IV - Readings in the History of Education: Mediaeval Universities - 15

IV

UNIVERSITY EXERCISES

The ways and means of teaching in mediaeval universities were few and simple in comparison with those of our own times. The task of the student was merely to become acquainted with a few books and to acquire some facility in debate. The university exercises were shaped to secure this result. They consisted in the Lecture, the Disputation or Debate, the Repetition, the Conference, the Quiz, and the Examination.

Of these the first two and the last were by far the most important; they are described in detail below. The Repetition, given in the afternoon or evening, was either a detailed discussion of some point which could not be treated in full in the "ordinary" lecture, or a simple re-reading of the lecture, sometimes accompanied by catechism of the students upon its substance. The Conference was an informal discussion between professor and students at the close of a lecture, or a discussion of some portion of the day's work by students alone. The Quiz was often held in the afternoon at the student's hall or college, by the master in residence there, as described on page 132.

(a) The Lecture

Lectures were of two kinds,—"ordinary," and "extraordinary" or "cursory." The former were given in the morning, by professors; the latter in the afternoon, either by professors or by students about to take a bachelor's degree.

The purpose of the lecture was to read and explain the text of the book or books of the course. The character of the lecture was largely determined by the fact that all text-books, practically to the year 1500, were in manuscript, and by the further fact that many students seem to have been unable or unwilling to purchase or hire copies. A large part of the lecturer's time was thus consumed in the purely mechanical process of reading aloud the standard text and comments. To these he might add his own explanations; but the simple ability to "read the book" intelligently was sufficient to qualify a properly licensed Master, or a Bachelor preparing to take the Master's degree, to lecture on a given subject. This accounts for the fact that youths of seventeen or eighteen might be found giving occasional lectures, and that regular courses were given by those not much over twenty-one.

The books thus read consisted of two parts,—the text, and the "glosses" or comments. A glance at the selection on page 60 will reveal the nature of the latter: they were summaries, explanations, controversial notes, and cross-references, written by more or less learned scholars, in the margin of the text. In the course of generations the mass of glosses became so great as fairly to smother the original work. The selection just referred to is not especially prolific in glosses; cases may be found in which the text of a page occupies only three or four lines, the rest of the space being completely filled with comments, and with explanations of the comments. Instances of books explained to death are not unknown in our own class-rooms!

The effect of this accumulation of comments was to draw the attention of both teachers and students more and more away from the text. There is evidence that in some instances the text was almost wholly neglected in the attempt to master the glosses. University reforms at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century sometimes involved the exclusion of this mass of "frivolous and obscure" comment from the lectures, and a return to the study of the text itself. See the introduction to the plan of studies for Leipzig, p. 48.

The selection from the Canon Law (p. 59 ff.) gives a good idea of the substance of a dictated mediaeval lecture. Concerning the "original" and more or less off-hand lecture we have the amusing account of Giraldus Cambrensis (c. 1146-1220), in his "most flattering of all autobiographies." After recounting—in the third person—his studies at Paris in Civil and Canon Law, and Theology, he says:

He obtained so much favor in decretal cases, which were wont to be handled Sundays, that, on the day on which it had become known throughout the city that he would talk, there resulted such a concourse of almost all the doctors with their scholars, to hear his pleasing voice, that scarcely could the amplest house have held the auditors.

And with reason, for he so supported with rhetorical persuasiveness his original, wide-awake treatment of the Laws and Canons, and so embellished his points both with figures and flowers of speech and with pithy ideas, and so applied the sayings of philosophers and authors, which he inserted in fitting places with marvellous cleverness, that the more learned and erudite the congregation, the more eagerly and attentively did they apply ears and minds to listening and memorizing. Of a truth they were led on and besmeared with words so sweet that, hanging, as it were, in suspense on the lips of the speaker,—though the address was long and involved, of a sort that is wont to be tedious to many,—they found it impossible to be fatigued, or even sated, with hearing the man.

And so the scholars strove to take down all his talks, word for word, as they emanated from his lips, and to adopt them with great eagerness. Moreover, on a certain day when the concourse from all parts to hear him was great, when the lecture was over and was followed by a murmur of favorable applause from all the throng, a certain distinguished Doctor who both had lectured on the Arts at Paris and long studied on the laws at Bologna, whose name was Master Roger the Norman, … broke out openly in expressions of this sort: "There is not such knowledge under the sun, and if it were by chance reported at Paris, it would, beyond a doubt, carry incomparable weight there, far more so than anywhere else." Now the opening—as it were, the proem—of that talk I have not considered it inappropriate to introduce here; so this is the way it began:

"I had proposed to hear before being heard, to learn before speaking, to hesitate before debating. For to cultured ears and to men of the highest eloquence my speech will appear to have little marrow in its views, and its poverty of words will seem jejune. For idle is it, and utterly superfluous, to offer that which is arid to the eloquent, and that which is stale to men of knowledge and wisdom. Whence our Moral Seneca, and, quoting from him, Sidonius, says:

"'Until Nature has drunk in knowledge, it is not greater glory to speak what you know than to be silent about what you do not know.'

