‘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.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] In the Merton Statutes the words ‘Scholar’ and ‘Fellow’ are convertible, the Scholar being a Junior Fellow upon his first admission.
[4] Though Canterbury College was founded in this century, it does not seem to have ranked with other colleges in the University, and no vice-chancellor or proctor is recorded to have been elected from it.