THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.[389]
It is possible to trace a rapid advance in the intellectual life of
England after the eleventh century. Among the contributory factors may be
mentioned the restoration of social and political order, resulting in the
greater security essential for intellectual life, and the influence of the
Crusades. The Crusades were not only a sign of the reawakened energy of
Europe but were also a cause of increased intellectual activity and
change. Those who took part in the Crusades were brought in contact with
new people and new ideas; new interests were created, and a more human
conception of the world developed. Moreover, the deeds of the Crusades
supplied new material for historical literature, and stimulated the
romantic element in life and thought. The intellectual effect of the
Crusades was manifested in every department of literary activity; the
number of books written was greatly increased; studies of law, medicine,
and theology received greater attention; scholastic philosophy manifested
itself, and the universities came into being. Of these effects, the
development of scholasticism and the rise of the universities are closely
connected, and are of special importance for our present purpose.
The development of that system of thought known as scholasticism may be
traced from the subjects taught in the medieval schools. These subjects
were the Trivium,[390] and the more advanced Quadrivium.[391] The ordinary
text-books of the age (of which the chief were founded on the works of
five authors--Orosius, Martianus, Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Isidorus)
enable us to estimate what was known of these subjects of instruction.
Music included little more than the rules of plain song; arithmetic was
discussed chiefly with reference to the mystical interpretation of
numbers; geometry consisted of a few propositions from Euclid without
demonstrations; astronomy, together with arithmetic, found its way into
the curriculum chiefly because these subjects supplied the means of
finding Easter.
The Trivium was the real basis of the secular education of the period.
Grammar included both the rules formulated by Donatus and Priscian and the
study of a few of the classical writers of ancient Rome. "Under the head
of rhetoric, the treatises of Cicero, such as the 'De Oratore' and the
pseudo-Ciceronian 'Ad Herennium' were largely read. The elements of Roman
Law were often added, and all schoolboys were exercised in writing prose
or what passed for prose."[392] The most prominent and important of the
subjects of secular instruction was Dialectic or Logic. The student of
this subject had at his disposal richer material than in most other
branches of secular knowledge. Rashdall instances the translations by
Boethius of the "De Interpretatione" and the "Categoriae," as well as the
"Isagoge" of Porphyry.[393] It was this concentration on Dialectic by
minds whose chief interest was theology that paved the way to that
philosophic system known as scholasticism. From its nature, it is scarcely
possible to define scholasticism, but its meaning may be understood by
considering the ground on which theological statements were based. For
some centuries, such statements were required to be accepted merely on
the authority of the Church. By the eleventh century, heretical views had
crept in which could scarcely be dealt with so summarily. The stimulation
of intellectual interests, due to the Crusades, made it necessary that
theological beliefs should be carefully formulated and defended by
intellectual weapons.
The history of scholasticism falls into two fairly distinct periods. Among
the great names associated with the first period are Anselm, "the last of
the great monastic teachers," Roscellinus, William of Champeaux, and
Abelard, "the true founder of the Scholastic Theology."[394] The second
period which extended from the beginning of the thirteenth century to the
Renaissance was the period of the culmination of scholastic thought and
its consolidation into a system. The "great schoolmen" include Albertus
Magnus, a Dominican who has been described as "the great organising
intellect of the Middle Ages," Thomas Aquinas, famous as the scholar who
brought scholasticism to its highest development by harmonising
Aristotelianism with the doctrines of the Church, and two Englishmen, both
of whom were Franciscan friars, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam.
The intellectual activity of the schoolmen was connected mainly with
questions of interpretation. Original investigation was scarcely
attempted. The form adopted was that of commenting upon Aristotle or the
Church Fathers, and the method employed was that of discussion and
dispute, conducted according to recognised logical methods. At an early
date, a question which was considered of primary and fundamental
significance began to be discussed--the nature of universals. Stated
briefly, the problem is: have the universals a substantial existence of
their own, as the realists claimed, or, are they merely conceptions in the
mind, as the nominalists maintained? This philosophical problem was bound
up with such questions as the reality of the Church, of the State, of the
Trinity, of the Sacraments. Was the Church a "reality," or was it merely
the name of certain individuals who professed a certain allegiance? Was
the State a "reality," or simply a name? Such questions as these serve to
illustrate the passionate interest taken in the matter by the medieval
world of learning.