"And yet, since, on the testimony of Augustine, 'Every part out of harmony with its whole is base,' that I may not seem the sole anomaly among you, or, where others speak, be found by my silence a disciple of Pythagoras surpassing the rest, I have chosen to be found ridiculous for my speaking, rather than out of harmony for my silence.

"What note then shall the noisy goose emit in the presence of the clear-songed swans? Shall he offer new things, or things well known? Things often considered and trite generate disgust; new things lack authority. For, as Pliny says: 'It is an arduous task to give novelty to old things, authority to new things, brightness to things obsolete, charm to things disdained, light to obscure things, credence to doubtful things, and to all things naturalness!'

"The question which we have before us is old, but not inveterate,—a question often argued, but whose decision is still pending: Should a Judge decide according to the evidence, or according to his conviction?"

Now he supported the second, but far less justifiable view, by arguments taken from the Laws and the Canons, so forcible that, while all were amazed, all were uncertain whether greater praise should be given to the ornateness of the words or to the efficacy of the arguments.[57]

The mode of lecturing on Roman Law at Bologna is thus described by
Odofredus (c. 1200-1265), a distinguished teacher:

First, I shall give you summaries of each title [i.e., each chapter into which the books are divided] before I proceed to the text; second, I shall give you as clear and explicit a statement as I can of the purport of each Law (included in the title); thirdly, I shall read the text with a view to correcting it; fourthly, I shall briefly repeat the contents of the Law; fifthly, I shall solve apparent contradictions, adding any general principles of Law (to be extracted from the passage), commonly called "Brocardica," and any distinctions or subtle and useful problems (quaestiones) arising out of the Law, with their solutions, as far as the Divine Providence shall enable me. And if any Law shall seem deserving, by reason of its celebrity or difficulty, of a Repetition, I shall reserve it for an evening Repetition.[58]

The varied statement and restatement of the passage, implied in the foregoing description, was doubtless necessary to make it intelligible to the not-too-keen minds of the auditors. As Rashdall points out, it "makes no mention of a very important feature of all mediaeval lectures,—the reading of the 'glosses.'" This is mentioned in the Bologna statutes now to be cited.

There are numerous statutes on the mode of lecturing. At Bologna, and doubtless elsewhere, professors seem to have experienced the difficulty, not unknown to modern teachers, of getting through the entire course within the prescribed time. The students, who regulated the conduct of their teachers, made stringent rules to prevent this, and punished violations of them by fines large enough to make professors take due caution:

We have decreed also that all Doctors actually lecturing must read the glosses immediately after reading the chapter or the law, unless the continuity of the chapters or of the laws requires otherwise, taking the burden in this matter on their own consciences in accordance with the oath they have taken. Nor, with regard to those things that are not to be read, must they yield to the clamor of the scholars. Furthermore we decree that Doctors, lecturing ordinarily or extraordinarily, must come to the sections assigned de novo, according to the regulations below. And we decree, as to the close observance by them of the passages, that any Doctor, in his ordinary lecturing in Canon or Civil Law, must deposit, fifteen days before the Feast of Saint Michael, twenty-five Bologna pounds with one of the treasurers whom the rectors have appointed; which treasurer shall promise to give said money to the rectors, or the general beadle in their name, all at once or in separate amounts, as he shall be required by them or by him.

The form, moreover, to be observed by the Doctors as to the sections is this: Let the division of the book into sections (puncta) be determined, and then let him be notified. [And if any Doctor fails to reach any section on the specified date he shall be fined three Bologna pounds, while for a second offense he shall be fined five pounds, and for a third and each succeeding violation of the rule, ten pounds.] And if the twenty-five pounds are exhausted, he must deposit in said place a second twenty-five pounds; and the second deposit must be made within eight days from the time when the first was exhausted….

We decree also that no Doctor shall hereafter exceed one section in one lecture. And if the contrary be done by any one he shall be charged with perjury and punished to the extent of three pounds, to be taken from the money deposited for the purpose; and as often as the violation occurs, so often shall the penalty be inflicted, so long as the statute is in force; and the Rector also must exact it.

We add that at the end of a section the Doctors must announce to the scholars at what section they are to begin afterwards, and they shall be obliged to follow that section which they have begun, even to the end of the section. But if by chance, after due weight is given to the glosses or text, it seems useful to transfer a part of the lecture to another section, he shall be obliged in his preceding lecture to announce that to the scholars, so that those who wish may make provision beforehand; under penalty of five Bologna shillings for each occasion for the Doctor who does to the contrary.

