A history of the University of Oxford

by George C. Brodrick

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is perhaps needless to observe that ‘universitas’ signifies a ‘corporation’ or guild, and implies no universality in the range of subjects taught, or Universitas Facultatum. ‘Studium Generale’ probably signifies a place of education open to all comers.

[2] See the Introduction to Anstey’s Munimenta Academica, pp. xxxv. et sqq.

CHAPTER II.
THE EARLY COLLEGES.

Rise of Colleges

By far the most important event in the academical history of the thirteenth century was the foundation of University, Balliol, and Merton Colleges. The idea of secular colleges, it is true, was not wholly new. Harold’s foundation at Waltham, afterwards converted into an abbey, was originally non-monastic, and designed to be a home for secular priests, but it was not an educational institution. There were colleges for the maintenance of poor scholars at Bologna; rather, however, in the nature of the Oxford halls. If the founders of the earliest Oxford college were indebted for their inspiration to any foreign source, they must have derived it from the great French University in Paris, of which the collegiate system already formed a distinctive feature. Not to speak of still more ancient colleges at Paris, either attached to monasteries or serving the purpose of mere lodging-houses, the Sorbonne, founded about 1250, furnishes a striking precedent for its Oxford successors, as an academical cloister specially planned for the education of the secular clergy. Nevertheless, there is no proof that its constitution was actually imitated or studied by the founder of any Oxford college, and there is one important difference between the Paris and Oxford colleges, that whereas the former were appropriated to special faculties, the latter welcomed students in all faculties. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that in the development of the college system, as in the original incorporation of schools into an academical body, like causes produced like results by independent processes at the French and English Universities.

Foundation of University and Balliol

The claim of University College to priority among Oxford colleges cannot be disputed, if the foundation of a college is to be dated from the earliest of the endowments afterwards appropriated to its support. It was in 1249 that William of Durham left by will a sum of 310 marks to the University of Oxford for the maintenance of ten or more Masters, being natives of the county of Durham, in lodgings to be provided at Oxford out of this fund. Two houses in School Street, Oxford, and one in High Street, were purchased by the University before 1263, and were probably occupied by students. There was, however, no royal charter of incorporation, no provision for corporate self-government, or for the succession of fellows, no organised society, no distribution of powers or definition of duties. In a word, the institution founded by William of Durham was not a college, but an exhibition-fund to be administered by the University. It was not until 1292 that this scattered body of exhibitioners was consolidated into ‘the Great Hall of the University,’ as it was then called, under statutes which are a very meagre copy of those issued nearly thirty years earlier by Walter de Merton, and which, unlike his, were imposed, not by the founder, but by the University itself. Meanwhile, at some time between 1263 and 1268, John Balliol, of Barnard Castle, father of John Balliol, king of Scotland, provided similar exhibitions for poor scholars at Oxford. His intention was completed by his wife, Dervorguilla, who collected the recipients of his bounty into a single building on the present site of the college, increased the endowments so that it might support a body of sixteen exhibitioners with a yearly stipend of twenty-seven marks apiece, and in 1282 issued statutes regulating the new foundation, but fully conceding the principle of self-government.

Foundation of Merton College

In the meantime Merton College had been founded on a far larger scale, and had received statutes which, viewed across the interval of six centuries, astonish us by their comprehensive wisdom and foresight. As an institution for the promotion of academical education under collegiate discipline but secular guidance, it was the expression of a conception entirely new in England, which deserves special consideration, inasmuch as it became the model of all other collegiate foundations, and determined the future constitution of both the English Universities. In this sense, Merton College is entitled to something more than precedence, for its founder was the real founder of the English college-system.