It was under the stimulus of this interest in dialectic that certain
schools connected with cathedrals or monasteries became famous in the
later eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth. Prominent among
these was Paris, as the reputation of its master, William of Champeaux,
attracted scholars to it from many parts. Abelard was one of the students
who had been drawn to Paris by the fame of its school, but before long he
openly combatted the teachings of its masters and determined to open
school for himself. On account of the principle of the licensing of
schools and of teachers, this was a matter difficult of accomplishment,
but the difficulties were temporarily overcome, and Abelard is later found
as the deputy master of the Cathedral School. Fresh difficulties arising,
Abelard resumed his studies, this time under Anselm at Laon. Later he
returned to Paris, and lectured as a duly authorised master in the schools
of Notre-Dame. His reputation spread rapidly, and Abelard became supreme
in the intellectual capital of Europe. In 1118 occurred his rapid and
terrible downfall occasioned by his liaison with Heloise. In every attempt
which he made after this to regain his position, he was met by fierce and
relentless opposition especially from Bernard of Clairvaux. Twice he was
condemned for heresy, in 1121 and 1141; his persecution being due, not so
much to definite heretical opinions as to the general spirit and method of
his teaching. Abelard may be regarded as the best exponent of his time of
that method which applies the test of reason to all established beliefs
and opinions. Though he was defeated personally at the Council of Sens,
yet the movement which had been associated with his name continued.
Forces that tended to make Paris one of the most important cities of
transalpine Europe were in operation at this time; hence the stream of
pilgrim students to Paris, which set in in the days of Abelard, continued
for at least one and a half centuries.[395] At this time, too, the
tendency for those who had interests in common to associate in some form
of "gild," was everywhere prevalent. It was, therefore, only natural that
wherever a concourse of masters or students was found, the necessity soon
arose for some form of organisation, which would serve to protect their
common interests. Though these organisations came into existence without
any express authorisations, yet from such beginnings the universities of
the Middle Ages originated. The circumstances, which contributed to the
formation of a medieval university were therefore twofold: (1) the
existence of a cathedral school, or monastic school, which had attained
eminence, and (2) the formation of a gild, either of masters, or of
students, or of both. Special circumstances led to the selection of the
original university centres. One of these circumstances was the
specialisation of the learning of the time. A mass of learning and
tradition on subjects of interest to man and essential to his welfare, had
grown up in a particular locality. Students who desired to possess
themselves of this knowledge were attracted to the place. Thus, the
schools at Bologna developed into specialised law schools about 1100 to
1130; Salerno became famous for the study of medicine; Paris became
celebrated as the main centre of scholastic philosophy.
It must be noted, however, that the term "universitas" was not the common
appellation for one of the higher schools; the earliest specialised name
was "studium" or "studium generale"--a term that Denifle has traced back
as far as 1233. At the outset, no restriction upon the establishment
anywhere of a "studium generale" existed, but by the latter half of the
thirteenth century this unrestricted liberty came to an end. The idea
gradually grew that the erection of new "studia generalia" was a papal or
imperial prerogative; hence in 1224 the Emperor Frederick II. founded a
"studium generale" at Naples; in 1229 Gregory IX. established one at
Toulouse, whilst in 1244 or 1245 Innocent III. founded a "studium
generale" in the Pontifical Court itself.[396] In 1292 even the old
universities--Bologna and Paris--received formal recognition of their
existence by Bulls of Nicholas IV. "From this time, the notion gradually
gained ground that the 'jus ubique docendi' was of the essence of a
'studium generale,' and that no school which did not possess this
privilege could obtain it without a Bull from Emperor or Pope."[397]
Turning to the question of the origin of the University of Oxford, it may
be noted that though many mythical origins trace the existence of the
university to a very early time in the history of the country, yet, in
fact, Oxford did not become known as a centre of learning until the
twelfth century. The earliest definite reference, which has been traced so
far to the existence of any school at Oxford, dates to some time in the
decade 1110-1120, when Theobald of Etampes is described as a "Master of
Arts at Oxford."[398] Apparently, Thurstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, had
referred to Theobald the question whether monks could legally impropriate
churches and tithe. His reply was in the negative on the ground that the
monk was one who had retired from the world, and "by choosing the monastic
habit and putting the world aside had judged himself unworthy of the
dignity of an ecclesiastic."[399] This provoked an anonymous reply which
incidentally contains the statements that Theobald held a scholastic post
of some importance. "You, yourself, a nobody, are you not said to have
taught as a master sixty or one hundred clerks, more or less?"[400] This
statement supports an hypothesis that the schools at Oxford must have been
flourishing at the time.