We order this statute to be published in each school at the beginning of the term….

Since topics not read by the Doctors are completely neglected and consequently are not known to the scholars, we have decreed that no Doctor shall omit from his sections any chapter, decretal, law, or paragraph. If he does this he shall be obliged to read it within the following section. We have also decreed that no decretal or decree or law or difficult paragraph shall be reserved to be read at the end of the lecture if, through such reservation, promptness of exit at the sound of the appointed bell is likely to be prevented.[59]

A lecture might be either dictated or delivered rapidly, "to the minds rather than to the pens," of the auditors. For pedagogic and possibly other reasons, the latter method seems to have been preferred by the authorities; but lecturers, and students who desire to get full notes, seem to have insisted upon dictation. A statute of the Masters of Arts at Paris, 1355, is one of several unsuccessful attempts to enforce rapid delivery:

Two methods of reading the books of the Liberal Arts have been tried: By the first, the Masters of Philosophy from their chairs rapidly set forth their own words, so that the mind of the listener can take them in, but his hand is not able to write them down; by the second, they pronounce them slowly so that the listeners are able to write them down in their presence with the pen. By diligent examination and mutual comparison of these ways the first method is found to be the better, because the conceptual power of the ordinary mind warns us to imitate it in our lectures. Therefore, we, one and all, Masters of Arts, both lecturing and not lecturing, being especially convoked for this purpose … have made a statute to this effect: All lecturers, Masters as well as Scholars, of the same Faculty, whenever and wherever they happen to be reading any book in regular order or course in the same Faculty, or to be discussing a question according to this or any other method of exposition, shall follow the former method of reading to the best of their ability, to wit: presenting it as though no one were writing it in their presence. It is in accordance with this method that discourses and recommendations are made in the University, and it is followed by Lecturers in the rest of the Faculties.

Transgressors of this Statute, whether Masters or Scholars, we deprive thenceforth of their positions as lecturers, of honors, offices, and the rest of their means of support under our Faculty, for one year. But if any one repeats the offense, we double the penalty for the first repetition; for the second, we quadruple it, and so on. And auditors who interfere with the execution of this our Statute by shouting or whistling or raising a din, or by throwing stones, either personally or through their attendants or accomplices, or in any other way, we deprive of and cut off from our company for one year, and for each repetition we increase the penalty to twice and four times the length as above.[60]

(b) The Disputation.

The disputation, or debate, one of the most important university exercises, "first became really established in the schools as a result of the new method." (Cf. page 35.) This exercise was sometimes carried on in the manner of a modern debate; to "respond" in the schools (i.e., to defend a thesis in public debate), and to "oppose" (i.e., to argue against the respondent), was a common requirement for all degrees. Scholars and masters frequently posted in public places theses to the argument of which they challenged all comers, just as a knight might challenge all comers at a tournament to combat. In such cases the respondent usually indicated the side of the question which he would defend. This practice, in a modified form, still exists in some European universities in the public examinations for the Doctor's degree.

In another mode, the disputation was carried on by a single person, who argued both sides of the question and drew the conclusion in favor of one side or the other. This was of course merely the oral use of the method of exposition commonly found in the works of scholastic philosophers and theologians. The lecture of Giraldus Cambrensis described above (page 109) was doubtless of this type. A complete example is to be found in Dante's "Quaestio de Aqua et Terra." The brief of the arguments on both sides of this question is here reproduced with some modifications. It illustrates not only the exercise itself, but also the ponderous complications which the scholastic method received at the hands of Abelard's successors, and the weakness of that method when applied to questions of natural science. The reader will note that the argument no longer proceeds by the simple citation of authorities pro and con; the reasonings of the debater are also introduced. Moreover, the argument is more complex. It involves first the statement of the affirmative position; second, the refutation of the affirmative by observation and by reasoning; third, objections to the refutation by reasoning; fourth, refutation of these objections; fifth, final refutation of the original arguments.

Introduction: Author's reasons for undertaking the discussion.

Let it be known to you all that, whilst I was in Mantua, a certain Question arose, which, often argued according to appearance rather than to truth remained undetermined. Wherefore, since from boyhood I have ever been nurtured in love of truth, I could not bear to leave the Question I have spoken of undiscussed: rather I wished to demonstrate the truth concerning it, and likewise, hating untruth as well as loving truth, to refute contrary arguments. And lest the spleen of many, who, when the objects of their envy are absent, are wont to fabricate lies, should behind my back transform well-spoken words, I further wished in these pages, traced by my own fingers, to set down the conclusion I had reached and to sketch out, with my pen, the form of the whole controversy.

THE QUESTION: IS WATER, OR THE SURFACE OF THE SEA, ANYWHERE HIGHER THAN THE EARTH, OR HABITABLE DRY LAND?

