramer" as a part of the establishment of
the house, who was responsible for the instruction "which is necessary for
song and the rules of grammatical construction."[362] Various household
books bear testimony to the presence of this tutor.[363] It is not
suggested that the education given at the houses of nobles and other great
men was very effective from an academic point of view. In fact, the
opinion in which letters were generally held at the time was not
sufficiently high to serve as an inducement for study to be taken up
seriously by young members of the higher social classes.[364] The course
of study followed included Latin, French, writing, fencing, accounts, and
music,[365] but this enumeration of subjects does not imply that a high
standard was attained. A further consideration of this subject will be
necessary when the period subsequent to the Reformation is dealt with.
BOOK III.
EDUCATION PASSING OUT OF CHURCH CONTROL.
CHAPTER I.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES.
During the period we now proceed to consider, the idea gradually developed
that education was not a matter which exclusively pertained to the Church.
With the rise of the universities, the control of education tended to pass
out of the power of the Church; with the social and economic progress of
the country, there was a growth of the idea that civic and trade and craft
organisations respectively owed a duty to the community, and that this
duty included the provision of facilities for education.
This idea of civic or community responsibility for education which began
to manifest itself in a tentative manner, was not the outcome of any
opposition to the Church, or due to a feeling that the Church had not been
sufficiently alive to its responsibilities. On the contrary, the provision
for education which was made was, generally speaking, entrusted to the
care of the Church, and the teachers of the schools continued to be the
priests of the Church. In fact, we may go so far as to assert that the
consciousness of social responsibility which now developed was, to a
great extent, the outgrowth of religious teaching.
At the same time that we emphasise this general statement, we must admit
that there existed certain signs of a tendency to assert independence of
the Church, and various symptoms began to manifest themselves which were
indicative of the fact that school-keeping was ceasing to be regarded as
exclusively a function of the priesthood. The tendency to independence of
the Church showed itself, among other places, at Coventry, where the
corporation sent a deputation to the Prior of Coventry "wyllyng hym to
occupye a skole of Gramer, fyye he like to teche hys Brederon and
Childerom of the aumbry, and that he wolnot gruche ne meve the contrai,
but that euery mon off this Cite be at hys ffre chosse to sette hys chylde
to skole to what techer off Gramer that he likyth, as reson askyth"[366];
and at Bridgenorth, where an ordinance was passed in 1503, that no priest
should keep a school after a schoolmaster had come to town.[367] As
illustrating the tendency to place schools under the control of
organisations other than the Church may be mentioned the school founded at
Farthinghoe in 1443 by John Abbot, a mercer of London, who placed the
school under the control of the Mercers' Company,[368] and the school
founded by Sir Edmund Sha in 1487, which was put in mortmain "unto his
felliship of the craft of goldsmythes."[369] Two other instances are
available. In 1502, Sir John Percyvale founded a "Fre Gramer Scole" at
Macclesfield[370] for "gentil mennes sonnes and other good menses children
in Maxfiled and the Countre thereabouts." The government of the school was
entrusted to seventeen local laymen who were to act as trustees. In 1505,
Sir Bartholomew Read, who founded a school at Cromer, made the Goldsmith's
Company the governing body.[371] That school-keeping was ceasing to be
regarded as the exclusive function of the priesthood is indicated by the
will of the founder of Sevenoaks Grammar School in 1432, which specified
that the schoolmaster was not to be a priest "in sacris ordinibus minime
constitutus,"[372] and by the fact that the names of schoolmasters are to
be found on the rolls of the Freemen of the city of York.[373]
The growing interest of the laity in education did not result in apathy on
the part of the Church. On the contrary, the Church was stimulated to
renewed activity. Not only did the great churchmen of the day, _e.g._
Wykeham, Chicheley, and Waynflete, found schools of enduring magnificence,
but a large number of collegiate churches were established in various
parts of the country, and there exists considerable evidence (which we
shall consider in a subsequent chapter) to show that the majority of these
collegiate churches provided special facilities for education.
