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

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.