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT: Five affirmative arguments generally
accepted.

Reason 1. Geometrical Proof: Earth and Water are spheres with different centers; the center of the Earth's sphere is the center of the universe; consequently the surface of the Water is above that of the Earth.

Reason 2. Ethical Proof: Water is a nobler element than Earth; hence it deserves a nobler, or higher, place in the scheme of the universe.

Reason 3. Experimental Proof: based on sailors seeing the land disappear under their horizon when at sea.

Reason 4. Economical Proof: The supply of Water, namely, the sea, must be higher than the Earth; otherwise, as Water flows downwards, it could not reach, as it does, the fountains, lakes, etc.

Reason 5. Astronomical Proof: Since Water follows the moon's course, its sphere must be excentric, like the moon's excentric orbit; and consequently in places be higher than the sphere of Earth.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENT: These reasons unfounded.

I. REFUTATION BY OBSERVATION.

Water flows down to the sea from the land; hence the sea cannot be higher than the land.

II. REFUTATION BY REASONING:

A. Water cannot be higher than the dry land.
Proof: Water could only be higher than the Earth,
1. If it were excentric, or
2. If it were concentric, but had some excrescence.

But since

x. Water naturally moves downwards,
and
y. Water is naturally a fluid body:

1. Cannot be true, for three impossibilities would follow:
a. Water would move upwards as well as downwards;
b. Water and Earth would move downwards in different
directions;
c. Gravity would be taught ambiguously of the two bodies.

Proof of these impossibilities by a diagram.

2. Cannot be true, for
a. The Water of the excrescence would be diffused, and
consequently the excrescence could not exist:
b. It is unnecessary, and what is unnecessary is contrary
to the will of God and Nature.

B. All land is higher than the sea.
Proof: It has been shown that Water is of one level, and
concentric with the Earth:
Therefore, since the shores are higher than the edges of the sea,
and since the shores are the lowest portions of the land,
It follows that all the land is higher than the sea.

C. Objections to the foregoing reasoning, and their refutation.
1. Possible affirmative argument: Earth is the heaviest body;
hence it is drawn down to its own center, and lies beneath the
lighter body, Water.
2. Objection to this argument: Earth is the heaviest body only
by comparison with others; for Earth is itself of different
weights.
3. Refutation of this objection: On the contrary, Earth is a
simple body, and as such subject to be drawn equally in every part.
4. Answer to the refutation, with minor objections and their
refutation.

Since the objection is in itself sound, and Earth by its own Particular Nature, due to the stubbornness of matter, would be lower than the sea; and since Universal Nature requires that the Earth project somewhere, in order that its object, the mixture of the elements, may be fulfilled:

It follows that there must be some final and efficient cause, whereby this projection may be accomplished.

a. The final cause has been seen to be the purpose of Universal Nature. b. The efficient cause cannot be (i) the Earth, (ii) the Water, (iii) the Air or Fire, (iv) the heaven of the Moon, (v) the Planets, nor (vi) the Primum Mobile:

Therefore it must be ascribed to the heaven of the Fixed Stars (for this has variety hi efficiency, as is seen in the various constellations), and in particular to those Stars of the Northern Hemisphere which overhang the dry land.

(x) First objection: Why is the projecting continent then, not circular, since the motion of these stars is circular?

Answer: Because the material did not suffice for so great an elevation.

(y) Second objection: Why is this elevation
in this particular place?

Answer: Because God whose ways are inscrutable, willed it so.

We should therefore desist from examining too closely the reasons, which we can never hope to fathom.

D. Refutation of the original arguments:
Reason 1. Invalid because Earth and Water are spheres
with the same center.
Reason 2. Invalid because of the external influence of
Universal Nature, counteracting the internal influence
of Particular Nature.
Reason 3. Invalid because it is sphericity of the sea and
not the lowness of the land which interferes with one's
view at sea.
Reason 4. Invalid because Water does not flow to the
tops of mountains, but ascends thither in the form of
vapors.
Reason 5. Invalid because Water imitating the moon in
one respect, need not imitate it in all.[61]

This brief obviously illustrates much more than the form of the mediaeval Disputation. It leaves one in no doubt as to the difference between the natural science of the Middle Ages and that of our own time. It also illustrates the weakness of the scholastic method when applied to questions which modern science would settle by experiment. The argument abounds in misstatements of fact, the conclusion is incorrect, and the "reasoning" by which it is reached can be described, from the modern point of view, only as grotesque. The weakness of the method was recognized by Roger Bacon so early as the thirteenth century. The growing recognition of its futility finds repeated expression in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, notably in the New Method (Novum Organum) of Francis Bacon.