The change in the attitude of the nation towards education is the direct
outcome of its social and economic conditions, and if we are properly to
understand the educational developments, it is necessary that we should
consider briefly the changes in the economic conditions of England, and
the resultant social changes, which manifested themselves in the closing
centuries of the Middle Ages.
The date of the pestilence termed the Black Death will form a convenient
starting point from which we may consider these changes. The factors
contributory to the results, which we propose to describe, may be traced
to an earlier date, but as we are concerned in this chapter with general
tendencies rather than with minute economic investigations, the year 1349
will admirably serve our purpose.
The economic effects of the Black Death were particularly evident in the
rural districts. The decay of the manorial system was accelerated; the
system of manorial farming was thrown into confusion and new methods of
land tenure became imperative; the existing system of customary regulation
was no longer possible. In the towns the influence of the pestilence was
not so marked. Though individual towns might suffer, yet the relative
importance of towns in the life of the nation was increased, and the way
was prepared for that industrial and commercial supremacy of towns which
began to manifest itself in the early years of the fifteenth century.[374]
In addition to the economic effects, the Black Death had important
educational effects. The mortality among the clergy was considerable, and
consequently the number of men who were qualified to act as schoolmasters
was appreciably diminished. The reduction in the number of priests, as a
result of the Black Death, is indicated by a letter which Pope Clement V.
wrote in 1349 to the Archbishop of York, and in which it is stated that
"in consequence of the Plague, there are not enough priests to administer
the sacraments."[375] A statute of 1362 also refers to the fact that "the
priests be become so very scant after the pestilence to the great
grievance and oppression of the people."[376]
This diminution in the number of schoolmasters, for some reason or other,
seems to have continued into the following century. William Byngham, in
the petition which he submitted to the king in 1439 for the purpose of
obtaining permission to found a college at Cambridge for the training of
teachers for grammar schools throughout the country, stated that, "on the
East of the way between Hampton and Coventry and no further north than
Ripon, no less than seventy grammar schools had fallen into desuetude
because of the scarcity of teachers."[377]
It is also extremely probable that the Black Death contributed
considerably to the almost total disappearance of the French language from
the schools. One effect of the Norman Conquest had been the gradual growth
of French as the spoken language; after the pestilence period, the use of
the native tongue of the English nation again became common. This is
directly evidenced by statements contained in John de Trevisa's
translation of Higden's _Polychronicon_. After showing that French was at
one time very prevalent in this country because it was the language in
common use at schools and that the children of "gentil men" were taught
that language from the time they were "i-rokked in here cradel," Trevisa
states that after the Black Death the knowledge of French had disappeared
to so great an extent that "now children of gramer scole conneth na more
Frensche than can hir lift heele."[378]
The fifteenth century witnessed important changes in the economic
condition of England. The most important of these changes was connected
with the development of manufactures. At the close of the fourteenth
century, we learn that wool was "la Sovereigne Marchandise and Jewel ...
