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

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.