Like the scholastic method and the worship of Aristotle, the Disputation fell into disrepute because of the extravagant lengths to which it was carried. The following sarcastic criticism by the Spanish scholar, Juan Luis Vives (1462-1540), is one illustration of the growing revolt of his times against it:

Disputations, also, to no slight degree have blinded judgment. They were instituted originally (but only among young men) to stimulate mental vigor, often torpid, and to make young men keener in their studies, so that they might either conquer or not be conquered, and also that the instruction received from their teachers might be more deeply impressed upon them.

Among men, or older persons, there was a kind of comparison of opinions and reasons, not aimed at victory but at unravelling the truth. The very name testifies that they are called disputations because by their means the truth is, as it were, pruned or purged [dis = apart; puto = to prune, or to cleanse]. But after praise and reward came from listeners to the one who seemed to have the best ideas, and out of the praise often came wealth and resources, a base greed of distinction or money took possession of the minds of the disputants, and, just as in a battle, victory only was the consideration, and not the elucidation of truth. So that they defended strenuously whatever they once had said, and overthrew and trampled upon their adversary.

Low and sordid minds such as with drooping heads look solely at such trivial and ephemeral results, regarded as of small consequence the great benefit that results from study:—namely probity or knowledge of truth; and these two things they did not regard with sufficient acuteness nor did they comprehend their great value, but they sought the immediate reward of money or popular favor.

And so, in order to get a greater return for their labor, they admitted the populace to their contests like the spectators of a play brought out at the theatre. Then, as one might expect when the standard is lowered, the philosopher laid aside his dignified, venerable character, and put on his stage dress that he might dance more easily: the populace was made spectator, umpire, and judge, and the philosopher did that which the flute player does not do on the stage,—he suited his music, not to his own ideas and to the Muses, as his old teacher advises, but wholly to the circle of onlookers and the crowd whence distinction and gain was likely to come back to the actors.

There was no need of real, solid teaching (at least, not in the opinion of those who are going to learn); but pretence and dust were thrown in the eyes of the crowd. So the one plain road of obtaining the truth was abandoned; six hundred ways of pretending were made, by which each strove for what suited himself, especially since there is nothing made so ugly as to lack a sponsor.

Not only did the populace flock to this opinion—that the object of learning is to dispute, just as it is the object of military life to fight—but the public unanimity swept away the veterans, the triarii [the more experienced soldiers who were placed in the third line] as it were, of the scholastic campaign (but these have no more ability and judgment than the dregs of the people), so that they regard him as superfluous and foolish who would call them back to mental activity and character and that quiet method of investigation, philosophy. [They think that] there is no other fruit of studies save to keep your wits about you and not give way to your adversary, either to attack him boldly or to bear up against him, and shrewdly to contrive by what vigor, by what skill, by what method of supplanting, he may be overturned. Therefore under this beautiful scheme, surpassing all others, it was the plan to break in the boy immediately and train him constantly; they began disputing as soon as they were born and ceased only at death. The boy brought to school, is bidden to dispute forthwith on the first day and is already taught to quarrel, before he can yet speak at all. So also in Grammar, in the Poets, in the Historians, in Logic, in Rhetoric, in absolutely every branch. Would any one wonder what they can find to do in matters that are perfectly open, very simple and elementary? There is nothing so transparent, so limpid that they do not cloud it over with some petty question as if ruffled by a breeze. It is [thought] characteristic of the most helpless stupidity, not to find something which you may make obscure by most intricate measures and involve in very hard and rigid conditions, which you may twist and twist again. For you may simply say: "Write to me,"—here comes a question, if not from Grammar then from Logic, if not from Logic then from Physics,—"What motions are made in writing?" Or, from Metaphysics, "Is it substance or quality?"

And these boys are hearing the first rudiments of Logic who were only yesterday, or the day before, admitted to the school. So they are to be trained never to be silent, but vigorously to assert whatever comes uppermost lest they may seem at any time to have given in. Nor is one dispute a day enough, nor two, like a meal. At lunch they dispute, after lunch they dispute, at dinner they dispute, after dinner they dispute. Do they do these things to learn, or to cook a new dish? They dispute at home, they dispute away from home. At a banquet, in the bath, in the tepidarium, at church, in the city, in the fields, in public, in private, in all places and at all times they dispute.

Courtesans in charge of a panderer do not wrangle so many times, or gladiators in charge of a trainer do not fight so many times for a prize as these do under their teacher of philosophy. The populace, not self-restrained and serious, but fickle, barbarous, pugnacious, is wonderfully tickled with all this as with a mock battle. So there are very many exceedingly ignorant men, utterly without knowledge of literature in any form, who take more pleasure in this form of show than in all else; and the more easily to win the fight, they employ a quick and prompt mode of fighting and deliver a blow every second, as it were, in order the more speedily to use up their foe. They neither assail their adversary with uninterrupted argument nor can they endure prolonged talk from him. If by way of explaining himself he should begin to enlarge, they raise the cry: "To the point! To the point! Answer categorically!" Showing how restless and flippant their minds are who cannot stand a few words….