d'Angleterre"[379]; a century later, it is said that "the makeyng of
cloth" was "the grettest occupacion and lyving of the poor people of the
land."[380]
Various enactments of the period testify to the growth of the woollen
industry, and to the efforts which were made by the government to foster
and develop it. But though the manufacture of cloth was the most important
industry, yet it was not the only form of industrial occupation. Before
the close of the fifteenth century, the manufacture of silk had been
established in London, coal mining was carried on to a considerable
extent, the manufacture of beer had been instituted, the making of bricks
had been renewed, guns were being made, and ship-building was making
progress.[381]
The development of manufactures naturally brought about changes in the
organisation of industry. Owing to the operation of the principle of
division of labour, new crafts came into existence, and these, in their
turn, were also sub-divided into other new crafts. Gradually, all the
various classes of the industrial world--the artisan, the manufacturer,
the middleman, and the merchant--began to emerge. As a result, the "rude
beginnings of a factory system" manifested themselves,[382] and there are
even traces of a movement which resembles a modern strike.[383]
These changes in the industrial system necessarily exerted a powerful
influence upon the agricultural industry, which previously had been the
principal occupation of the people. The Black Death had been responsible
for a great diminution in the number of agricultural labourers, and as a
result, it was scarcely possible to find sufficient labour for the
cultivation of the soil. This scarcity of labour was intensified by the
fact that employment in the manufacturing industries proved to many a more
attractive form of occupation than service on the land. The Central
Government took steps with the object of compelling people to work on the
land, and an attempt was even made, as we shall see in a subsequent
chapter, to prevent agricultural labourers from sending their children to
school. Thus in the reign of Richard II., it was enacted that any person
who was engaged on agricultural labour up to twelve years of age, was to
be compelled to remain at that occupation during the remainder of his
life.[384] Other Acts of Parliament, with a similar object, were passed in
1406 and 1444.[385] This repressive legislation failed to secure its
purpose, as the steady flow of labour from agriculture to manufacture
continued.
The increasing scarcity of labour led naturally to the gradual
substitution of sheep farming for the cultivation of wheat, a development
to which the growth of the cloth industry necessarily contributed. The
demand for wool by the English manufacturers of cloth increased to so
great an extent that sheep-farming gradually became more profitable than
the cultivation of the soil and, as a result, the enclosure movement,
which began to set in during the closing years of the fourteenth century,
made such progress that, during the fifteenth century, there occurred
"the greatest of those agricultural changes which have in successive ages
swept over this country--the transition from arable to pasture
farming."[386]
Even more important than the industrial changes were the commercial
changes, which occurred during the fifteenth century. These arose out of
the development of English foreign trade with its natural effect upon the
growth of a shipping industry. The records of the time show that English
merchants visited all the civilised maritime countries of Europe, notably
Holland, Zealand, Flanders, and the shores of the Baltic. Trade was also
carried on with Iceland, Spain, Portugal, the countries of Southern
Europe, and, in spite of the Hundred Years' War, with France.
These developments in manufactures, in agriculture, and in commerce
naturally necessitated changes in financial matters. In the earlier part
of the Middle Ages a system of barter had been common. Such a system could
not continue under the new order of things. Not only did the use of money
for facilitating international exchange become common, but money began to
be employed for capitalistic purposes instead of being hoarded or used for
unproductive military purposes.
These various changes could not occur in the economic life without
producing important effects in the social life of the community. One of
the most important of these resulted from an appreciation of the power of
wealth. Formerly, rank and birth had been the main mark of distinction
between one man and another. Apart from high birth, the Church had
previously been the only avenue by which a man of ability could attain to
a position of importance. Under the new condition of things, the
possession of wealth proved to be a passport to social recognition, and
the old ideas of status and class began rapidly to disappear.
The social standing thus gained by men of wealth naturally hastened the
decline of the Feudal System; the failure of the Feudal System involved
the decay of chivalry, which was closely associated with it. Outwardly
chivalry continued to flourish, but the tournaments which now took place
were held for political purposes on occasions of pomp and show, and not
with the object of effecting a training to war.
The closing century of the Middle Ages not only witnessed the rise of the
capitalist class, but it also saw the rise of the middle class, which has
been described as the "most noteworthy feature in the history of social
life in England in the late fourteenth and the early fifteenth
century."[387] The various changes in the economic conditions had made it
possible to acquire wealth through successful trade, and abundant evidence
exists that the merchant class was both numerous and was held in high
esteem. Socially, these men seem to have ranked with squires and in
consequence "Merchaundes and Franklonz, worship fulle and honourable, they
may be set semely at a squyers table."[388]
The educational development of a country is closely connected with its
social and economic progress, and it is necessary clearly to bear in mind
the economic changes of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries if we are
properly to understand the educational adjustments which resulted.