A new era in the development of Oxford may be traced from C. 1135 when
Robert Pullen, a theologian, lectured there.[401] Then, at a date between
1145 and 1150, the jurist Vacarius, "a Lombard by birth, an upright man
and a lawyer," was teaching Roman Law somewhere in England.[402] At some
time or other he also taught at Oxford and is stated to have been the
first to teach Roman Law in that city.[403] The university must be
regarded as being fully in existence by 1189, as Giraldus Cambrensis
lectured there about that date on "Ireland" to "all the doctors of the
different faculties and such of their pupils as were of greater fame or
note" on one day, and to the "rest of the scholars" on another.[404] After
this date, the references are numerous and conclusive.
Two main theories have been advanced to account for the rise of a "studium
generale" at Oxford. One group of writers[405] connects its origin with
some one or other of the conventual schools at Oxford. By analogy with the
origin of the European universities which are considered "primary," they
suggest that the Church was the foster-mother of the university, and that
the earliest schools were those in connection with St. Frideswide and the
abbeys of Oseney and Eynesham. The other theory (advanced by Rashdall)
connects the rise of a university at Oxford with a migration from Paris,
which is supposed to have occurred in or about the year 1167. In support
of this hypothesis it is pointed out that about that date Henry II. (who
was then engaged in a conflict with his Archbishop, Thomas Becket)
required "that all scholars be compelled to return to their country or be
deprived of their benefices."[406] Rashdall also points out that from this
time onwards we hear of sermons being preached expressly for "clerkes from
various parts of England."[407]
Both of these theories are open to objections. The evidence in favour of a
migration is based upon a series of assumptions; if a migration of this
character really occurred it is difficult to account for the silence of
all the English chroniclers on an event which must have appealed to the
imagination; no record is available of any clerk who left Paris on
account of the edict, or of any clerk going from Paris to Oxford. On the
other hand, it must be admitted that the theory of gradual development is
also open to objection. It is vague and indefinite as to details of the
growth of the "studium generale"; no authoritative explanation is given
for the independent position of the early Oxford masters, and for their
freedom from all immediate ecclesiastical control.
The question of the relationship of the university to the Church needs
careful consideration. A great deal depends upon the account of the origin
of the university which is accepted. If it is maintained, that from the
time of its origin, it was under ecclesiastical supervision, then it is
difficult to account for the spirit of independence which was manifested
during the period that immediately preceded the Legatine Ordinance of
1214. However, by that ordinance ecclesiastical control was definitely
asserted; the scholars were made subject to the jurisdiction of the
Church, and the position of chancellor was established--probably to mark
the subjection of the masters to episcopal control.[408]
The chancellor of the university was, at first, merely the representative
of the bishop possessing only such powers as were delegated to him. As
long as Robert Grosseteste was Bishop of Lincoln, the relationship between
the university and the bishop was most harmonious. Soon after his death,
however, disputes began to arise between the two authorities.[409] The
details of the conflict may be omitted here; the fact that needs to be
noticed is, that in connection with the dispute, the chancellor (though in
theory a representative of the bishop) becomes identified with the
interests of the university. Four years later we find the chancellor
exercising the power of excommunication on his own responsibility, a power
which was subsequently confirmed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.[410] The
Archbishop also took the part of the chancellor in a dispute with
reference to the exercise of certain privileges, which arose between the
university and the bishop in 1280; the bishop was practically compelled to
yield on all the points in dispute. From that time onwards, the chancellor
was in practice independent of the bishop.[411] The last phase of the
struggle between the bishop and the university is concerned with questions
arising out of the confirmation of the election of the chancellor. The
dispute first arose in 1288 and recurred with successive elections. The
question was finally settled in 1368 when the Pope decreed that the
confirmation of the chancellorship by the Bishop of Lincoln might be
dispensed with.[412] Ever since that date, the university of Oxford has
enjoyed the power of electing and confirming its highest honour without
reference to any ecclesiastical authority.