To such a degree did they go that instead of a settlement based on the strongest arguments, such as drove them into their absurdities, they considered it sufficient to say: "I admit it, for it follows from my own conclusion," and the next step is: "I deny it. Prove it. I will defend it appropriately." For he who "defends appropriately" (in their own words), no matter by what incongruous admissions and concessions, is held to be a learned man and best adapted to disputation, that is, to the apex of all knowledge.

The examination, as an exercise leading to a degree, is one phase of modern educational practice which comes from mediaeval universities. The system of examinations grew up slowly. Generalization is difficult owing to the differences in practice in various universities, but broadly speaking the student who took a Master's or Doctor's degree in any Faculty passed through the three stages of Bachelor, Licentiate, and Doctor, and at each stage underwent some form of examination. The examination for the License (to teach anywhere) seems to have been the most formidable of the three; that for the Doctorate being mainly ceremonial. In general, the examination tested the candidate's knowledge of the books prescribed, and his power of public debate.

The statutes of Bourges (c. 1468-1480) thus describe the requirements and the manner of procedure of examinations for the License in Arts:

[In preparation for the A.B. degree, which preceded the License, the candidate had heard lectures on (1) The Isagoge (Introduction) of Porphyry to the Categories of Aristotle, (2) the following works of Aristotle: (a) Categories; (b) Peri Hermeneias (On Interpretation), the first (?) two books and a part of the fourth; (c) Topics, first book; (d) Physics, first three books.]

Likewise we have decreed that before any one comes to the grade of License he must have heard four other books of Physics, three books "On the Heavens," two of "On Generation," the first three of "On Meteors," three "On the Soul," "On the Memory," "On the Length and Brevity of Life," with the first six books of "Metaphysics" and the first six on "Ethics" with a part of Euclid, and with the book "On the Sphere" [by John Sacrobosco].

Likewise we have decreed that candidates must respond twice openly and in public, and there may be five at most in one day and in the same debate; yet four will be sufficient. And when they respond they must pay, each his own chairman, a scudo of gold.

Likewise we have determined that, when this has been done, the Faculty shall appoint four Masters who have already been Masters for three years and who do not have [the candidates] that year as pupils under their own special direction; and they shall test the sufficiency of all the candidates. And the said committee shall take oath that they will accept those who are eligible and will reject those who are ineligible.

Likewise we have decreed that, when this has been done, on the report of said committee, over their seals manual faithfully transmitted, the Chancellor shall arrange the candidates in the order assigned to them by said committee, always putting the better men and those who are eligible ahead of the others, in order that the opportunity of studying well may be given to the students and that no one may suffer harm from his position.

Likewise we have decreed that before proceeding to license the candidates themselves, the assembled Faculty of Arts shall ordain four Masters, other than the first, who shall examine in assigned groups the said candidates in their own persons. And if they do not find them to be such as the first examiners reported that they found them, they shall report to the Faculty, pointing out the deficiency that the Faculty may have knowledge of the mistake of the first committee. If it finds that they made a mistake it shall have authority to correct their errors by changing the positions [of the names on the list] and by rejecting them entirely if they seem ineligible.

Likewise we have decreed that when their approval or disapproval has been settled by the said second examiners, they shall place their candidates according to proper order in one list sealed with their own seals, and shall deliver it, under enclosure, to the Chancellor, and it shall not be lawful for him to change the order but he shall license them in the order set down in the list.[62]

The process of taking the Licentiate and the Doctorate in Laws at Bologna, in vogue at the end of the thirteenth century and later, is described at great length in the Statutes of 1432. The examination consisted of two parts; the first private, the second public. The first led to a License, which was, however, a license merely to proceed to the public examination. The Statute concerning the private examination is summarized by Rashdall:

The private Examination was the real test of competence, the so-called public Examination being in practice a mere ceremony. Before admission to each of these tests the candidate was presented by the Consiliarius of his Nation to the Rector for permission to enter it, and swore that he had complied with all the statutable conditions, that he would give no more than the statutable fees or entertainments to the Rector himself, the Doctor or his fellow-students, and that he would obey the Rector. Within a period of eight days before the Examination the candidate was presented by "his own" Doctor or by some other Doctor or by two Doctors to the Archdeacon, the presenting Doctor being required to have satisfied himself by private examination of his presentee's fitness. Early on the morning of the examination, after attending a Mass of the Holy Ghost, the candidate appeared before the assembled College and was assigned by one of the Doctors present two passages (puncta) in the Civil or Canon Law as the case might be. He then retired to his house to study the passages, in doing which it would appear that he had the assistance of the presenting Doctor. Later in the day the Doctors were summoned to the Cathedral or some other public building by the Archdeacon, who presided over but took no active part in the ensuing examination. The candidate was then introduced to the Archdeacon and Doctors by the presenting Doctor or Promoter as he was styled. The Prior of the College then administered a number of oaths in which the candidate promised respect to that body and solemnly renounced all the rights of which the College had succeeded in robbing all Doctors not included in its ranks. The candidate then gave a lecture or exposition of the two prepared passages; after which he was examined upon them by two of the Doctors appointed by the College. Other Doctors might ask supplementary questions of Law (which they were required to swear that they had not previously communicated to the candidate) arising more indirectly out of the passages selected, or might suggest objections to the answers. With a tender regard for the feelings of their comrades at this "rigorous and tremendous Examination" (as they style it) the students by their Statutes required the Examiner to treat the examinee "as his own son." The Examination concluded, the votes of the Doctors present were taken by ballot and the candidate's fate determined by the majority, the decision being announced by the Archdeacon.[63]

The successful candidate ordinarily proceeded within a short time to the public examination, which was held in the cathedral. At this examination he received both the formal license to teach and the Doctor's degree. Before the appointed day he went about inviting friends and public officials to the ceremony. Ostentation at this time was forbidden:

Those who are candidates for the Doctor's degree, when they give their invitations to the public examination, should go without trumpets or any instruments whatever; and the Beadle of the Arch-deacon of Bologna, with the Beadles of the Doctors under whom they are to have the public examination, should precede him on horseback. At that late day they [the candidates] shall not provide any feast, except among scholars from the same house or among those related to the candidate in the first, second, third, or even the fourth degree. Furthermore no one of the Rectors shall presume to ride with him on that day.[64]

On the actual day of the examination, however, "the love of pageantry characteristic of the mediaeval and especially of the Italian mind was allowed the amplest gratification"; the candidate went to the cathedral, doubtless preceded by trumpeters, and escorted by a procession of his fellow-students. The statutes of the German Nation at Bologna describe as one object of that organization "the clustering about, attendance upon, and crowding around our Doctors-to-be, in season and out of season." Moreover, "the Scholars of our Nation shall individually accompany the one who is to be made Doctor, to the place where the insignia [of the degree] are usually bestowed, if he so wishes, or has so requested of the Proctor [of the Nation]. Also, they shall escort him with a large accompanying crowd from the aforesaid place to his own house, under penalty of one Bologna shilling."[65]

The University statutes are to the same effect, but they prohibit horse-play, and the extravagance of tournaments. "Ultramontane" scholars are those from north, "Cismontane," those from south, of the Alps.

Moreover, the ultramontane scholars shall accompany the ultramontane candidate, and the cismontane, the cismontane, from their dwelling places to Saint Peter's when they go there to take the public examination, and at that time hay and straw shall not be placed [on the floor of] the church. Furthermore all the ultra-and cis-montanes shall be present at the public examination, and all shall afterwards accompany the new Doctor from the church to his house under penalty of ten Bologna shillings, which it shall be the duty of the Rector to exact within eight days. And no scholar at the public examination of any citizen or foreign scholar shall be dressed for a dance or a brawl or a tournament, nor shall he joust as a knight. If any one disobey, he shall incur the penalty of perjury and ten Bologna pounds, and if he does not pay this within ten days on the demand of any Rector he shall be deprived of the advantage and honor of our University. And we impose the penalty of perjury also upon the Rector of the student who is to take the public examination, and this penalty he shall incur from the very fact that he should by all means exact from the candidate an oath that on the day on which he rides about to give invitations for the public examination which he is to take, he will not bring about any jousting or brawling as some have done heretofore. And if the candidate, when required, is unwilling to take the oath, or if he takes the oath and breaks it, he [the Rector] shall utterly forbid the public examination and direct the Doctors not to hold their meeting and also stop the Beadle, so that he shall not dare to announce his programme through the schools, under an arbitrary penalty to be imposed.[66]

The ceremony at the cathedral included, first, the formal test of the candidate. After making a speech he held a disputation, in which he defended a thesis taken from the Laws against opponents chosen from the body of students, "thus playing for the first time the part of a Doctor in a University disputation." He was then presented by the Promoter to the Archdeacon, who conferred the final License to teach Civil or Canon Law or both, according to the student's training. This was done by a formula probably similar to the following, which is taken from a book published in 1710:

Inasmuch as you have been presented to me for examination in both [Civil and Canon] Laws and for the customary approval, by the Most Illustrious and Most Excellent D.D. (naming the Promoters), golden Knights, Counts Palatine, Most Celebrated Doctors, and inasmuch as you have since undergone an arduous and rigorous examination, in which you bore yourself with so much learning and distinction that that body of Most Illustrious and Excellent Promoters without one dissenting voice,—I repeat, without one dissenting voice,—have judged you worthy of the laurel, therefore by the authority which I have as Archdeacon and senior Chancellor, I create, publish, and name you, N.N., Doctor in the aforesaid Faculties, giving to you every privilege of lecturing, of ascending the Master's chair, of writing glosses, of interpreting, of acting as Advocate, and of exercising also the functions of a Doctor here and everywhere throughout the world; furthermore, of enjoying all those privileges which those happy individuals, who have been so deserving in these fostering colleges, are accustomed to use and enjoy.

