Education in England in the Middle Ages / Thesis Approved for the Degree of Doctor of Science in the University of London

by Albert William Parry

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.”