An important event in the history of the university occurred in 1209. The
murder of a woman by a scholar led to two or three of the scholars being
hanged by the townsmen with the tacit consent of the king. "On this nearly
3,000 clerks, masters, and scholars alike, left Oxford, not a single one
of the whole university remaining. Some of them went to study the liberal
arts at Cambridge, some to Reading, but the town of Oxford was left
empty."[413] Oxford remained practically destitute of scholars till 1213
when the townsmen humbled themselves, an event contributed to by King
John's submission to the pope. Rashdall states that the ordinances issued
by the papal legate in 1214 constituted the first official recognition of
the university which has come down to us.[414]
By this time Oxford had become a recognised centre of learning and had
attained to such importance that its opinion on disputed matters was
highly esteemed. Thus, in 1252, Henry III. submitted to the university the
question in dispute between Raleigh, Bishop of Norwich, and himself;
Archbishop Boniface of Canterbury went to Oxford in 1252 in order to make
known to the university the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester, so that
through the influence of the university the news might be spread
throughout the world of learning.
Passing next to the university of Cambridge, we find that its origin also
is a matter of doubt. Here, again, two theories have been advanced--one
which upholds the idea of gradual development, the other which bases the
origin of the university on a migration from Oxford.
The earliest extant reference to a university at Cambridge dates from
1231. In that year Henry III. sent a communication to the sheriff of
Cambridge, authorising him to take action in the case of "divers
disorderly and incorrigible clerks" ... and also "divers criminals in the
guise of clerks pretending to be what they are not."[415] Evidence also
exists to show, that in 1276, the Bishop of Ely defined the jurisdiction
of the Chancellor of Cambridge University, the Archdeacon of Ely, and the
Grammar Schoolmaster.[416]
The early history of the university of Cambridge, like that of its sister
university, is largely a history of disputes, of feuds between the
townsmen and the burgesses, of quarrels between the opposing "nations," of
disputes arising out of disorders on the part of the students, and of the
struggles for independence of ecclesiastical control. The last of these is
the only one which concerns us here, but as the matter is so fully dealt
with elsewhere[417] it will suffice to point out here that the growth of
freedom from episcopal supervision was slower at Cambridge than at Oxford.
It was not until the close of the fourteenth century that the power of the
Bishop of Ely to decide internal disputes between the chancellor and the
masters, and between the various faculties and to hear appeals from the
chancellor, was dispensed with, and it was not until 1432 that the
university was entirely independent of the direct control of the Church.
In this chapter we have given the various hypotheses which have been
advanced, to account for the origin of the English universities. Whichever
hypothesis we accept, the important fact is that a class of teachers
gradually grew up in this country, and that these teachers, influenced by
the gild spirit which was particularly strong in the twelfth century,
ultimately formed themselves into a gild which became strong enough to
gain recognition. It is impossible to point to any definite charter or
document by which this was effected; it is not until the university was in
actual being and admitting to its degrees those teachers whom it
considered qualified for admission, that we have any real evidence of its
existence.
The development of the universities had three important effects, so far as
the special subject of this investigation is concerned.
(1) The licensing of teachers passed out of the hands of the Church and
was undertaken by the universities. With the general recognition of the
universities, the licence to teach which was considered valuable was the
licence granted by the university and not that of bishop or cathedral
chancellor. It is interesting to note that the power of conferring degrees
now possessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury is a relic of the power
which he formerly exercised of granting recognition to teachers in the
diocese of Canterbury.
(2) The theological schools of the chancellor gradually ceased to exist,
as the theological teaching at the universities began to develop. Since
specialised teaching centred itself at the universities, and as the
demands upon the time of the chancellor became more insistent with the
increasing work of the cathedral and diocese, together with the fact that
the teaching function of the chancellor was gradually being lost sight of,
so it came about that the theological schools of the chancellor became of
less and less note until at last it is impossible to trace any real signs
of their existence.
(3) The universities, and not the Church, became recognised as the centre
of the intellectual activity of the country. As we have shown, the Church
was originally regarded as the custodian of all interests which might be
conceived of as intellectual. "Religion and letters" were considered to be
identical; gradually the principle of division of labour manifested
itself, and the Church was left to concern itself with its spiritual
functions, leaving to others the care of those matters which may be
considered as exclusively relating to the development of the intellectual
well-being of man.