And I trust that all these things will forever result in the increase of your fame and the honor of our Colleges, to the praise and glory of Almighty God and of the ever blessed Virgin Mary.[67]

"In pursuance of the license thus conferred, he was then invested by the Promoter with the insignia of the teaching office, [the chair, the book, the ring, the cap,] each, no doubt, with some appropriate formula. He was seated in the Magisterial chair or cathedra. He was handed the open book—one of the Law texts which it was his function to expound. A gold ring was placed upon his finger, either in token of his espousal to Science or in indication of the Doctor's claim to be the equal of Knights; and the Magisterial biretta placed upon his head: after which the Promotor left him with a paternal embrace, a kiss, and a benediction."[68] Then followed the triumphal procession homeward through the town, "preceded by the three University pipers and the four University trumpeters."

(d) A Day's Work at Louvain in 1476

Documents which describe the day's work of a mediaeval student are not common. A Ducal ordinance for the University of Louvain in 1476 indicates the way in which the student was supposed to work at that institution.

The tutors shall see that the scholars rise in the morning at five o'clock, and that then before lectures each one reads by himself the laws which are to be read at the regular lecture, together with the glosses…. But after the regular lecture, having if they wish, quickly heard mass, the scholars shall come to their rooms and revise the lectures that have been given, by rehearsing and impressing on their memory whatever they have brought away from the lectures either orally or in writing. And next they shall come to lunch …after lunch, each one having brought to the table his books, all the scholars of the Faculty together, in the presence of a tutor, shall review that regular lecture; and in this review the tutor shall follow a method which will enable him, by discreet questioning of every man, to gather whether each of them listened well to the lecture and remembered it, and which will recall the whole lecture by having its parts recited by individuals. And if watchful care is used in this one hour will suffice.[69]

(e) Time-table of Lectures at Leipzig, 1519

There must have been some orderly arrangement of each day's lectures as the requirements for the various degrees became fixed; but I have not found an early document on the subject. The Statutes of Leipzig for 1519 give "an accurate arrangement of the lectures of the Faculty of Fine Arts, hour by hour, adapted to a variety of intellects and to diverse interests." They do not always specify the semester in which the book is to be read; in such cases the title is placed in the center of the column. The list includes practically all the books required for the degrees of A.B. and A.M. Unless otherwise specified, they are the works of Aristotle; but the versions are, as noted on page 48, new translations from the Greek. These translations are praised in no uncertain terms in the Statutes. The Metaphysic is presented in Latin by Bessarion "so cleverly and with so good faith that he will seem to differ not even a nail's breadth from the Greek copies and sentiments of Aristotle." The Ethics and the Economics are "cleverly and charmingly put into Latin by Argyropulos;" the Politics and the Magna Moralia are "finely translated by Georgius Valla, that well-known man of great learning," etc. Lectures, it will be noted, began early. The following tabular view is compiled from Zarncke, Statutenbücher der Universität Leipzig, pp. 39-42.

In addition to the "ordinary," or prescribed, books, "two books of
Cicero's Letters will be read on festal days"; and "the Greek Grammar of
Theodorus Gaza will be explained at the expense of the illustrious
Prince George."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 57: Giraldus Cambrensis, ed. Brewer, I, pp. 45-47.]

[Footnote 58: Quoted by Rashdall, I, p. 219.]

[Footnote 59: Malagola, Statuti delle Università i dei Collegi dello
Studio Bolognese. Selections from pp. 41-43.]

[Footnote 60: Bulaeus, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, IV, 332.]

[Footnote 61: Dante, Quaestio de Aqua et Terra, tr. A.C. White, pp.
VII-IX.]

[Footnote 62: Document printed by Rashdall, II, Pt. II, pp. 742-3.]

[Footnote 63: Rashdall, I, p. 226.]

[Footnote 64: Malagola, Statuti, etc., p. 116.]

[Footnote 65: Acta Nationis Germanicae, pp. 4, 8.]

[Footnote 66: Malagola, Statuti, etc., p. 116.]

[Footnote 67: Document printed by Rashdall, II, Pt. II, p. 734.]

[Footnote 68: Rashdall, I, p. 229.]

[Footnote 69: Document printed by Rashdall, Vol. II, Pt. II, p. 766.]