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

CHAPTER VIII.

CURRICULUM AND METHOD.

The conventional view of the curriculum of the schools of the Middle Ages regards it as consisting of the trivium[693] and the quadrivium;[694] under these two terms was substantially included all the learning of the time. To investigate here the contents of the “Seven Liberal Arts” would involve us in an unnecessary digression, especially as the extent to which these subjects actually formed part of the school curriculum is still a matter of considerable doubt.[695]

Having now paid our homage to the generally accepted view, we note, however, when we turn to examine the actual sources now available for the study of medieval education, that the terms which occur most frequently in the records, as indicative of what was taught in the schools, are “grammar” and “song.” They are reiterated time after time; a master is appointed “ad informandum pueros in grammatica” or “in cantu”; or, in the chantry returns, “to teche frely almanner of childern Gramer;”[696] to “teache gramer and plane songe.”[697] Any student who enters upon an investigation of the subjects of the curriculum of the schools of the Middle Ages, without any preconception of what was taught in the schools, and who diligently reads through the documents of the period now available, would unhesitatingly state that the curriculum consisted of grammar and song.

We have previously considered[698] what these terms denoted in a general sense. Our next task is to consider whether any details are available of the school curricula during the period with which we are concerned. As these are comparatively meagre, it will be possible for us to gather together an account of most of the sources which enable us to reconstruct the curriculum of the schools of medieval England.

The most systematic account we possess of medieval education is derived from the writings of John of Salisbury. The main facts of his life are readily given. After spending about fifteen years on the continent undergoing a course of study, he returned to this country and became secretary to Archbishop Theobald, by whom he was entrusted with important diplomatic missions both at home and abroad. Subsequently he became the friend and adviser of Thomas à Beckett, at whose death he was present. For the last four years of his life John was Bishop of Chartres. We may here anticipate an objection which will probably be forthcoming. The education of John of Salisbury took place mainly in France, and as this thesis professes to deal with English education, the question arises: is not the section irrelevant? The answer is that John of Salisbury was an Englishman, and one of the greatest scholars of the Middle Ages. The education he obtained was the education possible to an Englishman of his period. Further, the account of John of Salisbury’s education is the best account available for a study of the curriculum of medieval times.

John tells us that whilst he was a boy he was placed under the charge of a priest, along with some other boys “ut psalmos addiscerem.”[699] Incidentally, it may be mentioned that this priest seems to have been interested in magic, and to have employed his pupils to assist him. However, as John proved a disturbing influence, his services were not made use of after the first occasion.

In his Metalogicus,[700] John gives an account of his further education. He crossed over to France to study when he was quite a young man.[701] There he studied under Abelard, from whom he received his first lessons in logic. Subsequently he was instructed by Alberic, the successor of Abelard, whom he describes as “a greatly esteemed dialectician and the bitterest assailant of the nominal sect.” He also was taught by Robert of Melun, an Englishman, who later became Bishop of Hereford. John remained under these masters for about two years. Both of them, he says, possessed considerable ability as logicians and in disputations, though their methods differed. One of them was scrupulous to the least detail, and discussed fully the slightest difficulty in connection with the problem under consideration; the other was prompt in reply, and never avoided a question that was proposed, “but by multiplicity of words would show that a simple answer could not be given.”

By these teachers only logic was taught, and the cultivation of “a sharp and nimble wit with an acute intellect” seems to have been the only goal aimed at. At this subject John became so expert that “in the commonplace rules and other rudimentary principles which boys study, and in which the aforesaid masters were most weighty, I seemed to myself to know them as well as my nail and fingers. One thing certainly I had attained to, namely, to estimate my knowledge much higher than it deserved. I fancied myself a young scholar, because I was quick in what I had been taught.”