Merton College, Statutes of, 1274

The oldest foundation charter of Merton College, issued in 1264, was itself the development of still earlier schemes for the support of poor scholars, in scholis degentes. It established an endowed ‘House of the scholars of Merton’ at Malden, in Surrey, under a warden or bailiffs, with two or three ‘ministers of the altar.’ Out of the estates assigned to this collegiate house were to be maintained a body of twenty students in a hall or lodging at Oxford, or elsewhere, if a more flourishing studium generale should elsewhere be instituted. In 1274, Walter de Merton, having greatly expanded his first design, put forth his final statutes, transferring the warden, bailiffs, and ministers of the altar, from Malden to Oxford, and designating Oxford as the exclusive and permanent home of the scholars. These statutes, which continued in force until the year 1856, are a marvellous repertory of minute and elaborate provisions governing every detail of college life. The number and allowances of the scholars; their studies, diet, costume, and discipline; the qualifications, election, and functions of the warden; the distribution of powers among various college officers; the management of the college estates, and the conduct of college business, are here regulated with truly remarkable sagacity. The policy which dictated and underlies them is easy to discern. Fully appreciating the intellectual movement of his age, and unwilling to see the paramount control of it in the hands of the religious orders—the zealous apostles of Papal supremacy—Walter de Merton resolved to establish within the precincts of the University a great seminary of secular clergy, which should educate a succession of men capable of doing good service in Church and State. He was not content with a copy or even a mere adaptation of the monastic idea; on the contrary, it may be surmised that he was influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the spirit of those non-monastic institutions, now almost forgotten, in which the parochial clergy of an earlier age had sometimes lived together under a common rule. The employment of his scholars was to be study—not the claustralis religio of the older religious orders, nor the more practical and popular self-devotion of the Dominicans and Franciscans. He forbade them ever to take vows; he enjoined them to maintain their corporate independence against all foreign encroachments; he ordained that all should apply themselves to studying the liberal arts and philosophy before entering upon a course of theology; and he provided special chaplains to relieve them of ritual and ceremonial duties. He contemplated and even encouraged their going forth into the great world, only reminding those who might win an ample fortune (uberior fortuna) to show their gratitude by advancing the interests of the college. No ascetic obligations were laid upon them, but residence and continuous study were strictly prescribed, and if any scholars retired from the college with the intention of giving up learning, or even ceased to study diligently, their salaries were no longer to be paid. If the scale of these salaries and statutable allowances was humble, it was chiefly because the founder intended the number of his scholars to be constantly increased, as the revenues of the house might be enlarged. He even recognised the duty of meeting the needs of future ages, and empowered his scholars not only to make new statutes, but even to migrate elsewhere from Oxford in case of necessity.

Social position, manners, and academical life of early students

If we seek to measure the effect produced by the rise of colleges on the character of the University, we must endeavour to realise the aspect of University life and manners before colleges were planted in Oxford. The students, as we have seen, were lodged in religious houses, licensed halls, or private chambers. The former were mostly destined to swell the ranks of the regular clergy, and, it may be presumed, were subjected to some wholesome rules of discipline, independent of any authority exercised by the University. As they also received the whole or the greater part of their instruction within the walls of their convents, they probably were rarely seen in the streets, cultivated a certain degree of refinement, and took comparatively little part in the riots which constantly disturbed the peace of Oxford in the Middle Ages. With the other two classes it was far otherwise. Even the inmates of halls lived in a style and under conditions which, in our own age, would be regarded as barbarism. Like other scholars, they were chiefly drawn from a social grade below that of esquires or wealthy merchants. Many of them were the less vigorous members of yeomen’s or tradesmen’s families; not a few sprang from the very lowest ranks, and actually begged their way to Oxford. The majority had probably come as mere schoolboys, at the age of eleven or twelve, to one of the numerous grammar-schools which prepared their pupils for the higher studies taught in the ‘Schools of Oxford’ properly so called. It was for these younger scholars, we may suppose, that regular ‘fetchers’ and ‘bringers’ were licensed by the University, as we learn from a document of 1459, though some were attended by private servants. The older scholars, however, doubtless travelled in parties, for the sake of protection and economy, with their scanty baggage slung over the backs of pack-horses. Having safely arrived in Oxford, they would disperse to their several halls; and it does not appear that, at this period, a freshman underwent any process of matriculation or took any oath before acquiring the privileges of the University. He would, of course, share his bedroom, if not his bed, with others, and be content with the roughest fare, but he must also have dispensed with nearly all the manifold aids to study now enjoyed by the humblest students. Books existed only in the form of costly manuscripts treasured up in the chilly reading-rooms of monasteries; privacy was as impossible by day as by night; and the only chance of acquiring knowledge was by hanging upon the lips of a teacher lecturing to a mixed class of all ages and infinitely various attainments, in an ill-lighted room, unprovided with desks or fireplace, which in these days would be condemned as utterly unfit for an elementary school-room. The principal of his hall, it is true, was supposed to be his tutor, but we have positive evidence, in a statute of 1432, that principals themselves were sometimes illiterate persons, and of doubtful character; nor was it until that year that it was necessary for them to be graduates. What kind of language he would hear, and what kind of habits he would learn, from his chamber-mates and class-mates in the century preceding the age of Chaucer, we can be at no loss to imagine. And yet the inmate of a hall, being under some kind of domestic superintendence, was a model of academical propriety compared with the unattached students, or ‘chamber-dekyns,’ whose enormities fill so large a space in the mediæval annals of the University.

‘Chamber-dekyns’

It is possible that a certain jealousy on the part of principals and others personally interested in the prosperity of halls may have exaggerated the vices of these extra-aularian students. At the same time it is self-evident that raw youths congregated together, under no authority, in the houses of townspeople, or ‘laymen,’ would be far more likely to be riotous and disorderly than members of halls, or, still more, of colleges. Accordingly, the ‘chamber-dekyns’ were always credited with the chief share in the street brawls and other excesses which so often disgraced the University in the Middle Ages. The leading statute on the subject, it is true, was passed in the year 1432, when colleges and halls had already established a decisive ascendency, and when the ‘chamber-dekyns’ may have sunk into greater contempt than in earlier times. But that statute, abolishing the system of lodging in private houses, treats its abuses as of long standing, and probably describes a state of things which had existed for two centuries. It is here recited that the peace of the University is constantly disturbed by persons who, having the appearance of scholars, dwell in no hall and are subject to no principal, but lurk about the town in taverns and brothels, committing murders and thefts; wherefore it is ordained that all scholars must reside in some college or hall, under pain of imprisonment, and that no townsman shall harbour scholars without special leave from the chancellor.

Street brawls and disorders

The reality of the evils against which this statute was aimed is attested by the frequent recurrence of other statutes against crimes of violence committed by scholars, as well as by college rules against frequenting the streets except under proper control. We may take as an example an University statute passed in 1432 against ‘the unbridled prevalence of execrable disturbances’ in Oxford, which specifically imposes fines, on a graduated scale, for threats of personal violence, carrying weapons, pushing with the shoulder or striking with the fist, striking with a stone or club, striking with a knife, dagger, sword, axe, or other warlike weapon, carrying bows and arrows, gathering armed men, and resisting the execution of justice, especially by night. The main cause of these brawls is clearly indicated by the further injunction that no scholar or Master shall take part with another because he is of the same country, or against him because he is of a different country. The statutable fines range from one shilling to no less than forty—a highly deterrent penalty in the reign of Henry VI. It is to be observed that while the parade of arms within the chancellor’s jurisdiction is prohibited, the possession of them is rather taken for granted, since they were usually carried for purposes of defence on long journeys. Bows and arrows, as essentially offensive weapons, are naturally placed under a stricter ban, and the heaviest punishment is properly reserved for riotous assemblages, which had so often led to bloodshed in the streets of mediæval Oxford.

Superiority of colleges in discipline and tuition

In such a state of society colleges offered not only a tranquil retreat to adult scholars, but also a safe and well-regulated home to younger students attending courses of lectures in the schools. The early founders, it is true, did not design them to be mainly educational seminaries for the general youth of the country, and probably expected their inmates to obtain much of their instruction outside the walls of the college. But the statutes of Merton prove conclusively that ‘Scholars’[3] on admission were supposed to be of about the same age as modern freshmen, and to need rudimentary teaching, while express provision was made for the reception of mere schoolboys. Doubtless, for at least two centuries after the institution of colleges, their members were greatly outnumbered by those of halls, and the system which in the fifteenth century triumphed over the rivalry of private hostels may be more properly called aularian than collegiate. Nevertheless, the superiority of colleges as boarding-houses for students inevitably made itself felt from the very first. Humble as their buildings and domestic arrangements may originally have been, they were imposing and luxurious by contrast with those of lodging-houses or halls. Their endowments enabled them to maintain a standard of decency and comfort in itself conducive to study; their statutes ensured regularity of discipline; their corporate privileges and rights of self-government imparted a dignity and security to all connected with them; the example and authority of their elder fellows, mostly engaged in scholastic or scientific research, if not in vigorous lecturing, cannot have been wholly lost upon the juniors. In Merton, and probably in other colleges, disputations were carried on as in the University schools; attendance at Divine service was a statutable obligation; students were not allowed to go about the streets unless accompanied by a Master of Arts; in the dormitories the seniors were invested with a kind of monitorial authority over the rest; and misconduct was punishable with expulsion. By degrees, some of the halls came into the possession and under the control of colleges, which might naturally elect the most promising of their inmates to scholarships. No wonder that, however weak numerically, the seven colleges founded before the end of the fourteenth century produced an immense proportion of the men who adorned that age by their learning and virtues.[4] Thus, out of eighteen vice-chancellors who can be identified as having filled that office in the fourteenth century, five at least were members of Merton College, two of Oriel, and one of Queen’s. Of sixty-four proctors known to have been elected during the same century, twenty-two at least were members of Merton, eight of Oriel, four of Balliol, and one of University, Exeter, Queen’s, and New College respectively, while it is probable that others, of whom nothing definite is known, really belonged to one of the seven ancient colleges. Considering how largely the non-collegiate population of the University outnumbered these small collegiate bodies, it is a very significant fact that so many vice-chancellors and proctors should have been chosen from them in days when election to both these offices was entirely free. Such a fact goes far to prove that the ‘college monopoly,’ of which so much has been heard in later times, owed its origin, in a great degree, to natural selection in a genuine struggle for existence between endowed and unendowed societies.